HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-12-06FILE '-p Planning Board.Minutes.
DATE i 2 ) December 6, 2005
Approved.
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850.
The Town!, of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 6,
2005, in Town Hall; 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT `
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Members George Conneman, Board
Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe,
Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Towns Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Nicole Tedesco,
Planner, Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk
EXCUSED
Chris Balestra, Planner.
OTHERS
Trevor Pinch, 112 ;Crest Lane; Brenda Smith, Cornell University; Bruce & Doug Brittain,
135 Warren Road; Carol Oster, Rochester NY; Stacey Crawford, Better Housing for
Tompkins County, Jason Demarest, Tallman & Demarest Architects; Fay Gougakis, 406
Utica Street; Dave Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates; Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge
& Wolf; Melissa Hunt, 1220 Mecklenburg Road; Kathryn Gleason, 206 Pine Tree Road;
Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Catherine Valentino, 110 Eastern Heights Drive, Bill
Paladino, Ellicott Developments Tom Fox, Ellicott Developments Larry Fabbroni, 1
Settlement Way; Erik Whitney, 709 Auburn Street; Robert Drake, 354.Sheffield Road;
Peter Trowbridge, ;1345 Mecklenburg Road; David Kay, 205 Hook Places Peter Stein,
109 Brandywine Drives James Hamilton, 1603 Slaterville Road, Maria Maynard, SB
Ashley Management; John Murray, SB Ashley Management; Herb Engman, 120 Warren
Road; Cynthia Brock, 409 Campbell Ave, Joel Zumoff, City Common Council; Ray
Oglesby, 124 Snyder Hill Road; Julie Platt, PO Box 132; Joann Cornish, City of Ithaca
Planning Department; Mary Tomlan, City Common Council; John Littlefield, 1362
Mecklenburg Road.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7 :03 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 28, 2005 and November 30, 2005,
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 30, 2005s.
1
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
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
Chairperson 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.
SEQR
Drake 13 -Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road
Chairperson Wilcox — To members of the audience, for this any other applicant who has
visuals; you are welcome to come up and stand behind us if that provides you with a
better viewing of the materials being used. Larry, I do have a wireless mic should you
need it.
u
Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way
I am representing Robert Drake.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a presentation?
Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. We are here tonight to present the preliminary subdivision to you
for the 13 lots that you reviewed with Bob Drake back in May. It is.essentially the plan
that you sent him away to perfect for preliminary approval and also to ask for final
approval on one lot that fronts on Mecklenburg Road. We think that we have perfected
the different items that you discussed that night. The one item that I .picked up in the
write -up; Jon and I discussed where the buffer would be. We went back and forth and
you had gone back and forth. We put the buffer in the ag area. I understand that you
would rather have ,,it in the residential area and that is fine with us. We would, for the
one lot if we got final approval, have access where the future road would be, which was
another stipulation that I think you set down. We understand that there are a lot of
things to resolve with the Health Department, the approval of the Fire Department, and
DOT when we come back for final approval for the other 12 lots.
So I', guess I could stand up real briefly for the audience more than you, you
have seen essentially what we are presenting to you, but this is the final details for the
road location. The road location is down from where we originally had discussed so
there is good site distance in both directions where this lower intersection is proposed.
We've done the full drainage study. We also understand that the engineers would like
to refine some of those concepts and we are fully prepared to work with the engineers
and DEC basically to massage what we have presented to you as a pretty complete
drainage plan at this point before we come back with the final. It is much scaled down
from what we were here originally to show you and I hope a little more sensitive to the
lay of the land and :creative than what we first came in with.
2
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved.
The existing farmstead, which some of you may have been around long enough
to know the (not audible) just to the west of this project and the lot that you approved
abouttwo years ago had a house built upon it is just to the west of that. So those two
houses are the closest neighbors other than the Trowbridge office and house that sits
across the street with a number of houses that are south of Mecklenburg Road, The 13
lots would pretty much be along the west edge of the property, which have the best
views and also happen to be not the best agricultural lands based on what we have
learned about the soils and what not. So it is both the views and the remainder being
the best agricultural land that led to this particular layout. As I mentioned, the
intersection. itself has about a 900 -foot sight distance to the west and an unlimited sight
distance to the east. The DOT required about a 550 foot stopping distance for this
particular speed limit.
The drainage itself, there was a lot of discussion way back about where the
drainage goes. Very little of this land drains to Mecklenburg Road, which then goes
down and crosses under Mecklenburg Road. The balance of this land creates the
northeast into the stream that runs down through the Perry Farm and eventually
crosses Route 96. Again, a lot of this design that we presented is dictated by the State,
but we understand from the materials that went out before hand that we could
reconfigure the shapes and work with some of your ideas maybe to have some of that
in the, in- circle as a'' collaborative effort with the engineers and what the DEC folks in the
end would permit. So I think I will stop at that point because you may have other
questions, but the; Health Department, .I have dealt with a lot of these septic systems
and I can guarantee that it will be no less than 2 acres for the type of soils that we are
dealing in here. So that seems to be a little bit of a question, but we have done a lot of
these systems up in Lansing and they will be no less than 2 acres for these type of soil
conditions. John Andersson did sort of a preliminary look at this a long time ago, but
we understand that we perfect that with an approval back from the Health Department
before we did final 'on the balance of the lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may go first, in the materials it was mentioned of the 250 -foot
circle on the boundary line. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Fabbroni — Well, that is where you have a private well and a private septic system.
That is a criteria that the Health Department came up with a long time ago as their...its
not the most ideal! way, but that was their way of ensuring that in their mind there
would be separation between the well and the septic system. A lot has happened since
they have come up with that criteria so that a lot of the septic system designs are more
advanced than they were when they came up with that criteria in the 70s but that
initially was their way of making sure that lots were big enough so that the wells could
be sufficiently separated from the septic system, which they need to be 100 feet apart,
but when you start to look at the ground conditions and the subterranean conditions
they become as important as the separation. I mean, you know,. if you have pure
aquifer that you were dealing in it would make a difference as compared to impervious
soil conditions.
3
Chairperson Wilcox — They still use it as a rule of thumb?
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Fabbroni — As far as I know.
Chairperson Wilcox — And all the lots that you have laid out comply with that?
Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — When you said that the lots are likely to need to be at least
2 acres, are you saying that they might have to be larger than the way that you laid
them out here after you speak to the Health Department people?
Mr. Fabbroni — No, but there seemed to be some doubt that they needed to be as much
as 2 acres is what I was speaking to more than...
Chairperson Wilcox, — Zoning does have a
them go to 2.3.
maximum of 2 acres and I think. some of
Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah, I mean if that was an issue even when it came to, there was
some suggestion that we might get a variance for what little bit above 2 that it was, but
if it was an issue I guess we could cut them down to exactly 2.
Board Member Hoffmann — Personally I would like to see them smaller, actually . if
possible, as small as possible so that the developed land is clustered on a smaller piece
of land leaving more available for farming and open space.
Mr. Fabbroni — I would do that, but I'm being honest with you and saying because of
the wells, both the�i private wells and the septic systems I'm fairly certain that you are
going to be. looking 'at 2 -acre minimums with the Health Department.
Board Member Hoffmann — When will you have the information for us about that?
Mr. Fabbroni — When I come back for the final approval. I mean, you would know, I
mean if they could :,be an acre we would obviously come back with them as an acre, you
know, because that would be your first question. But based on the separation, based
on the fact that you don't have public water, you are looking at 2 acres minimums.
Mr. Kanter What is the timeframe, do you think, for it.to go to final?
Mr. Fabbroni — Sometime in the spring, April, May.
4
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Another question that I have is when I read that there is
this proposal to make the road that goes around the open space circle one -way I really
didn't understand what the reason was for that and I wanted to ask both you and staff
about that.
Mr. Fabbroni — I was saying that it could be,,just it could be. It occurred to me that it
could be either way.
Board Member Hoffmann — What would be the reason from your point of view?
Mr. Fabbroni — It is really toss up. I was just...
Chairperson Wilcox - You threw it out.there?
Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah.
Mr. Smith - I talked with Fred Noteboom at the Highway Department and he was kind
of the same way, it could go either way. He thought it would be a nice idea to try it the
one -way around. There is an opportunity possibly to make a little bit smaller road so
there is less impervious surface if it is just going one -way around is a possible benefit.
Board Member Hoff, mann — Well, I'm not against the idea on principle, but this is such a
large circular road. I mean you are not going to be able-to see across because it has a
big piece of land in there, which presumably would be developed so that it would be
wooded and I'm just wondering if from a practical point of view, it might be better, to
keep it two =way. It's not like the typical little turnaround circle. It is quite large.
Mr. Fabbroni — We presented it as two -way. What you are looking at is what is
presented as two -way. You tell me, I guess.
Board Member Thayer — I would agree with Eva on that. It is not going to be policed
anyway. If it was right around and you are lot number 10, you are not going to go all
the way around the loop to get home. I agree.
Chairperson Wilcox — You think that people just might go the wrong way if it was one -
way?
Board Member Thayer —That's, what I am saying.
Board Member Hoffmann It might just be safer for the people who live there to have
it two -way,` I think.
5
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Howe — Actually, I thought the reverse, but I don't know if there has
been studies done on it. I guess my first reaction was that it sounded like a neat idea
because it might be safer, but I don't�feel strongly about it. one way or another.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it would work and .maybe even be safer if it were a.
smaller circle.. The other question I have is this proposal to move the buffer zone onto
the lots in of having it outside the lots and I wasn't quite sure what was behind
that proposal because the buffer in a farm land area is there to protect people who
move into residential neighborhood from all kinds of things that have to do with farming
like dust going around and smells and things like that, not that a buffer will help to
protect against smells, but could you explain what was behind this suggestion to move
the buffer onto the lots?
Mr. Smith !— I just: thought being on the residential lots that the individual landowners
would have more control over how the buffer is done. If they want vegetation or a
fence or how they,want it blocked or they don't want any buffer and they actually want
to look off and use the view and that type of thing and with having the buffer on the
agriculture; land, you are potentially taking more of the ag land away that wouldn't be
use. So those are `kind of the two reasons.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Okay, I can understand that. I think, also, based on
something that was stated that it is questionable to me whether the buffer is in fact
needed along not only lots 1, 2 and 3, but also 4 and 5 because they don't really border
on land that is going to be used for agricultural purposes. It is just going to be a road
leading into the back of the parcel there and otherwise there is residential use. Well, I
don't know actually what the use is on the land that belongs to Suwinski.
Mr. Smith — It's a horse farm.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So maybe in the back of lots 4 ,and 5,.maybe there
would be a reason to have the buffer.
Chairperson Wilcox — And just eliminate it from 1, 2 and. 3.
Board Member Howe — Although it seems like you would want a buffer from a lane as
well, the driveway that is going up. Wouldn't you?
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know if that would be needed. It would .depend on
how often it is used.
Mr. Kanter' — There will probably be tractors and farm equipment going up and down
there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but that is not a daily occurrence year round.
6
Planning Board Minutes,
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Howe — No, but ... I guess I don't see a problem with leaving it there so
people have the option.
Board Member Thayer - They can do whatever they want.
Board Member Hoffmann — One thing that I am a little concerned about with the buffer
and also I remember that Mr. Drake made the request last time when he was with you
here that 'he wanted to plant, or the suggestion rather,. that he wanted to plant
evergreens+ along the road on the first lot.
Mr. Fabbroni — That is not an issue here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I think I mentioned it at that time, too, that my
concern is that it would block from the road the gorgeous views that are up there. I
was up there again today to double -check it and there is a wonderful panoramic view.
that you get as soon as you come from the west and this land begins on your left. It
just opens 'up and its gorgeous and I am worried that a lot of trees planted in a buffer
area around with the ways these lots are laid out that that view is going to be gone
very soon and that troubles me. You indicated yourself in the EAF that there are views
that are important on the, land. It is also from the road that goes by the land and in the
Town .we have been working on identifying beautiful views that we want to protect and
I am ,very much involved in that and concerned about it. So that is another reason why
I thought it would be nice to be able to make the lots smaller and concentrate them
together more to free up more open land, not just for farming, but to be able to enjoy
.the views across them. The area is shrinking fast up there where you can. enjoy the
view. And I am wondering what can be done to protect them in this development in
particular right now.
Board Member Thayer - Can we limit the height of the buffer, as far as what they
plant?
Chairperson Wilcox— Let me put my John Barney hat on. Do you want somebody from
the enforcement office going out there and...?
Board Member Thayer — I agree that we don't want trees that are getting bigger and
bigger every year.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, some trees allow. you to see through them in the
winter at least, but if you plant evergreens, especially in a row, they form a wall after a
while.
Board Member Mitrano — Do I understand that the planting of evergreens at that
position is not an issue?
7
Planning Board Minutes.
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — But that's only on this lot number 1. Is that right, Larry, or
did you mean all together?
Mr. Fabbroni — I don't know what ... anybody in any of the interior lots, I don't know
what incentive they would have. I can see them planting some trees that mature, but
only for their own landscaping more than any other purpose to sort of fill out the land,
but the view is going to be valuable to everybody that buys a lot there.
Board Member Mitrano — It is beautiful.
Mr. Fabbroni — I don't know that it is totally self - policing, but the fact that the view is
important to everybody who is interested in the properties sort of sustains what you are
worried about.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, even so,
and they might plant trees on the other sic
block the views of their neighbor across the
Chairperson Wilcox — Then they will have to
Board Member Hoffmann — But I mean that
trees for their own purposes.
Chairperson Wilcox— Anybody else?
people may have a view from their house
e where they don't have a view so it might
road or next to them.
take it up with their neighbor.
that happens all the time. People plant the
Board Member Mitrano - Nope.
Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? Since Dan just walked in,. we are still . doing the
proposed Drake subdivision. You are the engineer, not the highway superintendent,
any comments on the cul -de -sac as one -way or two way? Thank you, no comments.
Mr. Walker — We don't have any trouble with the other cul -de -sacs. I have no
concerns.
Board Member Talty — Larry, can you describe to me what the front of the property is
going to look like? Is it going to be grass out to gravel onto the street or is there going
to be a culvert ditch in front of each one of the homes or how is it going to work?
Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah, They'll be an open ditch on either side of the road.
Board Member Talty — Okay. I am not a big fan of...
Mr. Fabbroni — You know, each individual owner, I mean some of them prefer to have it
closed in so it is hard.to predict. They generally work with the highway superintendent
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
to fill the ditch in with a culvert, but our initial development will be open ditches with
culverts at the driveways.
- -Board Member Talty — Okay. What this board member would -like- to see is buried
culvert so that it is grass right out to the shoulder. Traditionally I like to see sidewalks,
but I don't ,think in this particular case because it is only 13 lots that I am really going
to push for type of sidewalk. I don't think it is really necessary in this element, but I
would like ;to see some type of buried culvert so that the grass goes right out to the
street, right out to the shoulder.
Board Member Hoffmann — But with a swale to allow water to run...
Board Member Talty — I just don't want to see these people mowing their lawn, dipsy
doodling like people do all the time and it never seems to dry out until August. So what
I would like to see, is some kind of buried culvert pipe through the course of these 13
lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — Silence is consent?
Mr. Fabbroni — Well, there are I ways to accomplish that look and what you are worried
about. besides putting a culvert in the ditch line. We can make the slopes coming off
the edge of the shoulder and into the properties gentler because you have the room to
do that as opposed to burying the culvert there. There is not a long run of ditch so you
need any deep ditch...
Board Member Talty - What is gentle versus what you are thinking?
Mr. Fabbroni — One on three. Some places, I would say, what would you say, Dan?
Sometimes, you have one on five right off the edge there.
Mr. Walker — Yeah. There are some steeper slopes.
Mr. Fabbroni — I'm', sorry, one on two. You have a more severe drop off right soon as
you get to the edge of the shoulder.
Board Member Talty — I wouldn't mind a gradual. I just don't want to see some type of
ditch that is in my neighborhood in the northeast, I have concerns about that.
Mr. Fabbroni — Well, you have long runs up there. There are a lot of places where you
run for 10 houses. What I was trying to say is that you don't have those long runs here
so you don't need a substantial ditch just to drain what comes off of 2 lots. So I think
you can make it work with just a more gradual cross section there than having a buried
culvert. The other thing about the buried culvert is it makes the water runoff quicker.
So we are trying to,..
9
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Talty - Sometimes being a homeowner that is not exactly a bad thing,
especially with some of the rains we've had in the past couple of years. I'm not trying,
to reinvent the wheel, but I just want to make sure that it is more gradual than it is on
a major drop off.
Board Member Hoffmann — I agree.
Board Member Talty — Because there are no sidewalks there. I don't want an issue
where they are going to have to walk in the street because they can't walk-on the
shoulder because there is a major drop off.
Mr. Fabbroni — That is reasonable.
Chairperson Wilcox — Then they require the trucks to come out every few years and dig
them out and clean' them out and create a muddy mess, etc, etc.
Attorney Barney — Larry, I was reading the plan and I don't quite understand what this
notation is on the cul -de -sac 15 foot ADS 5.9 19% between lots 11 and 8.
Mr. Smith — I think that is a culvert underneath the road.
Mr. Fabbroni - Yup. That is 5.9% slope at 15 inch. ADS is that ridged black type of
culvert that you see as opposed .to the CMP, which is corrugated metal pipe. This one
doesn't rot and rust as quickly.
Mr. Walker,- ADS is a brand name.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann — Well I have some things that I.wanted to see if we could
change in the environmental assessment forms. In the first part, on page 4, point 14.
Does. the present "site include scenic views known to be important to the community
that is marked yes, view of Ithaca East Hill? But in the second part, it doesn't carry
that through. It says impact on aesthetic resources, that is page 16. And I think under
point 11 on page 16 one could say the project components that will result in the
elimination of significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area
would be an impact. So that I would like to see that marked yes instead of no. .
Chairperson Wilcox rereads the statement.
Board Member Hoffmann — And I think . that that is quite possible . because the lots that
are shown will cover more than half...
iul
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
)
Chairperson Wilcox — The project in front of us is a subdivision. Will the subdivision
result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views?
Board Member Hoffmann — I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox;— A subdivision? How does a subdivision...?
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. Well not a subdivision, but...
Chairperson Wilcox - That is what is in front of us.
Mr. Kanter - Well, there is only one action that this board will ever see because you
won't see building permits. So subdivision is the action.
Board Member Hoffmann — So when would we be able to protect the view then?
Board Member Mitrano — Now and only now.
Board Member Talty — Environmental.
Mr.. Kanter — If there is a view that needs protecting, now would be the time.
Board. Member Hoffmann — And since the applicant has indicated that there are scenic
views that are important to the community and I know that people on the View
Committee certainly agree with that and we have photographed this view as part of our
inventory. I think that I would like to see this changed to indicate in our part, part II of
the EAF that we recognize that there is that view there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Everybody nods their head and we agree that the potential is for
small to moderate impact.
Board Member Thayer — Just building a house is going to block the view from the guy
across the road.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, that is right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — But this is going to be more than one house and it is more
than half the frontage-on the road that will be ... will have houses or trees or whatnot.
Chairperson Wilcox — So Eva, what we are going to do is change, will the action affect
aesthetic resources and the answer to that would be yes and I will change the form and
11
I:
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
initial it. Then down under project components will result in. elimination or and.we will
indicate that it has the potential for small to moderate impact.
-Board Mem ber Hoffmann -Yeah, even though on this form, as always; -as I remarked
before, in the examples they give it always says that would apply to column 2, but it is "
never marked in column 2 for some reason. Okay. So that was one thing. Then I had
another question and the papers that you gave us, Mr. Fabbroni, you mention in the
beginning in the text, page 3, you mention under open space that there may be an
opportunitylj for an involved neighborhood, I assume you mean this neighborhood, to
collaborate with the Town in maintaining the end highway circle. Could you talk to us
about that?
Mr. Fabbroni — If you read the minutes of your meeting in May with Bob Drake, I was
trying to sort of indicate an affirmative point of view that there was a lot of discussion
of what would you do with the circle, and what would happen there. That comment
that I made was just basically following from that discussion that you had back in May..
Board Member Hoffmann - Well maybe we have to discuss it more.
Mr. Fabbroni - I think Dan had made the comment that there were a number of cases
up on South Hill where neighborhoods had taken on that and you had made the
comment at that meeting that there was both good and bad examples of that. So I
was just basically following what you had discussed in Maya
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure what ... lets start with the following. When will we
have a "neighborhood" there? It could be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. There is some
indication that Mr. Drake, in the materials, that a lot per year more or less give or take
may be the rate at which the lots are sold. It is not entirely clear.
Board Member Mitrano — That's conservative.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I believe that there is a mention here that it could be 10
years when the subdivision is completed. I mean after 5 years do you have a
neighborhood ?. I don't know. It also depends on which lots.are sold first. Are they the
ones near the road or they ones near the cul -de -sac in the back? So I'm not...
Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to bring it up since it was in the paper so that
we could talk about it.. From staff, is there any, do you have any thoughts about this?
Mr. Smith I don't think that the Town is looking to take it as parkland. For the Town
to be completely responsible, it would be part of the road right -of -way and in the future
if the neighborhood wanted to do something with it, there could be some collaboration
with the Town or if they have garden plots or something like that in there or what it
might mean. It kind of leaves it open for future options.
12
Planning Board. Minutes.
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Kanter— But it°.will be part of the Town right-of-way,
Mr. Walker — I think it can probably be reduced in.size,-a little bit bhi the final alignment
because you have, a 20 foot wide road section in there now. What is the inside radius
on that?
Mr. Fabbroni — Its quite big.
Mr. Walker Its big.
Chairperson Wilcox — I also think that the radius is meant to accommodate the size, of
the lots as well and provide the appropriate frontage.
Mr. Walker — Right ",
Mr. Fabbroni - The radius to the centerline is almost 200 feet. The inside is 166 and
the outside is 60 more.
Mr. Walker; — Normally we look for a minimum radius on the inside of around 50 feet to
75 feet and then the 15 -foot pavement. That is where that one -way discussion on the
road comes in. I don't think we need that much asphalt there: Depending on, I think
you needed the outside dimension for the lot frontage.
Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah, not every foot, but you do need it for the frontage on the lots.
Mr. Walker — The center area, we could actually get some. credit out of that for
;stormwater management if we put an artificial wetland or something in there. One of
the comments that we had was that little pond sitting out to the east.
Chairperson Wilcox — Being kind of sort of isolated out there.
Mr. Walker - My comment, when we get to the final stormwater management plan that
is a little bit overkill. We may be able to get enough water quality treatment in that
little circular area for the portion of it that is above that so maybe.we can eliminate the
need for that area,:
Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah, I said before you came that we recognized that comment and we
+ would work with you.
Mr. Walker — So I ithink there are some things that we can do as we get into the final
layout. I mean the basic layout from the subdivision is what they are asking for
preliminary on tonight.
13
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox - Also, they are asking for final just on lot 1, which is one of the lots
that fronts; on Mecklenburg Road. Okay. Thank you, Dan.
Board Member Hoffmann -There was also the question of a secondary driveway to get
in to maintain these ponds.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which until such time as we get to final and the ... you are
suggesting that it is likely that the stormwater management system would be.
redesigned.
Mr. Walker — I think that for the density that we have here, I think there are some
alternatives to another big pond, especially, we are looking at a lot more...they are a-
typical right now 'from what the State is looking for, but L the State right now in their
manual has set .up some basic standards, which they know will work. In some cases
they may {'not be the best practice, especially in an agricultural area like this where you
have large lot size. For instance up on West View, we used individual swales on the
lots. That type of approach may be appropriate here to bring some water across and
bring it alla; back into the other detention pond.
It
Chairperson Wilcox — So the issue of potential need for secondary access to the
stormwater management structures is something that would have to be addressed at
final site {plan. If what is shown on the drawings we have been provided stays
essentially the same, but for right now we are okay. And you are okay?
Mr. Fabbrloni —.Yes.
i
Chairperson Wilcox Can I have a motion? To the audience, we are still dealing with
the environmental review and should we get through it, then we will get to the actual
consideration of the site plan and we will open the public hearing. Motion from Rod
Howe, second from George Conneman.
With no further discussion, the board votes on the motion.
MOTION; made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS;
16 This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 13 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the
east of 13, 62 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new cul -de -sac
i[!
Planning Board, Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12 residential lots and one
+/ 2.0 -acre area reserved for open space. Approximately 62 acres of the
original +/ 92:43 -acre parcel. will remain available for agricultural use. The
applicant is also-seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Lot No. 1 located directly--. on Mecklenburg Road. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P• Fabbroni,
P.E., L.S., Agent, 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 Subdivision Approval, and,
3. The Planning Board, on December 6, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form . Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and' a Part II prepared by Town Planning Staff, plans entitled
"Subdivision Plat" revised 03- 06 -05, "Typical Sand Filter" dated .10- 24 -05,
"Miscellaneous Details" dated 10- 29 -05, "Highway Plan & Profile" dated 10 -26-
05, and "Final Subdivision Plat" revised 11- 05-05, prepared by Lawrence A
Fabbroni, AE, L.S., and other application material, and
4. The; Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from
other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to .coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described action;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED;
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not..be required, and that a notice of this
determination will ''be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR
Part 617.126
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Connemara, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
15
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 13 -10t
subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east.of 1362
Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2, Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new cull-de -sac road off
Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12 residential lots and one +/-
2.0 -acre area reserved for open space. Approximately 62 acres of the
original. +/= 92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for agricultural use. The
applicant is also seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Lot No. 1 located
directly on. Mecklenburg Road. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P.
Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox?; opens the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. and invites members of the
public to address the board.
John Littlefield, 1,362 Mecklenburg Road
I think that the view is important, from my house. I have the land at the road and it
goes. back 5 acres, so we do enjoy the view in the back of our property over that
property. So I.think that is important. I was concerned about the actual road to the
cul -de -sac, but that is good because they don't have it right next to. my property so I
like that. There are just a couple of things. I was busy so I didn't get to talk to Bob
about what they were actually doing so. I just wanted to come by and see. I think the
views are great and something that was put up that was a buffer that was really tall on
purpose, like you were saying, would have some affect, negative affect.. I guess if the
road had been closer to my house I was. going to ask if they were going to have some
kind of street lighting, which I didn't want. I don't know where that comes in. So that
is all I have to say. It looks pretty good to me.
Chairperson Wilcox'— Its looks pretty good. Thank you, sir.
Peter Trow bridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road
As Larry Fabbroni pointed out, we are the immediate abutting neighbors to the south. I
really have!' no objection to this particular project and people getting value from their
land. I would concur with quite a bit of the conversation this evening, though. That
despite the' fact that I think the Town's requirement for a buffer makes sense between
various zones. In this particular case, having lived in that house for 25 years and
having agricultural practices going on across the street, that has never been
objectionable to me, but I really don't see that there would the spirit of the buffer of
separation of zones in this particular case. It really would have no added value of
separating agriculture and the agricultural practice that have been going on in this land
for 25 years from the residential area. I would concur that the views probably would
override issues of buffer requirement and separation. So while I think that the set
16
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
aside for the buffer makes perfectly good sense, the actual application of the buffer
probably has no apparent value for separation of land uses in this case.
The other thing that I would encourage the applicant to consider are well logs in
the area. !It is a notoriously bad place for private wells, both quantity and quality of
water. So it would be behoove the client or applicant to consider well logs in the area
and the availability., of water on those lots and the depth of which because at about 250
feet we do`.run into saline water on that ridge on West Hill. I know from my house, for
instance, we have 200 foot plus wells that serve one household. So I'm sure John
Andersson ''and the Health Department will bring that to the applicant's attention, but I
think the board needs to also. realize with this subdivision that there are limited
resources relative available water, if you are going to be looking at wells as the primary
water source on those parcels.
Board Member Mitrano — Thank you for coming and offering your opinion on this, given
the expertise that you bring to so many of the areas of the Town of Ithaca and its
various developments. What was the term that you were using? Well?
Mr. Trowbridge — Well Logs. That would be basically a record of the depth, the
quantity, and the quality of water that various wells deliver in the nearby area. Again, I
know that John Andersson probably as a part of this will be asking the applicant to
provide some kind of ... with the well, ask the applicants for some indication of the
quantity and the quality of availability of water in the area. It gets back to Eva's point
about size of lots. It could be a limiting factor relative to separation of septic and well
and the availability of water on those lots.
Board Member Mitrano — Is this suggestion that Peter is making with respect to well
logs something that should be included?
Chairperson Wilcox, — I think the Health Department will ... may I ask you a question,
Peter? Something in the materials that were provided, which speaks somewhat to what
you said. We have information about wells drilled for the two properties immediately to
the west. Depth of 42 feet, 10 -14 gallons per minute yield on one. 90 foot deep well,
10 gallon per minute yield.
Mr. Trowbridge - And I think that's, great. It is quite variable and I know the house
immediately east of mine has a relative good well. I think those are good indicators
and that is exactly what I think John Andersson would be looking for are those kind of
indicators and I am pleased that they have water.
Chairperson' Wilcox — You are on your second well?
Mr. Trowbridge — We have two in series that serve our house.
17
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Peter. Would anyone else like to address the Planning
Board on this particular agenda item this evening?
Chairperson Wilcox - closes the public hearing at-7.51 p.m. and brings the matter back to
the board.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have to admit that it is a lot better than that first proposal that
we saw.
Board Member Thayer — Certainly is.
Chairperson Wilcox — I am also pleased to see that the new zoning has taken effect and
we have essentially a clustered subdivision, which leaves much of the farmland open.
Board Member Thayer — Basically they have done what we have asked them to do.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it works out well. Would someone like to move the,
preliminary subdivision, except for lot 1.where we are granting final as drafted? So
moved by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer,
Board Member Hoffmann — I have some comments and corrections_. There is a typo on
the second page, point d, where in the second line towards the end it says, "Drake
Way" I think there, needs to be the word "to'' be off included there. Then it seems to
me that what it says in the final, further resolved at the end of the fourth line, it talks
about if there is a y future subdivision of the property then the Planning Board may
consider the need for a future park, but in point b, which starts on the first page on the
bottom, it says...
Chairperson Wilcox — That you can't subdivide it any more.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's right, so those two things seem to conflict with each
other.
Board Member Thayer — That's the whole idea.
Mr. Kanter,,— That is if you do place restrictions on the remaining parcel for agricultural
purposes. I can't remember if in the new zoning, if it is the Planning Board shall require
that land to be set aside permanently for agricultural land.
Attorney Barney — There is provision for, I know that the declaration for easements...
Chairperson Wilcox — So in one place we are saying that the 60+ acres that would be
left in agricultural use or left as open space at this point and obtained by Mr. Drake
could not be subdivided further, but then we open ourselves up so that the boilerplate
in
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
paragraph there, which says if it should be subdivided then we could...the intent of the
board, I believe, is 'not to allow further subdivision. The zoning allows a certain. amount
of 7 -acre lots. They have been clustered; excuse me, a number of lots equal to the
area of the ;land divided -by 7. I should say it that way instead.
Attorney Barney reads the open space requirement from the zoning ordinance.
Chairperson Wilcox'- So we covered that. So do we need the further resolved?
Attorney Barney I think is wise to have because you are basically not requiring
parkland. This...
Chairperson Wilcox, - But we are encumbering the land to prevent it from being further
subdivided.:' could 'argue that we are just covering all our bases. You can't do it,
but if you do do it, is kind of what we are saying.
Attorney Barney — I think the deed restriction or agricultural conservation easement
could allow for park type of uses. It doesn't have to be strictly agricultural.
Chairperso In Wilcox — So you are comfortable?
Attorney Barney — I'm comfortable.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann But it doesn't say that it is future subdivision for the
purpose of ,!creating a park. It says just if there is any future subdivision of the property
in the last resolved'.
Mr. Smith '— I think technically there
because anything-!over 50 acres car
something like that.
can be one more subdivision of th e
be subdivided again into 25 acre
62 acres
pieces, or
Mr. Kanter s— But not for development of additional residential uses. This is basically at
the max. Maybe you could strike the end of it. The part that says, "but determines
that there is any future subdivision the property "...etc.
Attorney. Barney But I think you want the first. sentence there because you are
basically making an affirmative finding that you are not requiring parkland.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's okay.
Chairperson Wilcox The other- condition that I am concerned about...I'm sorry, are
you all done?
19
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
"Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I had a question about, on page 2, condition h, about
the road design and also I was wondering if we shouldn't have an additional condition
about that extra curbcut that might be needed for pond maintenance..- - -
Chairperson Wilcox — I think h comes out. We have formally said that we were
comfortable and we might even prefer the road.to be two lane in the circle.
Mr. Smith I think that we would still need the final road design and details.
Chairperson Wilcox - Right. Thank you. So it doesn't come out, it gets reworded. So
we need submission of final road design and details. And with regard to the potential
need for secondary access, that will come up at final depending upon how the resulting
stormwater detention is handled.
Board Member Thayer — So we are clear on the fact that if he should sell that additional
62 acres tomorrow, it cannot be subdivided.
Chairperson Wilcox— It cannot be subdivided. Agricultural zoning, this is the maximum
number of residential lots.
Board Member Hoffmann —Okay, well, if that can be handled that way then...
Board Member Howe - Is there anything that we can say about the viewshed and that
whole issue? I don' t know what we could say in this in terms of what you can plant
and what you can't' plant. It's probably...
Attorney Barney — In the buffer?
Chairperson Wilcox— Just to protect the views.
Attorney Barney - You can try anything if you like. I'm a little hesitant to recommend
too much of it because...
Board Member Mitrano — Views are not protected by law.
Board Member Hoffmann — They are via the environmental review.
Board Member Talty — We are clear on rise and run off the road with that point that I
brought up before? I want to make sure because one person's viewpoint may be a little
different from another person's viewpoint. So are we going to leave that up to the staff
to kind of receive that or do you want to put something in with regards...the last thing
that I want is to have some kind of major drop -off off that road.
20
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Attorney Barney —"So you are saying you want to limit the fall to a pitch no greater than
1 and... .
Mr. Fabbroni - We can provide that additional detail for the cross- section of the road.
We have only shown the typical cross - section, but we can extend that, . Dan to show
what...
Mr. Walker — The only concern that I would have it you flatten it out too much, we
don't put under drainage of our sub -base because the sub -base only goes out to the
edge of the shoulder and generally that daylights out into the road drainage. So we
may have to have 'some under drainage.
Mr. Fabbroni We could show an under drain at the edge of the gravel.
Mr. Walker — Then we could flatten it right out, basically.
Board Member Talty — Okay. That is great. That is what I would prefer
Attorney Barney Do you want a condition that the plan be revised to show gentler
grade and under drainage to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town Engineer and
Highway Superintendent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else?
Board Member Conneman — The view disturbs me. Ordinarily I'm the person who
always says if you have a view, don't complain about it if someone buildings something
in front of you, buy it before they do it. But in this case it seems to me that we ought
to do all that we can to preserve that view because it is spectacular and I don't care if
someone thinks trees are better than the view. I think the majority of the opinion
would be no. So the question is, is there something that we can put in there because
there are places where there are view easements and there are lots of places in Town,
I don't know what the road is, but off. Cayuga Heights Road going out towards Lansing,
you used to be able to see the lake. Now all those trees have grown up.
Board Member Thayer — Trees grow.
Attorney Barney — Off the top of my head, I don't that there is anything illegal by
saying that you require in, the buffer zone or whatever the certain area, that trees no
greater in height than x number of feet be allowed...
Board Member Conneman — I think I would be more comfortable, John, if we had
something like that in there. If it comes to a court case, that may be a different issue,
but why not do it.
21
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox - If it comes down to having to have deed restrictions on the lots
and what if the Elm tree gets to big? Are you going to force the homeowner to cut it
down? -
Board Member Mitrano - I think the problem is just defining how to do it.. What do you
say?
Board Member Hoffmann — Well I think that what would really help is. if we put
restrictions on evergreens that block from the ground up and not have restrictions on
trees that (have a trunk and then a big crown because what we are talking about are
views that can be seen from public places like the road and if you have trees where
when they eventually grow up, they have a trunk that is very high and then you have
the crown, you can see through the trunks and see the views unless you have a lot of
other evergreen shrubbery and such below to block it. So I think that that is one way
that you can encourage the views to remain.
Chairperson Wilcox —That is problematic depending on the height of the lot behind you.
I mean if that lot behind you is 6 or 7 feet higher, then that view might be right
through the crown of that beautiful Elm tree.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's true, but I am talking about the views as seen by the
public from the road. I'm not talking about the views of each individual property owner
so much in their own, from their own house or from their own yard. Of course one
should also talk about the views from the road, the interior road through this
subdivision as well.
Board Member Mitrano — I don't know how to define it. John, do you have any way...?
I
Chairperson Wilcox — How to define it, how it.would ever be enforceable.
Board Member Talty — How about all the people that trim their Pine trees. As the lower
bushes start to die away, there are numerous people that love evergreens that trim
them up so that you can't see...
Board Member Hoffmann —They remove the lower branches?
Board Member Talty — Sure.
Board Member Hoffmann — Most people don't, though.
Board Member Talty — But they do. We just went on that walk where they are looking
to put that sidewalk in and there were numerous people who trimmed up their Pine
trees.
22
Plannirig Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — We all love the views. The question is, how far do we want to go
putting restrictions on these lots.
Board Member Talty — That's why I brought that up is that you eliminate Pine trees and
Elms and ... where does it stop.
Mr. Smith - Is the restriction going to be on the 62 -acre lot because the trees could
grow up below it and do and the next lot down the trees could grow up more?
Chairperson Wilcox.- We can't just put it in the resolution. It would probably, I would
assume, try to get deed restrictions.
Board Member Hoffmann — But as -I understand it the rest of the land will continue to
be farmed, which means trees will not grow.
Chairperson Wilcox — It will continue to be open space, which means at some point it
may not be farmed and it may revert and there are some woods on the property, but
they are off in the corner right now.
Mr. Walker It could become a Christmas tree farm sometime in the future, too.
Chairperson Wilcox`— I have a motion and I have a second.
Board Member Hoffmann — But we could make an attempt at coming up with
something.
Board Member Thayer — No we can't.
Board Member Hoffmann — To encourage the views? Would you like to propose
something yourself?
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Hold on. I have the nods of the head of people who
would like to proceed on.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry.
Chairperson Wilcox : — They would like to call the vote and move on.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but I can't ask for an answer from Mr. Fabbroni?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may.
Board Member Hoffmann — Would you like to try to come up with something yourself?
23
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think this board is asking him. to come up with anything.
Board. Member Hoffmann — I'm suggesting that as a possibility..
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I'm saying you are off on your, own. The nods of the board
is, let's move on.
Board Member Conneman — But that does not mean when he comes back. he cannot
have a proposal.
Board Member Hoffmann — Exactly. I don't mean tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox - He can have a proposal, but this board is not going to require it.
Board Member Conneman - I didn't say require it. He's a good guy. He just might
propose it.
Chairperson Wilcox — He very well might, but I don't think ... I have a motion and I have
a second. Any further discussion?
Board votes on motion.
Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
WHEREAS;
1. This action involves consideration of Pre liminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 13 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the
east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new cul -de -sac
road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12 residential lots and one
+/- 2:0 -acre area reserved for open space. Approximately 62 acres of the
original +/- 92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for agricultural use.. The
applicant is also seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Lot No. 1 located.directly
on Mecklenburg Road, Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbron/,
P.E.,, L.S., Agent, and
2. This - is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, on
December 6, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
24
i
Planning Board. Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing. held on December 6, 2005, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Subdivision Plat" revised 03-
06 -05, . "Typical Sand Filter" dated 10- 24 =05, "Miscellaneous Details" dated 10-29 -
05,, "Highway Plan &Profile "dated 10- 26 -05, and "Final Subdivision Plat" revised
11- 05-05, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E,; L.S., and other application
material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 13 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road, as shown
on the plans entitled "Subdivision Plat" revised 03- 06 -05, "Typical Sand Filter " dated 10-
24 -05, "Miscellaneous Details" dated 10- 29 -05, "Highway Plan & Profile" dated 10-26 -
05, prepared by ;Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S, and other application material,
subject to the following conditions:
a, submission of evidence from the Tompkins County Health Department
that lots that have a lot area larger than 2 acres need to be of the size
proposed to provide on -site water and septic systems, or alternatively,
granting of necessary variances for the larger size by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to final subdivision approval for lots 3 -5
and 7 -11, and
ba submission of deed restrictions, a conservation or agricultural easement,
or other mechanism to ensure that the 62 acre parent parcel shall remain
permanently as open land for agricultural purposes, for review and
..approval by the Town Attorney, prior to.signing of the final plat for lots 2-
13 by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and.
c, submission of a phasing plan for the development outlining the sequence
and ,timing of the proposed residences, road, and stormwater facilities,
prior to final subdivision approval for lots 2 -13, and
d, revision of the plat to include a note requiring all driveway. access: for the
12 residential lots be directly on Drake Way, with no curb cuts, except for
Drake Way, to be off of Mecklenburg Road, prior to final subdivision
approval for lots 2 -13; and
e, revision of the plat to move the proposed 30 =foot buffer onto the
individual residential lots, and to include a note on the, plat referencing
25
l
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
that no structures, roads, or other improvements occur within the buffer,
prior to final subdivision approval for lots 2 -13, and
f, prior to final subdivision approval for lots 2 -13, that the final stormwater
design and details (Sedimentation & Erosion Control Plan, a watershed
delineation, summary of pre- and post- conditions, etc.) along with the
future ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the stormwater
facilities be resolved between the applicant and the Towns Engineering.
and Public Works Departments, 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, driveway approval
from NYSDOT, and water and sewage system approval from Tompkins
County Health Department, and
h, submission of final road design and details, for review and approval by the
Towns Highway Superintendent, prior to final subdivision approval for lots
2 -13, and
1e submission of documentation that the City of Ithaca Fire Department has
reviewed and approved the proposed plans, as revised above, prior to
final subdivision approval for lots 2 -13, and
j. revision of the road profiles to show gentler grades to the shoulder and
underdrainage to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering and the Town Highway Superintendent
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED;
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of Lot No. 1 located on Mecklenburg Road, as shown on
the plan entitled "Final Subdivision Plat" revised 11- 05 -05; prepared by Lawrence A
Fabbroni, P E., .L.S, and other application material, subject to the following conditions.•
a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an .
original or mylar copy of the revised final subdivision plat and three dark -
lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerks Ohice, and
submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, and
b, submission of a Surveyors Certificate statement, as shown on the Final
Subdivision Plat Checklist, prior to the signing of the plat. by the Chairman
of the Planning Board, and
26
Planning Board. Minutes .
December 6, 2005
Approved
c. that Lot No.l s driveway access to Mecklenburg Road
future "Drake Way" road, the final subdivision plat
reference no curb cuts directly onto Mecklenburg
temporary easement be submitted for review and apl
Attorney allowing access across the future road lands
"Drake Way" becomes a public road, prior to signing
Chairman of the Planning Board, and _
will be through the
will be revised to
Road, and that a
moval by the Town
until the time that
of the plat by the
d. revision of the plat to move the proposed 30 -foot buffer onto Lot No. 1,
and to include a note be included on the plat referencing that no
structures, roads, or other improvements, with the exception of a fence,
occur within the buffer, prior to signing of the plat by the. Chairman of the
Planning Board.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED.
At this time, the Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land
reservation created by this proposed subdivision based on the large amount of open
space surrounding the subdivision and the proposed Z acre island available within the
road right -of -way, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation at
this time.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES.- Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS.0 None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of,l=inal Site Plan Approval for the proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy
( +/- 14,5;64 square feet), which is the first phase of the redevelopment of
the Judd. Falls Plaza properties located at 322 -350 Pine Tree Road and 930
and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 =1 -3.2, 62 =1 -2.2,
and 62 -11, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal includes removing
the existing plaza and construction of new stormwater facilities, parking,
landscaping, and lighting. Future phases of development will consist of up to
30,000 square feet of additional retail, office, or other commercial space.
Susan Hamilton, Owner; Ellicott Development Company for 1093 Group, LLC,
Applicants William A. Paladino, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — We note for the record that Kevin Talty has excused himself as he
has previously disclosed a conflict, a financial conflict I believe, to be specific.
27
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Bill Paladino, Ellicott Development
Since our last meeting here, we are here for our proposed final site plan approval.
Since our last meeting we have made a number .of changes to our plans, of which I
believe you have all seen at this point. There are still some issues out to be addressed.
I'm not sure if the board would like to go through. the changes that we have made or if
we should just look to address the items that we feel are still outstanding..
Chairperson Wilcox — Could you go through them briefly?
Mr. Paladino With regard to the building, we have added some foundation plantings
along in between the sidewalk and the face of the building itself along three sides.
Obviously the drive- through side we are not capable of doing that, but along the east,
west and south elevations, we have made those changes to the plan.
With regard to the sidewalk, which has been an ongoing discussion topic, we
have agreed to extend the existing sidewalk that comes from Mitchell Road through the
site over to the P &C. In doing so, we did listen to some of the comments that were
discussed before, but have made a few minor modifications. We did keep this means of
ingress and egress going through our parking lot in this area where the sidewalk would
stop.,, The sidewalk will end somewhere back in here and we will extend it the rest of
the way. We will do crosswalks, which is another item that was discussed last time in
these areas where ipedestrians will be crossing the pavement. We will do a sidewalk in
the island to continue the sidewalk so that it is one continuous sidewalk from Mitchell
Street to. Pine Tree Road either with actual sidewalk itself or with cross - hatching in the
pavement.
Withl regard. parking, there was a question regarding the radius around the
Courtside. "We have eliminated two parking spaces and helped the radius around the
Courtside building.
With, regard "to lighting, we have discussed the lighting. on the site and with the
lighting we "have agree to go with down lighting, the shielded lighting in the lot. There
is one item that we would like to discuss with lighting being with regard to the rear of
the property. We would like to maintain possibly some of the existing lighting in a few
of the areas right now and not change them to the shielded lighting simply because in
phase II they may, be removed and we are just spending a lot of money on an item
where it maybe changed in the future. So we would like to further address that item.
With, regard'' to drainage, we have completed plans for the phase .II drainage
along with phase I. There was a question as to the propose maintenance of this and
the inspections of the drainage pond. I don't know if the board saw them or if Mr.
Kanter saw them, but it was written right. on the actual plans, the proposed
maintenance agreement and inspection of the drainage pond.
We have added a bicycle rack in this area right here in the front of the location.
There was 'discussion we seen regarding possibly moving that to some area closer to
the store and that is something that we can discuss further.
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
With regard to trees, there was a number of discussions regarding trees and
where trees are going to remain and where they are not along Mitchell Road. We have.
put that we will keep any trees not affected by our phase I grading and redesign of the
site. In the rear where the house is being taken down, in back of the Courtside,'those
trees will all remain at this point in time since, outside of where our drainage pond is
they will remain at this point in time.
We ;do have, with regard to access, we have agreements that we have provided
you with regard to Yunis Corp, where HSBC is located, coming in from this direction and
with regard to Courtside we are still waiting a signed agreement back from Courtside,
but I don't think that is going to be an issue since there are numerous issues that
benefit both parties in there.
well I guess those are a lot. of the items that we did change. There are still
some items left up for discussion that I think at this point I would like to further
discuss.
Fire Department approval, we will submit final building architectural plans to the
fire department for their review, which will show where our connections will be to the
building and also I believe with the size of this site I don't believe that they are going to
have any problems with the vehicular traffic getting trucks around the site at this time,
but it is something' that we will discuss with them, something that we will get their final
signoff and approval for. With the existing walkway, we will ... we are, we know that it is
on our property. We will maintain it, repair it. We can state that for the record right
now. We don't have an existing contract, I should say, with some company, which I'm
not sure we were looking to get or if we were just looking for our approval in
maintaining, repairing and snowplowing and other issues. related to that walkway, but
we will be maintaining it and we will be completing it. After we close, we will be
an agreement to provide those services. Is there any other questions with regard to
that?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that it goes to just having more than just having an oral
statement, but a written statement.
Mr. Paladino — So you would like me to provide you with a written statement or would
you like to see an actual agreement between the company?
Chairperson Wilcox — We. are getting ahead of ourselves here, but it does say
submission of a maintenance agreement related to the walkway for review and
approval ... the issue here is the spirit of what is being state here. That we need to
ensure that those walkways are plowed and maintained and can be used by the public.
That is what we want to ensure.
Mr. Paladino I'll state in the record, outside of having a formal agreement with
somebody where you can see that they will be maintained and repaired to the same
condition as existing Rite Aid sidewalks, the existing...
29
Planning Board Minutes,
December 6, 2005 .
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — And we appreciate that, but we still want something in writing.
Mr. Paladino — That is fine. I can provide that to you at some point. The bicycle rack.
We looked at putting it around the store somewhere. It seems to just clutter things if it-
is on the sidewalk; The sidewalk really is not wide enough around the store to include.
a bicycle rack. We tried to put it in. a place where it wouldn't clutter or encumber
anybody or provide any liability issues to us so we tried to keep it away from, the
entranceways to the store. Outside of that we didn't see any other areas without
affecting some vehicular movements that it could become a liability issue. In our minds
it was the best place that we could see for it. The only other place that we actually saw
was possibly in this island here next to this walkways putting it over there but once
again it is right in the middle of the parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — You keep going. We'll save up our comments.
Mr. Paladino — Okay. With regard to lighting, you have seen our plans. Shielded
lighting from this point all the way around the building, done photometrically and
properly to illuminate the lot. In the rear we would like our existing light standards
here and here and there are some existing light standards back here and one that is
actually for Courtside that shines on Courtsides lot that at this point in time that we
would like to keep'.and maintain as is. Along this entranceway, we would provide some
new shielded lighting also. The two that we propose we don't' see affecting any future
development over in that area. We see that being green area, whatever we should do,
back there'.in the future.
With regard,to signage...
Mr. Kanter`— And by the way, while he is flipping through, we did receive this drawing
late, but we have it before you now.
Mr. Paladino — With regard to signage, we have where the building signage itself called
for maximum of 4 signs, we have 3. We have eliminated the other 3. One being drive
through signs on this elevation and we did eliminate the canopy signs that said food
mart and one hr photo. We also eliminated the sign in the rear; therefore, we are, I
believe, significantly .under where we are supposed to be in terms of square footage
assigned for the building. We also discussed a compromise in all this on signage and
we feel that Rite Aid, reluctantly, has agreed to go so far as to remove the majority of
that signage, especially over the canopy, which is a major stepping stone for them in
my dealings with different towns. In return, we ask that the board favorably or at least
look to compromise further at least with the square footage on the pile -on sign. The
amount of square` footage on the sign. We have agreed to reduce the sign to
underneath what the code calls for. We are still . calling for two signs, one on each
frontage, which is allowed by code, but obviously like I stated we are looking to
increase the amount of square footage per sign face.
30
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Stormwater, as I discussed, it is written right on there, on the plans, the
maintenance of the current system.
Attorney Barney — You are talking about this writing that is kind of blurry and reduced. —
Mr. Paladino — The large plans, I think, show them much clearer. It is about
maintenance schedule and inspection procedures. It is written right on there. If you
like... _
Board Member Hoffmann What is the name of the plan?
Mr. Paladino - It is EC -1. If you would like it: to be done in a separate format or
separate page we are more than willing to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — That might be a good...
Attorney Barney — What we are looking for is an agreement of somebody signing on the
dotted line4that they are going to take care of this in accordance with these ... I think
these maybe all right. I've gone a little blind try ing to read these. Assuming I can get
one that I can read, I think it will probably be okay.
Mr. Paladino — As with the snowplowing, as with the agreement for this, we typically bid
this out to' different companies. We are about 8 months or 9 months out if. we do get
approved in finishing the project so it would be rather difficult for us to actually have a
company on board' right now to do that work. Therefore, difficult . for us . to have a
signed agreement with somebody. We will state that we will obtain that agreement at
such time.
Attorney Barney — We don't care who you have do it. We are looking for something
signed by you committing to the Town that it will be done, whether it is done by
you ... usually we put in a provision that says if the stormwater management facilities are
not taken care that the Town as the ability to take care of them and bill you back for
that cost.
Chairperson Wilcox'— This is a commitment from you as the developer.
Mr. Paladino — Yeah, we felt that putting it in here, you are going to approve these
plans that it would be approved then, but if you would like something separate signed
by us that is fine.
Mr. Smith - We do have a standard agreement that we have used. for several other
projects, too.
31
Planning Board. Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Paladino — Could you provide me with a copy of that? I believe that the approval
of the County, State and Federal agencies, I believe they will provide.you after they
receive our final drawings, they will provide you with the final signoffs on all of those.
Consolidation of tax parcels, that is something that we will --do once we gain final
approval. Do you formally submit here? I'm not quite sure how the process. goes for
subdivision. Some towns just upon the Planning Board's final approval it is assumed it
is completed.
Mr. Kanter — That would be an application to the County Assessment office because
Tompkins County does the tax...
Mr. Paladin, o — Easements, as I discussed, I have them all submitted "to you and we will
provide signed agreements. I think you have one signed already and we. will provide
the other one by next week.
Chairperson Wilcox — Those are the easements with the neighboring property owners?
Mr. Paladino — Correct. You have drafts of what is proposed and what will be .ultimately
submitted. As I discussed, Yunis has been signed already and you should have a copy
of that already.
Pedestrian crosswalk, we did get information back from FRA, our engineer, a
letter stating that they did not feel that a signal was warranted here, .but they did make
some advisements as. to what they feel could help that intersection, which we are
willing to discuss further with the County and or Town and or DOT to see what would
be the best way to accomplish that. In not necessarily knowing what a flashing amber
warning is the rest of it I think we would be wiling to discuss and accept the payment
for it. I don't know how intense the amber warning thing would be. We would have to
look at that further to see what the costs would be for that and if it is definitely
warranted or not.
Tree preservation. We have discussed tree preservation already, I believe. I
think we are hopefully at this point comfortable with where we are going in that.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Questions, comments, complaints?
Board Member Hoffmann —.Well if I can bring up one thing. I am glad to hear all the
things that'you have accomplished already that we asked for including the landscaping,
but I had an awful time trying to see on the landscape plans what you were proposing.
Do you have something a little larger than LL -1?
Mr. Paladino - I don't have one with me that is larger, but I think we submit one large
plan to the Town for everyone's review.
Mr. Kanter We have it if you would like us to bring it out.
32
Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe I used the wrong words.
shows little more specifically what you are proposing.
Mr. Paladino - Correct. It would be on that plan.
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
I meant a detail that
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, I see. Could you describe it to us?
Mr. Paladino — I personally don't. I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of.my head..
Board Member Hoffmann— To me, it is important enough to me that I would like to see
it then if there is"a larger plan that describes where the plants will go, what kind of
plants they area
Mr. Kanter - Mike ,went to go. get it.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll wait until that comes and someone else .can go ahead
and ask other questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I go? The bicycle rack. Anybody comfortable with its current
location? I think it needs to be closer to the building.
Board Member Howe — I agree.
Board Member Thayer — I have no problem with it there. .I mean they are going to ride
a bike; they can walk across the road.
Chairperson Wilcox —Yeah, but they are carrying those big bags out to their bike and
putting them...
Board Member Howe — I don't feel strongly about it, but it would be nice to see it
closer.
Board Member Mitrano — I haven't thought about it, but carrying the bags is compelling.
Attorney Barney — There is only so much you can carry on a bike.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, remember when we were kids we had these big baskets in
front and you can keep lots of stuff in there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Jonathan, you made that comment. Do you have a
suggestion,, where you would like to see it go?
Mr. Kanter,, Well,, normally the place to locate it would be near. the doorway, at the
entrance to the building. I think that the problem is that this entrance appears to have
33
I'.
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
a fairly limited concrete base around the entrance so it is a little bit problematic. I don't
have a real problem with it staying where it is shown. At least out near the sidewalk it
will be visible and probably less prone to people trying to walk away with bicycles that
are not _
Chairperson Wilcox - Rather than on the side of the building. All right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe we can get some comments from bicyclists once we
open the public hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox - Signage. I'm disappointed.
Board Member Conneman — So am I.
Chairperson Wilcox — Here's the complaint part. I think we made it pretty clear when
you were here last that we wanted signage that complied with the Zoning Ordinance. I
understand the developer's push back and that is exactly what you have done, but we
weren't very wishy washy, I think, when you were here. In this area with regard to the
various other developments, we have been very strict with signage and I ' think I am
going to stand pat. It has got to meet the Zoning Ordinance.
Attorney Barney — Sign ordinance.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sign ordinance thank you. I didn't waiver when you were here
last time and I don't want to waiver now. I appreciate that you have offered. a
compromise, but we have enforced it on the other commercial buildings and I am not
wanting to'change.
Board Member Conneman — Neither am I. I think that is one.thing that we made clear
to you, Bill, and I think that you didn't pay attention.
Board Member Mitrano — I feel bad for Mr. Paladino because I can only imagine that he
is not responsible.
Chairperson Wilcox— He's in the middle.
Board Member Conneman - I'm not saying that he is the one, but I'm not impressed
with the world sign package, that's all.
Board Member Mitrano — If.you would let me finish my sentence I was going to say that
I agree with all of you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Lets be honest. It's a lot better than what we started out it.
34
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Thayer — We've come a long way.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll give you credit for that, sir, but you've got a ways to go still.
Board Member Conneman — I just said it, Bill. This is not Buffalo. Okay,
Mr. Paladino — I understand that.
Chairperson Wilcox - The other thing that I am particularly concerned about is the way
the pedestrian crosswalk across Pine Tree. Road has sort of been left, Yes, I've read the
report from FRA and it seems reasonable. I hate leaving open the resolution, though
and I'm uncomfortable with proceeding without knowing exactly how it is going to be
resolved. We have some draft language that was provided to us.
Chairperson Wilcox reads proposed language in resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm kind of not feeling good...
Board Member Thayer — There are a lot of possibilities in there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah and my emphasis on the word "possibility ".
Mr. Kanter - The problem is, it is not up to us. It is ultimately up to the County.
Chairperson Wilcox;— Correct.
Mr. Kanter So this board could certainly send a strong message to the County saying
that we would like to see x, y and z improvements, but you still can't require them and
there maybe reasons why the County would not want to see something like amber
flashing lights in that particular location.
Chairperson Wilcoxtl= But the issue is I don't want to let go of this particular application
before I know exactly what is going to happen there because if the County should come
back and say you know what, we think it is fine the way it is. Maybe we might want
to...
Board Member Hoffmann - I had a phone call this afternoon from Nancy Schuler, who
said that she was very concerned about this crosswalk, especially for the elderly people
who live on. Ellis Hollow Road who go very often over to Rite Aid and who would
presumably, go at this crossing. I told her that we had had a report from FRA with
suggestions for improvements, but that the applicant would be working with the
County.
35
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — I am feeling a little bit uneasy about letting the County make its
recommendation and the applicant implementing it without it having to come- back to
this board for review once we know exactly what the County is going to propose. I
just...
Board Member Conneman — Can we put that in the resolution?
Chairperson Wilcox — We could put it in the resolution. I hadn't stated it yet, but I was
seriously when I was reading the materials over the weekend and today I was thinking
about maybe we don't want to do final yet until we know what is going on. That is my
personal opinion right now, not the opinion of the board certainly, but that is also a
possibility that as a condition of preliminary that we have some resolution on that. We
don't have ,resolution on that yet and we don't have resolution on the signage yet, too.
Again that'- bothers' me also. So we can do as we often do, which we sometimes do.
Proceed ahead. Provide final approval subject to providing the materials for approval
by Director of Planning, Director of Engineering and the Town Attorney, but I'm, given
the importance of the signage and the importance of the pedestrian access and safety
across Pine Tree Road, I'm feeling like I don't want to do .that right now. We can
resolve the bicycle ,rack. We can deal with the fully shielded lights or not fully shielded
lights in the back. We will get to those certainly, but that's what I'm feeling.
Board Member Conneman — I thought a in the resolution essentially covered the signs.
Mr. Kanter a and f. This fulfills the requirement of e.
Chairperson Wilcox''— George, go ahead.
Board Member Conneman — Well, I was going to say that I think somehow it's one
thing to require them something and the other thing is to hold the project up, so maybe
it's possible, to take 'H and state it more firmly, even if the county says something else.
Board Member Thayer — Have we
crosswalk? We've4; talked about a
decided what we want.
reached a consensus on L what we want for that
lot of different things, but I don't think we ever
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, as Jon Kanter has pointed out, we cannot require anyth.ing
It is a county road, 'they will make the ultimate decision.
Board Member Thayer — But we can recommend.
Chairperson Wilcox — We certainly can, we can independently craft a resolution
recommending to the county something, we can put verbiage in this, if this board
wishes to proceed, we can put language in here that, should the county grant
36
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
something that is acceptable to' us, then there's... and we can grant the approval with
that condition, that the county grant or approve something that is acceptable to us.
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that would be my feeling.
Board Member Howe — But what happens if they don't grant something, what is our
recourse?
Mr. Barney — Not issue a building-permit.
Chairperson Wilcox - Then they'd have to come back.
Mr. Barney — Basically, your final approval, if you did it that way would be conditioned
on receiving approval from the county for, and here I think you do want to be fairly
specific, what you want, and if that's not forthcoming, then it puts them in the position
of really to come back to you and say we can't get it because the county won't give it to
us, and you can have another look.
Board Member Thayer — Is there some reason. that they heard that someone didn't
want a raised crosswalk there, was there some...? I thought we talked about...
Board Member Conneman That was Cornell, last time.
Board Member Thayer — Because it's really a speed bump thing.
Mr. Kanter — I don't think we had any negative indication...
Board Member Thayer — Because that would be my feeling, I'd prefer a speed bump
with pedestrian signing there.
Mr. Kanter— You'd call it a raised crosswalk.
Board Member Thayer— Raised crosswalk.
Board Member Conneman — It works downtown.
Board Member Thayer — With stand -alone signs.
Board Member Howe — I would agree.
Board Member Hoffmann — Do you mean with a sign in the middle of the road, in the
middle of the crosswalk?
Board Member Thayer.— Exactly, right.
37
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I think that would be effective.
Board Member Thayer - It really draws the attention.
Mr. Barney- I don't know what the plowing situation would be and is that...?
Board Member Mitrano — What do they do on ...
Mr. Walker — Well, you put something in the middle of the road it...
[inaudible comments]
Chairperson Wilcox`— Hold on, one at a time, please.
Mr. Barney — They do have them downtown, but the city is not quite as aggressive in its
plowing as the county probably is.
Mr. Walker Well, when you don't plow, it's not a problem.
Mr. Barney — That's what I mean, so it's less of a problem...
Mr. Kanter, — Typically when you do see signs in the middle of the road, they are these
moveable ones, and sometimes they end up moving quite a bit out of the middle of the
road, so the plow will easily be able to get around one of those, and probably be able to
knock it over quite easily as well.
Chairperson. Wilcox — So maybe something more reasonable is certainly colored if not
raised walkway with signage both on the north and south approaches possibly on the
side of the road to indicate that there is a pedestrian crosswalk there.
Board Member Hoffmann — But we have signage already on the north and south
approaches and it doesn't help a lot, and in the winter, the different color walk, just like
striping actually would not be very visible. So I think those. little free standing signs or
a blinking light, might be better.
Chairperson Wilcox — But again, free standing is difficult given the snow, and plowing
conditions.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but it works on campus, they seem to be able to have
it, at Cornell.
[inaudible]
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Walker; - the highway configuration makes a crosswalk in the location where it
exists right now kind of troublesome from an engineering standpoint. If you notice, it's
not easy tosee on these plans, you've got a left turn lane, and that sidewalk is crossing
the middle of a
- � ft turn lane, and that is .not. a good place to put a sidewalk::.
e
crosswalk, or a sidewalk for that matter. Actually, a better location for the crosswalk
would be before the left turn lane starts which would be more to the north, because
then you have an island, it is actually a striped island out there now, and if you really
wanted to protect the pedestrians, you could suggest a raised island because then they
have a place to, a refuge as their crossing.
Board Member Hoffmann.— But it also would make the crosswalk longer wouldn't it?
Mr. Walker, No, it1wouldn't make it.., right now the crosswalk is located...
Mr. Paladino - I guess you could see it on this plan too, I think what you're discussing is
right in this' area right here.
Mr. Walker;—. Yeah; that's the island, but your actual crosswalk is right where your little
white crosswalk is there.
Mr. Paladin - Yeah, here's where the left hand turn lane comes in, so this, that's where
you're saying raise ',something up right there.
Mr. Walker, — Right and where you're showing your white crosswalk coming across the
grass there, that's 'where the existing crosswalk is right?
Mr. Paladino - It's close proximity to, I think it's actually down here more right in the
middle of the left hand turn lane.
Mr. Walker' — See that.., when you have a crosswalk and you've got turning motions, it
really makes it difficult
Chairperson Wilcox - That's why we're discussing it.
Mr. Walker - and even if you put a signal at that point, you've still got turning motions.
Mr. Kanter— Well,'one other option to look at is a left turn movement restriction there,
because that turning movement has been documented as being problematic in the
traffic study.
Mr. Walker: — That would go over big with the owners of the plaza.
Mr. Kanter — Well,:: I'm talking about a left turn from the Rite Aid site specifically. The
left turn out of East Hill Plaza does not interfere...
39
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Walker - I'm talking about the left turn into East Hill Plaza.
Mr. Kanter — It's the turning lane, yes, does interfere, but at the same time, the left
turn out or Rite Aid also crosses through that crosswalk, and if you eliminated .left turn
lanes out of the Rite Aid, you'd have x number of less vehicles going through the
crosswalk.
Mr. Walker — That is true:
Mr. Kanter - Now, that may raise other implications for the Rite Aid site.
Chairperson I, Wilcox — I guess this is leading to why i would like to see a solution
proposed by the County...
Board Member Hoffmann — If we delay the decision, maybe we can also see some
detailed landscaping plans.
Chairperson' Wilcox — Well, we have them. They're right there; you're welcome to go
over there and look at them.
Board Member Hoffmann — Could you pass them around so we can all look at them?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, would you like to see them?
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to see them, and I am assuming other people
would to.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to walk over and look at them? I mean, we don't
have room for them? here.
Unidentified — We've got a table over here.
Chairperson Wilcox = Yeah, why don't you go over and take a look at them?
Board Member Hoffmann - So other people don't...?
Chairperson, Wilcox. I'm sure if they want to see them, they'll speak up.
Board Member Conneman — Actually, Fred, there's a series of crosswalks... Cornell has
proposed a new building which comes out on the road, they've proposed a crosswalk at
Maple Avenue, I mean there's a series of things that have to be solved in order to
protect the pedestrians, either coming out of the Cornell building or going down Maple
Avenue or coming to the Rite Aid.
40
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Paladino - I don't think it's fair to put us in the middle of this, I'm sorry...
Chairperson Wilcox— Go ahead, you're welcome to speak.
Mr. Paladino - This is more of a county — it seems
you have with the different areas with these, it's
than an issue to us. I mean, we have, it's more
we're offset, we are lined up directly with P and C.
light, but a; light obviously isn't warranted, so I doi
are available,
like with the different problems that
more of a county and a town issue
of an intersection here,. it's not like
It would be naturally possibly for a
A know how many different options
Chairperson Wilcox — Here's my perspective. Right now we don't have anything
concrete that protects the pedestrians crossing the road.
Mr. Paladino - Well, the best place for the pedestrians to cross, this road is at this
intersection up here, which we've stated from the beginning and eliminate this walk
coming across.
Board Member Mitrano — [inaudible] it'll never happen.
Mr. Paladino - I understand that, but...
Chairperson Wilcox — They're going to cross there anyways
Mr. Paladino - True.
Chairperson. Wilcox — Alright, we can discuss some of the other..:. Shielded lights, in
terms of the ones in the rear?
Board Member Howe — I don't have a problem, but is there a time.., what if they never
develop the back; I don't want to leave those unshielded lights there forever.
Chairperson Wilcox — We also have, Codes and Ordinances has been working on a...
Michael, Mike Smith has been doing most of the work, working on a Town lighting
ordinance, and should that be enacted, that would give property owners a period of
time in months to.'..
Mr. Smith This type of light would be grandfathered unless it's changed or removed, or
replaced, the pole'lights.
Chairperson Wilcox - That would not have to be corrected or replaced or brought into
conformance within a certain period of time?
41
ti
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Smith No, only if it's changed or modified.
Mr.. Walker I'— Well, l you have the option of a time - sensitive condition on those lights.
You could say the lights may remain for 5 years or.changed if the remainder of the site
is developed, and if they're not changed in that 5 years, they will be changed to a cut-
out type fixture.
Mr. Paladino - I could live with something like that.
Chairperson Wilcox Staff has recommended, I shouldn't say staff and use that generic
term, but Planning staff has recommended that they be converted to cut -off lights at
this time or as part of the development.
Mr. Kanter — It's strictly up to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox — OK,, do you feel strongly either way? Or, you've made your
recommendation.
Mr. Kanter'- Yeah, I mean this, to me, this would be the time to do it, because you will
be having some cars using the back of the lot there, otherwise why have it? So it's an
opportunity, but that doesn't mean if you time limit is and set a schedule for another
opportunity, that that wouldn't happen just as easily.
Chairperson Wilcox — Get some consensus here?
Board Member Howe — But the issue is they may have to change location anyway with
a new re- design in the back, correct?
Chairperson Wilcox, — Well, what we have, what we have for the rear of the property is
conceptual IWly based upon what could happen back there so when or if they should
come in with. an actual proposal, odds are that whatever temporary lighting is back
there would have. to be removed. So the question is, do we require that any lighting
back there ',:.now be l fully shielded as we require of all lighting, or whether we give them
some period of time. You're saying give them 5 years, I'm saying give them a year.
That's like a long time.
Board Member Howe — Yeah, five years sounds too long.
Board Member Mitrano — OK.
Mr. Kanter — Has anyone been back there at night to observe them, because they are
pretty obtrusive...
J
42
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox = They're pretty old style, in fact, some of them look like they are a
hazard, some of them look like the metal pole has separated from the concrete base.
- Mr.- Kanter —. Some of them look like they are ready to fall- down anyway,- so why
actually...
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, some of them appear to be unsafe.
Mr. Kanter— We also have the walkway will be rebuilt in the same location and so we
will have people walking back there [inaudible] so I would still recommend that we do it
now, but,..
Mr. Walker — It appears that one of the. poles is in the pond anyhow, so it would
probably have to be taken out.
Board Member Conneman — I would ...
Chairperson Wilcox — Do it now?
Board Member Conneman — I would do it now.
Board Member Howe— I'm... that's fine.
Board Member Mitrano — OK.
Board Member Thayer - OK..
Chairperson Wilcox — All right, done. Eva, you've looked at the...?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, it doesn't answer some of my questions. I see most of
the plants around the building are something marked TL which is a [inaudible] midget
arbor vitae, and I remember I had specifically asked for tall columnar trees to break up
the length of the fagade, and midget doesn't sound like something that tall.
Mr. Paladino - What they. told me about them, what they plant on the side was
supposed to grow up the'side of the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — Pardon? Say that again.
Mr. Paladino -.It was supposed to grow up the side of the building. From what they
told me was being planted there, I don't know much about landscaping.
Board Member Hoffmann — OK, it doesn't say what the eventual size will be either, it
says the size when planted is 18 -21 inches, and I don't know enough about these
43
Planning Board. Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
i
plants to know how tall they get eventually. Another one is called Emerald arbor vitae
and again I don't know how tall it gets.. Does anybody know? Anybody on staff?
Mr. Kanter, — Well, I don't know how quickly they grow, that's--the, issue: They
ultimately would get probably 10 -12 feet, but how quickly that happens I don't know. I
also don't know whether any deer go over to the Rite -Aid site, but if they do...
Chairperson Wilcox— They like arbor vitae. They do like arbor vitae, yes they do.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the other ones are things like Inkberry, it's an Ilex,
that's a low growing plant, and not necessarily slim and tall. You don't want something
that gets very wide there because then it interferes with your sidewalk, you want
something that's narrow and tall.
Mr. Paladino - Where's that, against the building?
Board Member Hoffmann - Pardon?
Mr. Paladino - against the building, we're talking ?.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Mr. Paladino - Like I said, from what I was told, these are meant to grow up the side of
the building and not out on the sidewalk.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing is it looks like a whole row on the western
and southern side of the building, it looks like a whole row of these midget arbor vitae,
with no break with other plants, it's just uniform planting of this one kind of arbor vitae
which is not exactly what I had envisioned. I envisioned something that was a little
more interesting, not just groups of one thing and groups of another thing or whole
walls of one thing, 'I would like to see something a little bit more interesting than what
you have proposed here in variety of types of plants and height with some of them
being high,'' but interspersed with medium high and low.
Mr. Paladino - It's tough to see what you're going to plant there, I mean there is a very
limited amount of space there to do something. If you have something you'd like us to
propose rather than us pick from a needle in a haystack, we'd like to know exactly what
those plantings are'I guess.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have trouble hearing you, are you suggesting that we
propose what you plant?
Mr. Paladino -,Something along... we proposed what we thought you wanted, and if
that's not right then we'd like exactly what you're looking for.
!i!!
Board Member Hoffmann - I'd like to pass this to the rest of you to look at, too.
Board Member Howe — I agree with Eva's comment, I think the idea is to break the
sizes up so it's not, just looking at the wall as much, so I don't think it's so much what
the plan is it's the;variety of heights is the issue.
Chairperson Wilcox - Avoid the mass, whether the mass is a wall or ... How do we want
to deal with the road crossing?
Board Member Thayer — I think it is a very important issue.
Board Member Hoffmann — It is.
Chairperson Wilcox - Now, do you think we can craft language that we're all
comfortable with?
Board Member Thayer — I'think Mr. Barney can do that for us.
Chairpersoll Wilcox — Please read our minds, John.
Mr. Barney; — What is it you want?
ri
Board Member Thayer — A safe crossing.
Board Member Mitrano — You can't have that raised thing like on Buffalo street because
of the plows?
Mr. Barney Well, maybe you could, I don't know what the county's policy on that is..,
it's a county road,„ so it's not someone we could.., they have them on, what is it, Dey
Street? or wherever you come off Route 13 there.
Board Member Mitrano — Buffalo
Board Member Conneman — Buffalo — it's on Buffalo
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, no they're on Dey street... there are three of them there.
[many comments at once]
Board Member Conneman — But they're also on Buffalo.
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, I think they work pretty well.
:R
C
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Barney — You could make that your condition, and...
Board Member Mitrano — Well, that's what I though.
Board Member Thayer- can it be a condition or should it be a recommendation?
Chairperson Wilcox — Well,
Mr. Barney`— It's up to you.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's up to us, if we make it a condition and the county says. no,
then they can. never get they're building permit because they can never satisfy that
condition, therefore they'll have to come back to this. board.
Mr. Paladin - that's what I mean. I don't think it's fair to put us in the middle of a
dispute between the Town...
Chairperson Wilcox — Or do we want to...?
Board Member Mitrano — Well, if we use Rod's approach of safe, and then we offer
three options, a blinking light, a raised road, or a sign in the middle of the road. Would
that...?
Board Member Hoffmann — You mean either one, not a combination of two or more?
Board Member Mitrano - Right, any of the three so that something happens..
Board Member Thayer — That's basically what it says.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let's go back to the report that's been here. Bear with me here.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you take route 89 down the lake or do you take 96?
Mr. Paladino - 89.
Board Member Mitrano — 898
Mr. Kanter — One suggestion is you could just start off with another sentence before all
the wording that's there now, something to the, effect of, this Planning Board requires
that this crosswalk be enhanced for the safety of pedestrians as determined by the .
County department of Public Works, and then...
Board Member Howe — And one of our recommendations is a. raised. walkway or
something like that:'
me
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't feel just a raised walk is enough, actually.
Board Member Thayer — We need the signage too.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, either a blinking light or some signage but not just
what there is now, "because what is there now seems not to work.
Mr. Barney — Do you want to say that you have all three elements to the extent
permitted by the county.
Board Member Mitrano — Sure.
Board Member Thayer — Sounds good.
Mr. Barney — Because the county really...
Chairperson Wilcox — The county makes the decision, it's ultimately their decision and I
understand, that, and I guess because. I'm not in control I feel uncomfortable.
[laughter]
Chairperson Wilcox — This is not negative about the county. I know they will do the
right thing, I hope they do the right thing and I'm .sure they will do the right thing, but
boy I sure want to...
Board Member Mitrano — Well, I'm thinking that those 250 parking spaces in the Cornell
building right next door all letting out, what did you call that, peak hour time, going
through the safe crosswalk...
Chairperson Wilcox - We'll give John Barney a chance to craft some language then we'll
come back to that. Signage we're agreed, got to conform to the zoning.
Board Member Conneman — Just as stated I think.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. We don't seem to have a problem with the bike rack out
there. Crosswalk he's working on.
Board Member Conneman — What about the lights?
Chairperson Wilcox — Lights fully shielded. We finally came to that. Those were the
ones that I identified in my notes. And landscaping. We would put in the condition
about landscaping that.., well, you know what we want, we want more variation, we
47
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
don't want to replace ... a solid colored wall with a solid set of tree or bushes. So we
could do the language similar to approval by the director of planning and the Town...
Board Member Mitrano - Sounds good.
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to revising the landscaping.
Board Member Conneman — While John's doing that, since Bill was kind enough to bring
the bricks along, we should look at them.
Board Member Hoffmann — Could you tell us where the different bricks will be ?.
Mr. Paladino - This first brick right here goes along with this down here. This red brick
from here sits on the [inaudible] goes in the rear, in the rear of the store, the north
elevation. This brick is what the majority of the store is right here. And this is outside
color there.
Board Member Hoffmann — So the colors on the drawing are quite different.
Mr. Paladino - Well, as close as a computer will get them.
Board Member Hoffmann — mmm hmmm.
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't have a problem with the colors.
Board Member Thayer — No, I don't either, as long as it's not green or orange or
something like that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, they're not going to clash with what's across the
street, anyway, I don't think.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney is still writing. This is a public hearing, ladies and
gentlemen, and I do need to give the public a chance to speak.
Board Member Thayer — You should do that.
Chairperson Wilcox Thank you very much for your advice. While John's crafting... is
there anything you want to say at this point, we'll give you a chance to speak later, but
we'll give the public a chance. Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, this is a public
hearing, if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this agenda item,
please come to the microphone,. and give us your name and address and we will be
very interested in what you have to say. Except for elected city officials of course.
[laughter] Joel?
mo
Planning Board .Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome, Joel, I need a name and an address please, for the
record.
Mr. Zumoff - Thank you, my name is Joel Zumoff, I live at 216 Valley Road, about a
mile west of this project, and my comment on this is actually totally a different area
than I've heard discussed so far. Namely, the entrance from Mitchell Street, around the
corner from where you've been discussing difficult intersections. I've been a member
of Courtside for 22 years, and the entrance from Mitchell Street that runs now behind,
that parking lot and what is now the Ides' Bowling alley that goes up to Courtside, I
would say in those 22 years has been in good shape; 2 or 3 or 4 that road is just not
maintained; it has potholes like crazy, you practically have to, well you do, I do have to
go into the opposite lane depending on where the potholes are not to damage the
automobile. So, (I would, assuming that that driveway is still going to be there, I didn't
see the other flip chart there, I'm .hoping it will be because if it's not, that means all the
traffic from the city would have to go through this intersection at Judd Falls. and Mitchell
to go around and get messed up with everything you've been talking about with the
other intersections. So, the entry from Mitchell Street would make the traffic problem
much. less severe from Judd Falls Road. So I certainly hope that entry will be there for
Mitchell Street, and I don't know what powers you have to put in writing that that
driveway needs to be maintained, because certainly over the last 20 plus years, it hasn't
been. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Joel, I'll have Bill respond to that, give him a chance
to do that. Anybody else? Is there somebody behind that I can't see back there? No
one else? There being no one then! I will close the public hearing at 9100.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Bill, do you want to address Joel's issue? I'll let you do it.
Mr. Paladino - Yes, that Mitchell Street curb cut will be maintained and kept open
primarily the same position it is right now, and the current condition will definitely be
drastically improved.
Chairperson Wilcox — Give Joel a couple... when you were here either last time or the
time before, you talked about your desire not only to improve the area of the three lots
where the Rite Aid building will go but also the entire three parcels. Just address that
very briefly.
Mr. Paladin, o - We plan on, not only doing the Rite Aid, the Rite Aid will be focused
mainly towards Pine Tree but in the rear of the property along Mitchell Street especially,
we will be re- grading and taking down all the brush, demolishing the house, and just
EKG
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
improving the overall look of that lot in back of the Ides' even though that parking will
be used minimally if at all by the Rite Aid, during the initial stages, we will be improving.
it and repairing it, and we will be just pretty much improving the overall aesthetics of
the entire 6; acre parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Mr. Barney, what have you crafted for us?
Mr. Barney Just modifying the condition H, the plans are to be amended to show to
the, extent permitted .by the Tompkins County Department of Public Works, visual and
physical enhancements at the existing pedestrian crosswalk at the north leg across Pine
Tree Road,; with the site drive /East Hill Plaza intersection. Such enhancements, to the
extent so permitted, to include textured colored street print or perpendicular striping,
elevated crosswalk, enhanced pedestrian signage, including a sign in the middle of the
road, and flashing amber warning lights for additional vehicular awareness of the
crosswalk. Cost, if any, of such enhancements so approved by the Tompkins County
Department of Public Works shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox — even I could potentially live with that. Pardon? OK. General
agreement "over here with the language?
Board. Member Thayer — Yeah, I was wondering, are you willing to put :a flashing amber
light there?
Mr. Paladino - No, I don't think I am actually.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think they'd be willing, but if the county comes back and
says, that's what goes there, then he can come back, he can negotiate or come back to
this board. I don't think they want to... I'd love to...
Mr. Paladino - We couldn't absorb the cost of a flashing light there, I mean a regular
signal costs about $75- 100,000, a flashing light in itself would probably cost at least a
third of that. And that's obsessive, I mean excessive I should say.
Board Member.Thayer — That's why I mentioned it, so maybe we should just eliminate
that.
Mr. Paladino - The rest of it I feel we can live with.
Chairperson Wilcox — What if that's what the county wants?
Mr. Barney — What the county wants is a different issue. I have a . feeling that what
you're going to be faced with here .is not what the county wants, it's what you want,
and what the county is willing to permit on their road. So I think it's really what, you
should make. clear what it is that you would like to have there. If the county wants
50
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
something more, that's going to be the developer's problem [inaudible] decision
whether he wants; to see or not, but I think you need to make your decision as to what
the Town would like to have there.
Board Member Thayer — I personally don't think that the flashing light is as good as a
raised walk.`
Board Member Mitrano — I feel that, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have nods of at least four, myself included, that the flashing
light is not an option. Which gives us to the raised bed...
Board Member Conneman — If they were to come back and say that's the only thing
they'll do, which I can't imagine, that would be different.
Board Member .Hoffmann — I'm just worried that if they do not want to have an
elevated crosswalk because of plowing problems and we cannot have the flashing light,
what else is there then which will really have an effect in making it safe?
Chairperson Wilcox — Here's the bottom line, if I may, we can take the amber... you
want to take the light out? OK, we'll take that out of what's been proposed. You got a
call from Nancy Shuler?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — I've been called by Martha Robertson previously on this one. I
got to believe .someone in the county legislature is going to be talking to the county
highway department and making sure that the county highway department approves
something reasonable. And I mean I'll call Nancy Shuler up and I'll call Martha
Robertson up and say OK, here's what we want, it's up to you now because it's your
road to pull the strings that you can and put the pressure on that you can to ensure
that something gets done there.
Board Member Hoffmann — So, could you read the proposed change again?
Mr. Barney Sure. Plans to be amended to show, to the extent permitted by the
Tompkins County Department of Public Works, visual and physical enhancements at the
existing pedestrian crosswalk at the north leg across Pine Tree Road at the site
drive /East Hill Plaza intersection. Such enhancements, to the extent so permitted, to
include a textured, colored street print or perpendicular striping, an elevated crosswalk,
and enhanced pedestrian signage, including a sign on the middle of the road for
additional vehicular awareness of crosswalk. Costs, if any, of such enhancements
approved by the Tompkins County Department of Public Works shall be the
51
Planning Board, Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
responsibility of the applicant. It's just basically taking Jon's language, or Mike's
language, and making it mandatory.
Chairperson Wilcox — And taking it, also...
Mr. Barney — And putting it also for the approval of the county.
Board Member Thayer — With. that, I'll move the resolution.
Chairperson, Wilcox So moved, do I have a second?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox Seconded by Tracy. Any other changes?
Mr. Barney - Where did we go with the landscaping, I'm not quite sure L..
Mr. Kanter — That will have to be a new condition.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's going to have to be a
talking about it before, while you were writing. This
unhappy with landscaping that is uniform, and therefore
revise. the landscaping plan to provide varied, varying
along the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — Along the foundations,
new condition and we were
board has said that we are
we ask that the applicant
and appropriate landscaping
Chairperson Wilcox`' — Along the foundations of the building, subject to the approval by
the director' of planning if he doesn't mind.
Mr. Kanter Oh, I don't mind. I would love to do that.
Board Member . Hoffmann —.And I think in our previous, didn't we have in our
preliminary approval, some language about including specifically tall columnar trees,
evergreens? I would like to see that included again, because I'm not sure whether
these that you have proposed have that shape, especially if it's called midget. I would
like to be sure that there are such tall plants, because that's what breaks up the fagade
in the way that we are looking for.
Mr. Kanter — Including tall, columnar evergreen plantings...
Board Member Hoffmann— Yes.
52
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox - OK, that change is acceptable? OK.. Did we not need to eliminate
a condition, given that we have this drawing? There was some discussion of..:
Mr. Kanter - We could eliminate condition E, although we would then want it as part of
the final certified plan document submission. We now have the elevation .drawings that
do show conformance with the relevant sidewalk sections.
Chairperson Wilcox, - In terms of the building elevations, these conform. The issue is
still the freestanding...
Mr. Kanter So condition F would stand.
Chairperson Wilcox — So E can be eliminated and F stands and they all get relettered.
OK. Acceptable, Larry and...? John Barney, you're all set ?. OK. Anything else? OK.
We have a ;motion, I second, there being no further discussion, all those in favor, please
signal by saying aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions,
the motion is passed. Thank you very much.
930 and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 62- 1 -3,2, 62-1-
2,2, 62 -1 -'1 d
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Rite Aid
Pharmacy ( +/- 14,564 square feet), which is the first phase of the
redevelopment of the Judd Falls Plaza properties located at 322 -350 Pine Tree
Road and 930 and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 62- 1 -12,
62- 1 -22, and 62 -1 -1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal includes
removing the existing plaza and construction of new stormwater. facilities,
parking, landscaping, and lighting. Future phases of development will consist of
up to 301000 square feet of additional retail, office, or other commercial space.
Susan Hamilton, Owner;. Ellicott Development Company for 1093 Group, LLC,
Applicant; William A. Paladin, Agent; and
2 This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to site plan approval did on
53
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
October 4, 2005 make a negative determination of environmental significance;
and
3. The Planning Board, on October 4, 2005, did grant preliminary site p /an approval
and a special permit for the proposed project as described above; and
4. The Planning Board, at a Public. Hearing held on December 6,- 2005, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions out fined below, a
revised Storm Water Management Report (including Sheets DA -1 and DA -2,
dated 8129105, revised 1117105), prepared by BL Companies, dated August 29,
2005, revised November 7, 2005; a letter prepared by FRA Engineering, P.C.
dated November 7, 2005 regarding the pedestrian crosswalk at Pine Tree Road,
site plan drawings, entitled "Preliminary Site. Plan, Submission, Rite Aid
Pharmacy", including Sheet Nos. AL -1, NL -1, DM -1, SP -1, GU -1, EC -1, LL -1, and
Detail Sheets DN -1 through DN -8, all prepared by BL Companies, with an issue
date of August 29, 2005 and revised 11107105; Sheet LP -1 Lighting Plan,
prepared by BL Companies, dated 8122105 and revised 11115105; a floor plan,
prepared by Rite Aid, most recently revised July 14, 2005; and other application
materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED;
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Final Site Plan Checklist, 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. Thal t the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Rite Aid Pharmacy, as shown on site plan drawings, entitled "Preliminary Site
Plan Submission, Rite Aid Pharmacy'; including Sheet Nos AL -1, NL -1, DM -1,
SP -1, GU -1,: EG1, LL -1, and Detail Sheets DN -1 through DN -8, all prepared by BL
Companies,'! with an issue date of August 29, 2005 and revised 11107105; Sheet
LP -1 Lighting Plan, prepared by BL Companies, dated 8122105 and revised
11115105; and a floor plan, prepared by Rite Aid, most recently revised July 14,
2005, conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the issuance of
any, building permits, unless otherwise noted:
a. 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 curb -cut or road work permits from the Tompkins
County Department of Public Works; and
54
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
b. Submission of evidence that the Ithaca City Fire Department has approved
the adequacy of access to the site and building for fire and emergency
service equipment; and
C Submission of a maintenance agreement relating to the. walkway for
review and approval of the Director of Planning and Attorney for the
Town. Construction, maintenance, and repairs of the walkway shall be
the responsibility of Ellicott Development . Co. 11093 Group LLC or
subsequent owner; and
d. Revision of the final site plan to show that all exterior lights shall be fully
shielded so that no light rays are emitted by the. installed fixtures at
angles above the horizontal plane, in order to minimize excessive glare
and light trespass, and submission of detailed cut - sheets showing the
details of all lighting fixtures and luminaries for review and approval of the
Director of Planning; and
e. Revision of the details of the two freestanding signs to conform with
Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code by reducing the area of the
panels to not exceed the maximum permitted area of 50 square feet in
each of the freestanding signs; and
f. Submission of a maintenance plan and agreement for, the storm water
pond for review and approval of the Director of Engineering. The full
storm water pond and related storm water facilities shall be constructed in
conjunction with the Phase I Rite Aid building, as shown on the submitted
plans; and -
g. Plans to be amended to show, to the extent permitted by the. Tompkins
County Department of Public Works, visual and physical enhancements at
the existing pedestrian crosswalk at the north leg across Pine Tree Road
at the site drive /East Hill Plaza intersection. Such enhancements to the
extent so permitted to include a textured /colored and elevated crosswalk,
street print or perpendicular striping, and enhanced pedestrian signage
including a sign in the middle of the road, for additional vehicular
awareness of the crosswalk. Costs, if any, of such of the enhancements
approved by the Tompkins County Department of Public Works, shall be
the responsibility of the applicant; and
h. Submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings, revised as
required above, on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the
registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who
prepared the site plan material; and
55
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
i. Submission of final, signed easement agreements permitting vehicular
cross- access between the Rite Aid, Courtside, and HSBC Bank parcels,
including provision of shared access at the entrances on Mitchell Street
and Pine Tree Road, for review and approval of the Attorney for the
Town; and
j. Review and approval by the Director of Engineering of all construction and
engineering details; and
k Tax Parcel Nos. 62 -1 -1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62 -1 -3.2 shall be consolidated into
one tax parcel prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
Submission to the Planning Department of documentation of the request
for said consolidation to the Tompkins County Assessment Office shall be
adequate to fulfill this condition; and
1. Existing trees and. shrubs in the vicinity of the two houses to be
demolished on the site shall be. preserved to the extent practicable, as
indicated on site plan LL -1, and
m. Revision of the planting plans to provide varied plantings, including tall
columnar evergreens, along the foundations of the building to break -up
the visual mass of the facade of the .building, to be approved by the
Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permits
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
A YES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NA YS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Paladino - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Good luck to you.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November 15, 2005) for the
proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and
the associated transportation- focused . Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (t -GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the
Town of 'Ithaca, The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the
community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population
traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback
obtained from the . t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for
56
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
transportation demand management, multi - modal transportation strategies,
access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf,.
RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of the Draft Scope outline are available at
the Town of. Ithaca Town -Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (607 =273 -
1747), or on the website for this project: www.tgeisaroject.org.
Chairperson Wilcox — Come on in. I don't need you all, ?I need at least a couple
people. Before we get going here, Kathryn, how long is your presentation going to be?
Ms. Wolf - About five [inaudible].
Chairperson Wilcox = Five minutes, thank you, tops. Members of the public, how many
wish to speak? 1,, 21 3, 41 5 OK; 6, thank you very much. Seven, OK. I think that we
can get started... I think, we will be able to get started on Conifer and at least start.
And if this board can go till maybe 10:15, maybe we can get a little bit farther. So, I
may turn out to be wrong, but I'm going to ask you to stick around and keep your
fingers crossed. OK? All right, Kathryn, are you ready to go? OK, ladies and
gentlemen, at 9 :11...
Ms. Gougakis - Excuse me, this was...
Chairperson Wilcox — Why are you interrupting?
Ms. Gougakis - Because I've been here since.8:00...
Chairperson Wilcox — And you know what, we're doing the best we.. can, and we're
getting there, and I'm going to open the public hearing right now.
Ms. Gougakis Excuse me, I'm not staying here for this, this was advertised [inaudible]
for 8 :00:
Chairperson Wilcox — At 9 :11, ladies and gentlemen, the next item this evening is a
public scoping meeting. Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November 15,
2005) for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS)
and the associatedi transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-
GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t-
GEIS will address transportation impacts on. the community surrounding the campus
related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in
response to the ''feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and. may include
recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation
strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf,
RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of the Draft Scope outline are available at the Town of
Ithaca Town Hall,; 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY. (607- 273- 1747), or on the
website for this project: www.tgeisproject.ora. Name and address please.
57
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Ms. Wolf Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf landscape architects, 1001 W. Seneca.
Street, Ithaca, NY.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make a short statement?
Ms. Wolf - Yes, a very brief statement. Thank you for having us here this evening. I'm.
also joined this evening by George Alexiou, from Martin, Alexiou, Brayson, who you
have all met in the. past. He's here from North Carolina, and is the transportation
engineer on the project. And I really just wanted to remind you essentially, the
purpose of the project. And the primary purpose of the project is to identify strategies
for reducing single- occupancy vehicle trips by the Cornell population. That's our
primary objective with this project. We are seeking global solutions that will achieve
reduced dependence on single- occupancy vehicle use. This is not an evaluation of a
specific project, nor is it a traditional traffic study. Rather, by proactively looking
ahead and''emphasizing alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, the intention is to
avoid many of the traditional traffic approaches, such as road widening, adding train
lanes or adding a traffic light. Those are the things that we're trying to avoid by
identifying strategies that encourage use of the alternative modes. Previous, in
preparation for this evening's meeting, we have had a significant outreach to
stakeholders, more than 47 stakeholders groups received notices for this meeting.
Moving forward, we plan to design surveys for the neighborhoods, .neighborhood
surveys as';' well as having meetings specifically with the individual neighborhoods to.
understand their concerns, review potential mitigation strategies with them and gain
their input' Similarly, we anticipate outreach and specific meetings outside of the
scheduled meetings here with our stakeholders around specific transportation issues
such as pedestrians and bicycles. So, I.just, that's all for my comments this evening. I..
just wanted to remind you of the focus of. our efforts here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would anyone else, that's a member of the team, wish to make a
statement? OK, very good. Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this public scoping
session is to gather comments and suggestions from the public and other agencies
about the ,scope and content of the transportation- focused Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, the intent is to identify significant issues, which should be addressed
in the GEIS. Oral (land written comments will be reviewed by Cornell University, with
assistance from their resource committee and be used to revise the draft scope outline.
We offer you this opportunity tonight to provide that input. I will call on you in no
particular order. I ask that you raise your hand. I ask that you limit your comments to
what you would like to see included in the draft GEIS. And we're going to switch tapes.
[tape is flipped]
Chairperson Wilcox' — Raise your hands and I will call upon you: Before I do that, if
someone has a very time - sensitive need, you have child care, you have a baby sitter
58
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
and you need to get home as quick as you can, I would like to take you first.
Gentleman, the back, I assume it's legitimate.
Mr. Hamilton - James Hamilton, I live in East Ithaca at 1603 Slaterville Road, I'm also
on the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, I'm also an ex- president of the East Ithaca
pre - school, the cooperative pre - school that meets in a building in the Bethel Grove
community building. I believe there is a' neighborhood called East Ithaca, and it's not in
this draft document,. so on page 5, part 3.1.4.4, where we see the list of neighborhoods
that are affected by increased transportation, I would like to see East Ithaca mentioned,
I believe that I come from a neighborhood that is just as much a neighborhood as Belle
Sherman or Forest Home. I've had four kids that went to East Ithaca pre - school, and
we have walked along Slaterville Road for the mile from my house to there, even
though that's not in the Town. And I live on the corner of Burns Road, and I believe
that intersection should be included in the intersections that need watching. This is on
page...
Chairperson Wilcox — That would be the intersection of Burns Road and... Slaterville?
Mr. Hamilton - Slaterville Road, yeah. On that table 1, I'd like that added to the
intersections that need study, especially since Burns road was revised... I bought my
house in 1980 when Burns road went over two one -way bridges. Those were replaced
by a bridge that took two lanes, and the intersection was moved from one side of my
house to the other, and over the years, I've seen a lot more traffic coming from that
side of Town. When we look at the map of the, that's on figure 2, Burns road isn't even
drawn on this map, I'd like to see that added. It's one of the main ways that people
from the South and East get to the campus, and the traffic just gets worse on that
intersection between Burns and Slaterville. People blare their horns at traffic heading
east backs up until; it's right in front of my house. Traffic heading west doesn't want to
slow down from the 45 miles an hour speed limit there and likes to use the shoulder of
the road as an extra lane to get around the people who are waiting to turn down into
Burns road, so please let's realize ...
Chairperson Wilcox — Cornell, the representatives are taking notes.
Mr. Hamilton - That intersection is...
Chairperson Wilcox — Got you.. I'm trying to speed you along a little bit.
Mr. Hamilton - The other thing is when we look to reduce one passenger trips, you can
do this by going on a bike. I bought my house when :I was a grad student at Cornell,
and I selected that location because it wasn't too high up a hill or too .low down a hill
from Goldwyn- Smith. So, when you look to see bicycle trip transportation promoted, I
would like the people who are trying to promote bike riding to realize that a bicycle
facility, for 'example 3.1.3.2 on page 3, they want to look at bicycle facilities providing
59
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
access to campus,, well one of those is Route 79. The shoulder of .Route 79 is a shared
roadway, a bike has just as much right being there as a car does, and as people look to
increase bike transportation to Cornell, they shouldn't just think think, let's turn
another railway into a little bike lane, by paying attention to the need of bikers to use
the roads and the'good shoulders on the roads, and I think the wording of, on page.3
of 9, 3.1.3.2 bicycle facilities should be changed to "and shared roadways" because bike
facility if it's just this, nifty little bicycle path somewhere isn't going to get that many
people to go by bike instead of by car. When you look on the bicyclists who arrive at
Cornell, the bike paths are certainly nice, but usually you get in there by road. Once
you get there you need to park your bike, so when you want to enhance access to
campus on page 71 of 9, this is .5.1.1.2, it's not just access but what you do with your
bike once you get there. There are a few good places to park your bike on campus, but
not that many and if they're looking to promote non -car access to the campus, they
should have sheltered bicycle parking. There was one that I used a lot in Clark that
actually ha °d a roof over it, it was in this little courtyard there, and if more of those were
built, more bicyclists would be happy driving in inclement weather.. I rode my bike here
tonight in the snow, for example, and it's nice to have a place with a little bit of roof
over it when I park my bike on the back porch of this building. On the programs for,
where is that now, on page 8. of 9, the TDM transportation demand management,
there's a list of 10 programs at Cornell that could be considered, bicycles aren't even
mentioned 11 here. I think bicycle commuting should be promoted, this a beautiful place
to ride your bike, I've been doing it since I got here in 74, and I haven't been hit once
or had an accident, I think it's kept me healthy and if bicycling could be promoted,
either through the physical education department, or through some kind of health
awareness i, program, like quitting smoking is handled in some health related programs, I
think that ought to be added, maybe instead of 10 other, 10 would be to get people to
ride their bikes to work. And I have to.get home on my bike before the snow gets too..
deep.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go, how would you define East Ithaca, how would you
define that; neighborhood? Because I'll tell you right now, I grew up on Slaterville Road .
as well, actually the 1300 block. I think of East Ithaca as a totally different area. I
think of that as the "intersection near College Avenue, 366, Cornell Street. That to me is
East Ithaca, so how do you define it?
Mr. Hamilton - Well,, that's East Ithaca too, but my part of the downhill East Ithaca goes,
from the intersection of Pine Tree to the Dryden line.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there a neighborhood association active out there?
Mr. Hamilton - We meet with the Bethel Grove community, but we don't have our own
building or our own association.
60
N
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there like a dead of a
group organization, as informal as it might be?
Mr. Hamilton - No.
Mr. Kanter'— We couldn't find one.
Planning Board.Minutes .
December 6, 2005
Approved
contact person for that neighborhood
Chairperson Wilcox - OK, OK, thank you. Gentleman in the back who has his hand up,
thank you, I appreciate your patience this evening.
Mr. Pinch - My name is Trevor Pinch, I live at
here on be of the Forest Home Improvem(
of being the Vice President. And we have a
And I have taken the liberty of making some
to you and to the Cornell representatives. I'
I'm aware of the time.
112 Crest Lane, Forest Home Ithaca. I'm
ant Association, of which I have the honor
number of responses to this draft scope.
written comments, which I will distribute,
II try and keep this as briefly as possible,
Chairperson Wilcox — I appreciate it, thank you. Not that we've. been brief.
Mr. Pinch read from a prepared statement. See attachment 1.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Ms. Brock `= My name is Cynthia Brock, I live at 409 Campbell Avenue in Ithaca, I'm a
West Hill resident.':i Sorry, I just got a draft of this a few minutes ago. I have not read
it, I cannot give any detailed comments on the draft that has been proposed, but I find
it very curious that in this map it looks primarily at the East Side of Ithaca and does not
consider how Cornell is impacting the west side of Ithaca. I live right off of Hector
Street, which is route 79; which is not indicated on this map. It is next to 96 and 89,
and I know through personal experience that through : Cornell's expansion of it's
agricultural, and work in a new Masters of vitaculture program, that there is
increased traffic between. people who work in the wine making industry and come
through Hector, route 79 and 96 to come into Town, and the increase of traffic in
through this area through our residential neighborhoods, is quite significant. And it is
especially significant because we are one of the few areas in the city that does not have
sidewalks, that it is very difficult to come into town and not use a car. To catch a bus, I
have to stand on the road, in the road on a very narrow part of Hector Street, and it is
basically taking your life into your hands, because you've got maybe six inches between
the edge of the road and the barrier that keeps you from falling off the cliff. So this is
something I think that needs to significantly be considered. I find it very telling that
looking at 'the agenda for today, that two of the new developments are actually off
Hector street. And this is the area that is expanding because the city of Ithaca is
running out of room to have developments, and West Hill is going to be one of the
areas that is significantly impacted. I think that Cornell is a significant part of that
61
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
structure, and I would strongly propose that Cornell look at the impact of West Hill. My
husband, who is a Cornell professor bicycles to and from Cornell from our home and
there are no bike Manes, and this is something that also needs to be considered, so I
strongly urge looking at alternative modes of transportation but also looking from the
other side of Ithaca and how we are impacted by Cornell's expansion.. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Faye?
Ms. Gouga,kis Good evening, my name is Faye Gougakis, I live on 406 Utica Street. I
just want to clarify', my comments before, it was advertised in the journal for 8:00 and it
was advertised as a forum, very different than being stuck in part of the planning
meeting. So I just want you to be sensitive to that, I'm not blaming you, but just to be
sensitive to that. And also tonight, I also thought we were being pushed to the end, so
that's why'J made that remark. Well, a couple things, number one, when I heard about
this, it raised a red flag right away when I heard Town of Ithaca and Cornell. I live in
the city ofj Ithaca, and I've got to tell you, I'm very impacted by what comes through
the City. And the fact that the city is..not a major player in this is a very big concern for
me, number one. And I've spoken to several people who have informed me and said
that the city is not a major player in this, so my first suggestion or comment, or
criticism is that the city should be a major player in this. Now, I live downtown and one
of the things that'lis not in this draft is the issue of speeding. Speeding is important
because I ride a bicycle, and I'm not going to say that you should ride a bicycle, I'm not
here to say that, and if someone chooses to ride a bicycle that's great, we're in a very
difficult climate, and I understand you can't easily ride a bike all year, round. But if you
do ride a bicycle, or you walk or even if you drive a car, there are people out there that
don't obeys the law that are tailgating, that are speeding, and that is becoming more
and more of a problem because we have more and more cars coming through Ithaca.
We have more development, so that also pays, it puts the pressure on that issue as
well. So, in your draft, I don't see anything about speeding, so to me; when I heard
the opening statements about we're only going to be looking at this almost like a single
item of trying to reduce one person driving a car, the opening statement, I forgot the
woman's name. In any case, to me, I was glad I was here to hear that because that
alone shocks me in terms of where we're going with this kind of draft. It's a set -up for
failure. The other thing I want to share with you is also the issue of cell -phone use. I
had approached someone from Cornell University about this, and they told me they
weren't doing anything about educating their students about not using a cell -phone
because of New York state law. Well, they got back to me, and they said that they're
now going ,.to put an insert in. the student's other pile of stuff they give. them in the
beginning of the year. The reason I'm giving you that example, .and since I guess there
are Cornell: people here, is that it's a very pitiful example of how you want to solve a.
problem like that, which is serious. Using your cell -phone while your driving, plus
speeding on top of that, which I see a lot of. Coming down from the hill, if I'm up at
Cornell for '!an event, walking down the hill, and seeing the speeding coming down the
hill into downtown,. OK, if you're very serious about dealing with problems, one is,
62
Planning Board.Minutes .
December 6, 2005
Approved
where is our public service announcement, where is our outreach? You don't just stick
a flyer in a package that you give students in the beginning of the year and expect
them to really listen to that. OK? So to me, when we're dealing with serious issues like
this, I think of collaboration, real collaboration, I mean your heart has to be in it, OK?
So the kind of outreach, public outreach, that should be part of that study. It's not just
studying it but what arte you going to do about it. How are you going to reach people,
OK? So, yeah, you can't force somebody to ride a bike, that's understandable, trying to
encourage' people to ride a bike as an alternative form, fine, but it's not always realistic
in Ithaca, you know, for everybody to get on their bicycles, it would be nice if that
happened, but it's not realistic. So, the other issue, and forgive me because there are a.
lot of thoughts that I'm trying to thread together, is development in Ithaca and the way
development has gone about. I totally have disagreed with it. When we talk about a
student getting in their car and going to go shopping, you know, the downtown was the
core...
Chairperson Wilcox — I think you're going too far a field.
Ms. Gougakis - No,' no,
Chairperson Wilcox — You're going too far a field.
Ms. Gougakis - Excuse me, I have a right to mention this, because when you talk...
Chairperson Wilcox — Faye, it is my meeting right now, I'm going to repeat what it says
here.
m
Ms. Gougakis - Well, it's also a public hearing, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox It says we want to examine and evaluate. Cornell University's
transportation related impacts and possible mitigations for hypothetical Cornell
University population growth scenarios. What would you like to see added to the draft
scope document? That is the question before us.
Ms. Gougakis - Well, I definitely want the stuff that was said just prior to this
interruption.
Chairperson Wilcox — What else would you like to see added?
Ms. Gougakis - The other thing is, I'm not clear about, the gentleman before talked
about judging criteria. Who's going to pay for it? Who's paying for what and how is
that going to be judged? I don't know, and forgive me if it's out there or in this
handout and I missed it, and I guess the last thing is that you know, I really feel that
everything needs to be tied together and having the city of Ithaca, having downtown
concerns are not on that list, page 5 out of 9, has Belle Sherman, Cayuga Heights,
63
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Collegetown, I mean where's downtown Ithaca? I don't know, I mean I think that the
opening statement given tonight really was disturbing and I think this needs to be a
collaborative effort and I would feel better if the city of Ithaca was a key player. Thank
you. _
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Next, Joel?
Joel Zumoff, 216 Valley Road, Ithaca
Thank you Joel Zumoff, 216 Valley Road. Before when I spoke, I spoke as a private
citizen. Fred mentioned earlier, in jest I hope, that I am also a public official, I
represent the third ward on common council. And now I would like to put on that hat
and speak'a little more officially in my capacity as a representative of the third ward.
The third ward is ;;essentially East Hill, from the east side of Collegetown if you will,
running up", just below State Street all the .way through the Cornell Campus, from
the city line on the east to essentially College Ave and through the center of the
campus. So, as you can imagine, we get a lot of traffic heading toward Cornell. And
what I particularly, want to address is, before. I was elected to common council, the
common council in the city passed a permit parking system, where essentially, you can
park on one side of some streets in the morning, and the other side in the afternoon..
The area that is set out for that process, is essentially a lot of the area surrounding
Cornell, a lot of my ward, a lot of the fourth ward, some of the fifth ward I think. The
.reason for doing that was because a lot of students and employees, faculty also, would,
people who are working at Cornell, don't want to pay Cornell's parking rates, and they
park on the city streets and the city residents either couldn't find places to park their
own automobiles or the traffic was extensive, there were children around and. it was
difficult. Personally, I should say, philosophically I don't like that permit system in the
context that they are public streets, and I personally feel people have a right to park on
public streets, but I also feel that an organization like Cornell with as many employees
as it has, should take the steps that are necessary to provide parking for their faculty, .
staff, students, so they don't have to park on the public streets and we don't have to
set up a system and charge our residents for parking in front of their own house,
specifically `to keep` people who are going to Cornell from parking on the public streets.
Now, obviously. as Cornell gets larger, and there are more people and more
automobiles, potentially, that's a problem. So, the concept of studying how to reduce
the number of automobiles is certainly something that I and I'm sure everybody else on
Common Council supports wholeheartedly, and I just wanted to emphasize there the
concept that I just did. I suspect that if I it is not being studied directly, it will be
handled indirectly in the whole concept of how to reduce the parking problem. But
that, the fact that the city had to, or felt that it had to set up this permit parking system
around the University sort of exemplifies the problem, and if we can reduce the
perceived necessity of people to park on city streets as opposed to whatever facilities
Cornell provides, all the better, I would just love to get rid of that alternate side parking
situation because Cornell provides the parking, or the bus system is good enough to
have people not need to drive, whatever. I just wanted to bring that up, I expect it will
.-
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
be covered, but I just thought it was important to emphasize. So, thank you very
much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Joel. Next? One of the Brittains. One or both? One
at a time. OK.
Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road, Ithaca
Hi everybody, thanks for being here. Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca,
Forest Home. OK, here are my comments. The purpose is good, I like the purpose of
the t -GEIS. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community
surrounding the campus. Sounds great. If you look at the draft scope, if you look
carefully, t ;here's a lot in there, but almost none of it is on the impact on the community
surrounding the campus. Which is sort of too bad, since that's the purpose. Instead,
and Trevor already mentioned this, the focus is on the impact and mitigation to the
existing transportation system. So, for instance, when they talk about general
descriptions; of potential mitigation strategies for residential neighborhoods, it is under
the heading of potential mitigation strategies for impacts to vehicular circulation. It's
not to the .livability of the neighborhood. Which I believe is incorrect. Mitigation often
means modifying the surrounding neighborhoods in order to serve the transportation
system. Now, I was encouraged that Kathy Wolf said, oh we don't want to do that, we
don't want'Ito add, !that's great. But, if so, this should reflect that, this document, and I
think it has to be modified to reflect it. Cornell has proposed a traditional intersection
analysis of'159 intersections, doing level of service, which is what? At seeing how well it
serves the. traffic going through, it's not how well does it serve the community. So,
again, thisanalysis is from the point of view of the transportation. The traffic, that's
what the analysis is serving. And it is in prep... the reason you do this analysis is in
preparation for making improvements,. and the way you make improvements is by
adding the turning lanes and the traffic. lights and the road widenings, which is the
things that,, Kathy says she doesn't want, which is good. But then why are we doing all
this analysis if it's for stuff that we don't plan on doing? I'm not sure why it's in there.
So, the document should be modified, which is where you guys come in. Thank you. I
think Kathy Wolf has done a good job of representing her clients interests, and I think
what Cornell apparently sees as its interest is moving people and goods through our
neighborhoods to and from campus. Which is perfectly understandable. But that's
Cornell's interest, the Town's interests go far beyond just moving people just to and
from Cornell. For instance, you might want to address the transportation impacts on
the community surrounding the campus, which is the purpose. So, I thank you in
advance fo,r modifying the GEIS so that it does fulfill its purpose, rather than merely
accepting Cornell's, interests as a convenient substitute for the Town's interest. I really
think it's very important that the t -GEIS undergo modifications.
Assumptions, OK. .Kathy didn't have time this month, but you all remember last
month she went through Cornell 's historical growth rate, and it was the growth rate for
how many; what's the Cornell population within that outlying zone. What they did, is
they assume, this is what is done in the past 30 years, we'll probably keep doing
65
Planning Board Minutes.
December 6, 2005
Approved
something. comparable in the next 30. Which is perfectly reasonable if you- have no
more information,, if you don't know who the administration is at Cornell and you
haven't talked. to them, that's as good a guess as any. What I would think is the first
thing to do is to talk,to the senior administrators at Cornell and say what are our plans?
What are' we planning for? The Cornell representatives here tonight are the
implementers, they are the ones who implement,. I would like first to have Cornell do
the planning, what growth rate are they planning and why, and then we can implement
that. Because as it is, what we or rather they, are left to do is sort of guess. Well, we
assume we're going to keep floating along the way we have. And maybe that's a
reasonable assumption, but it's sort of a sad commentary on the way things are
working. "What if a normal developer, I think it's worth considering the way this
planning board treats a typical developer. If a developer is developing land, like a
farmer who is selling a lot periodically, and after they sell and develop two or three, you
guys are going to step in and say, I'm sorry, you can't do, it anymore, you can't just sort .
of go piecemeal, you have to show us a plan, how are you going to do it, how are you
going to develop the land, how are you going to have the transportation system serve
all the individual house lots? You have to have access to each lot, you can't mess up
the development next door in order to serve your lot. How are. you going to do it? You
need a plan. And I think Cornell should be held to the- same standard. How are they
going to develop campus? What are there plans? How are they going to do it without
messing up the previous developments that are all around, which is our various
neighborhoods?
So Cornell should be held to the same standards, and they should be the ones
who deal with the 'consequences of their development. I think a very good example of
what not to do is what happened with Thurston Avenue, in that, as you know, I think
many of you recall the North campus development. The issue of Thurston Avenue
bridge came up, I 'guess more in the city than here, because uh oh, we have all these
people building in north campus, how are they going to get to central campus, and the
response was, well°, Thurston Ave bridge is going to be rebuilt anyway, so we'll take care
of it, so it's not an issue. Well, it turned out it was an issue, because just rehabbing the
bridge was $800,000, but rehabbing it to make it wider to handle all the people on
north campus now it's what $6 million, so there's an extra $5 million someone is having
to cough up to subsidize Cornell "s plan. This is the type of thing that would be nice to
avoid. It's ;;mostly State and Federal money, but it's money that's not available for other
things. So; the transportation costs, the transportation ramifications should be folded
into Cornell's planning, not something that they pawn off on somebody else, like you
guys in the Town 'to deal with later. It should be upfront, and they have to address it.
If you are going to, do a cost - benefit analysis, the only way to get a valid cost - benefit
analysis is if the cost and the benefit accrue to the same person, the same. person, the
same entity is judging them, they can make a good accurate assessment: is it worth it?
If there are benefits associated with growth at Cornell, maybe there are, and there are
costs, like the transportation costs. If they accrue to the same person, or the same
entity, say !Cornell,sI you get good decisions. If you accrue to different people, then of
course, you have people making decisions. You know, if I take $20 out of your pocket
..
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
and it accrues to me, and the cost doesn't, yippee, I think I've done well. But, we're
not all going to get rich by stealing from each other. It's important to internalize the.
externalities, .as many of you know. So, I think the solution to coming up with a good
traffic plan 'iis to make sure that whatever happens, that the mitigation measures should
be within Cornell's traffic generating system. So, if Cornell wants to grow, they should
do something to reduce the traffic enough to compensate, as opposed to within, let's
say, a surrounding community, making a road bigger. So, mitigation. measures should
be within, I think that's an important point, within Cornell's traffic generating system.
They can do this, this is not an impossible feat. One thing they can do is they can
disperse campus, they have been doing this some already, as you know some offices, a
fair number of administrative workers being moved downtown, they are not at the
central campus, therefore they do not have the impacts on the same communities.
Cornell's business and technology park, as you know, is near the airport. They didn't
put it on central campus, I think that's a very good idea. There's no reason it had to be
there, why don't we have a different target for many commuters to go to, so you don't
overload the same; old neighborhoods. BTI, Boyce Thompson Institute, maybe that
should have been out there too. Medical-schools in New York City, that's a good idea,
it doesn't have to be here. How about the vet school, does that have to be here, could
it be in Lansing? It could still be local, I mean now they have so much invested in the
,.buildings, they're not about to move it, but they didn't do the long range planning. It's
possible to` disperse. And . therefore, even if Cornell grows, as long as they're not
growing on what is now Central campus, the traffic in that area shouldn't get too much
worse.
Another possibility that I think they know of is Park and Ride lot, as you know A
lot and B lot, they collect traffic before. it goes into central campus. Well, if they don't
want to deal with their own traffic, I think it's unreasonable to expect the communities
around to deal with the traffic. What they should do is move those farther away from
campus so that the incoming traffic is intercepted sooner, so it doesn't drive through
the adjoining neighborhoods. And then another way to do it is to actually, north
campus provides another good example. If they are determined to develop, they can
build new roads to make connections within campus. As you may recall, north campus,
before the north campus residential initiative, if you were driving down say from the
North, you were coming down Pleasant Grove road, you entered north campus, hey
here I am, you've got pleasant grove, Hasbrouck on one side, Pleasant Grove
apartments on the other. The only way to get to Central campus was to leave. You
had to leave and go through Cornell Heights or leave and go through Forest Home.
There was no way to get from where you were to the main campus. They didn't want
to put a road in to iconnect either, but in your wisdom, and I thank you all very much,
but you and the city Planning Board said if this. is going to develop, you have to have
the road in there. And Cornell built the road and opened it and it actually kind of
worked. It was not catastrophic for Cornell Heights or Forest Home, and it wasn't
catastrophic for Forest Home, it worked.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I pull you back to...
67
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Doug Brittain - Thank you. But, this is, all three of these are essentially three different
ways of doing the same thing. You are moving the target that the incoming commuting
cars are aimed at. You are moving them away from central campus, either to parking
lots or to new buildings or to an entrance road, which can then take you into campus.
As soon as you come into that area that they've drawn, as far as I'm concerned, you're
on campus, it should be up to Cornell how to get there. TDM stuff, I would like to add
one thing. TDM has its limits, but one thing that would be worth pursuing is reducing
the number of workdays. Some county employees work 4 ten -hour days instead of 5
eight -hour days. What that means is you know have 4 commutes a day instead. of 5,
that reduces traffic. Simply changing the hours of work doesn't reduce the traffic, it
takes it outi of peak hour, but you still drive through the community. So the t -GEIS as it
is currently I written, is based on, unfortunately 4 cascading assumptions, which I think
are all invalid unfortunately. It assumes that Cornell. Will. inevitably grow, it's not
inevitable, if they want to, they can, but they may not want to. It assumes that the
growth will mean more traffic. It assumes that the traffic will go through the
surrounding neighborhoods and it assumes that the neighborhoods will be modified to
accommodate the traffic. And then the scope as written, what it sounds like the t -GEIS
will do is. explore how we will modify the neighborhoods to support Cornell- bound
traffic. So essentially, it ahs all these four assumptions that are not valid, and then the
last thing is essentially the t -GEIS becomes a road map on how to lower the quality of
life in the Town of Ithaca. It assumes it's inevitable, which I think is unfortunate, I
would much rather say we're going to improve the quality of life in the Town of Ithaca
and we are going to reduce the traffic impact, and. I think that would be a much more
fun project to be involved with, and I think it would be great. if Cornell were an active
participant'.; in this, since most of its employees actually live in the Ithaca area. And I
think you guys can make it happen. Unfortunately, I think the GEIS is going to have to
be modified heavily to make it happen, because of course, it was written for the wrong
purpose.
This, is what Kathy showed last time, I started to refer to before, over the past
30 years, she has the Cornell population had grown about 25% or so, the overall
Cornell population. Half . of that though, is students, students don't do a lot of
commuting. Cornell keeps telling us they live on campus, they don't have cars, and for
the most part it's true. The commuting is done by the employees, who live off campus,
drive to work, drive home. That's what causes the traffic problem. If you just look at
her graph from a month ago, at the employees, the employees didn't grow by around
25 %, the employees grew by closer to 50 %, and I predict that is a more accurate
predictor of what would happen with Cornell's growth. In fact, Forest Home has been
doing traffic, I've been counting traffic in Forest Home since 1.974. For the past 30
years, the amount of north ,south traffic flow through forest home has, over the two
bridges, if you add them up, that's essentially north, it's grown by close to 50 %. So our
traffic has grown, more or less in step with Cornell's employee growth. Not the total
population,, but the employees. So I suspect that that would be a much better measure
to use than the overall population. Which brings up the obvious question, why aren't
We: :
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
traffic counts from the past 30 years part of this project? Shouldn't they be? Wouldn't
that be a good way to predict? Instead of looking just at what the population or the
employees, how about what traffic counts have been doing? Again, they have that big
cordon they drew all around -the greater campus, I imagine if you looked through the
county or the Town's records, you would be able to find from 30 years ago, or whatever
you wanted, what the traffic counts were, and what they are now, and you could see
how much they have been increasing, and this would give you an estimate of how.
much you might increase in the future, so I think that would be a recommendation of
mine is to include those.
I should note that Cornell's traffic goes way beyond just the commuting,
realistically. If Cornell hires somebody, if they hire someone, they get a household,
they don't just get one commuter. Each household...
[tape is changed]
Chairperson Wilcox — We are running late, so...
Mr. D. Brittain — I know. I thank you. So if there are 10 trips, per household per day, 2
of them arIe to and from work, lets say. The other 8 are the spouse going to work and
coming home, the kid going to school and coming back, Johnny going off and playing
football with someone else.. They go to a concert in the evening. They go to the.P &C.
These all add up. So even if Cornell, as an employer, makes them walk, you will still
end up with an increase in traffic in the Ithaca area. So the people who complain about
West Hill and stuff are right. It does. The whole area. 80% of the impact is not just
commuting. That is important to keep in mind and to understand.
Intersection analysis, as I have said before, if you are not going to make the
intersections bigger, you don't need to do a level of service analysis. You can save
time.. You only need to do it at the intersections that you are willing to enlarges that
you think scan handle more traffic. I note that Cornell did not propose doing that in
central campus. For instance, they are not analyzing Tower Road and East Ave, or
Tower Road and Judd Falls, Why? Well, I presume that they don't think that handling
more traffic is a high priority for central campus and I would agree. It is also not a high
priority for the center of our little neighborhoods surrounding the same standard I
would like to be held to. So what data should you collect? I'm going to let Bruce talk
about that. But I think that what you need rather than the level of service is stuff,
which you feel on the Planning Board, would allow you to decide does, do these
neighborhoods have enough traffic already. Or on the other hand since the fact that
you are pursuing this project maybe it is obvious that you think it is already enough.
And what we need to do instead is to come up with ideas ,for how to help Cornell. to
reduce its traffic, single occupancy or otherwise and I think you should be able to do
that. Come up with ideas that allow them to do it, whether they do plan to shrink or to
grow or to say the same size.
So the traffic impacts overall to summarize, on the Town, include the impact of
traffic, which Kathy.is dealing with some of, but not all. The impact of pedestrians and
.•
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
bikes, a little bit of it has been dealt with, but not much. The impact of neighborhoods,
which is totally ignored. And the impact of the Town and county governments, which .
also seems to be ignored. I think that .if Cornell built its own roads then the Town
wouldn't be stuck with more maintenance costs, etc for Cornell's impact. So I would
hope that this actually does address all the issues that you modify it so that it does and
keep in mind that the best way to avoid traffic impact is to avoid the traffic. If you do
that, I think we will all be very proud of you. Thank you very much and good luck with
the scope and I hope you get home before Midnight.
Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road
It gives me great pleasure to be here this evening and talk about two of most important
things to me, which are traffic and Forest Home. As Trevor mentioned earlier, Forest
Home is the only residential neighborhood within the area of hypothetical population
growth figure one. We. are completely surrounded by Cornell, by Cornell campus,
plantations and golf course, and therefore this project is of particular interest to us. As
someone else mentioned, I too, was pleased to read in the SEAR,. positive declaration
that the TGEIS is being undertaken "jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the
Town of Ithaca" and that "the TGEIS will address transportation impacts on the
community' surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to
Cornell ". So I was looking forward to something that ... but I was somewhat
disappointed to actually read the TGEIS to see both what was there and what was
missing. It does seem to be largely, Cornell's part is there moving vehicles to campus.
One of Cornell's goals is to have a best in class transportation system, which I think is
fine, but what seems to be missing is the Town's part. The Town's goal in having a
best in class residential neighborhoods. There really isn't much in the way of
measuring `and addressing the transportation impacts in residential neighborhoods that
surround campus. Specifically, the draft scope contains no framework for detailed
measurements and analysis of the impacts of existing traffic, of anticipated traffic, and
of the mitigation measures for traffic in residential areas. Section 3.1.4.4, description
Cornell Commutant Traffic in Surrounding Residential Neighborhoods, does list several
impacted neighborhoods, but this is under the general heading of vehicular circulation.
So I think we need a new heading, perhaps 11.6 Existing Traffic Impacts in
Surrounding Residential Neighborhoods. Language could and should be added
specifying which measures will be used in determining the impacts of traffic on each of
these neighborhoods. These measures could include vehicle speeds that are something
that Faye I' mentioned earlier. Vehicle volumes, percent trucks and buses, house
setback, sound level at median house setback, sound level at the sidewalk or shoulder.
area, air quality, pollution, gaps in traffic. These are important., How long do you have
to wait until there is a gap long enough so that you can cross.the road to check your
mail or that you can back out of your driveway. How wide is the road that directly
affects how long it takes you to cross the road to get to a neighbor's house or to check
your mailbox and so on. There are several of these factors, which could and should be
included in there. That is for the existing conditions, similarly, I think we need a new
section, Impact of Hypothetical of Cornell Population Growth Scenario in Surrounding
VA
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Residential Neighborhoods. There is a section, 4.2.4.4, Description of Impact on
Neighborhoods, but as Trevor and Doug, I guess both mentioned, this falls under the
general heading of impact on existing circulation. It is fine to examine the impact of
increased traffic on circulation, but we also need to examine the impacts on residential
communities and there is a huge difference. I'm sure you understand that there is a
huge difference between evaluating affects of traffic on neighborhoods and evaluating
the affects of traffic on other traffic.
Finally on this same line of thought, the existing section, 5.1.2.3, Description of
Potential Mitigation Strategies for Surrounding Residential Neighborhoods needs to be
greatly expanded. Again, I think we need to look at the same list that I mentioned.
before, vehicle speed, volume percent trucks, to see what sort of mitigations can be
taken to address the various aspects of traffic impact on the neighborhoods. So that is
sort of that general line of thought. Other suggestions, I guess Trevor mentioned that
the scope specifically excludes visual resources, air quality, and historical resources.
Those are very important to Forest Home and should be included. Section 3.1.1,
Relationship to Other Current Long Range Transportation Planning Efforts, I think the
Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, which is pending, could be tucked into that section. i
am going to skip Ithis next one. Section 3.1.4.4, lists several affected residential
neighborhoods. Someone earlier mentioned East Ithaca. I think Pine Tree and
Honness Road neighborhoods should be included there.
Table 1 lists the intersections to be evaluated according to criteria. Caldwell
Road /Route 366 intersection I think should be included on that. Why don't I stop there.
I have brought some traffic count information, historic traffic count information from
Forest Home. We recently did a truck count and I have the current draft of the
Executive Summary the Traffic Calming Plan. So I can share this with you just so
that information is available. I'll stop there and I thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you want to give me your written copy or not? That is up to
you or were they just your notes?
Mr. B. Brittain — These were my notes' and Doug and I actually worked on this
individually. We can try to get something to you. When would you like that by?
Chairperson Wilcox — Written comments are do by December 16tH
Mr. B. Brittain — We can do that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who's next?
Jane Marchum, 414 E Buffalo'Street
I have lived there for 40 years despite the increase in traffic.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you currently serving on a public board?
71
Ms. Marchum - I am currently serving on the City Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Ms. Marchum — When I first heard about this study, I thought that means that Cornell
may be bracing fora major expansion and maybe now the Apple Orchard will finally get
built to the max so. we are in for some changes. Anything the University does, of
course, has a major impact on City neighborhoods as well as Town. neighborhoods and
I would like to second what Joel Zumoff said in that regard. So I am rather glad that
this study is being done. I hope that it will have the affect of reducing whatever impact
there may be. I do have some suggestions for the impact statement. On page 6, there
are 4 scenarios and .I would like to suggest a 5th, covering the years 1995 to 20055 I
don't know what the growth. is in those years but it might be likely to continue in the
same direction. On page 7, talking about impact of the growth scenarios on parking
where it says, this' is 4.2.5.2, off campus on street parking and I would like to say on
street and off street parking. Both I think are of great concern to City neighborhoods.
On page 8, again, under potential mitigation strategies for impact to parking, 5.1.3,
where it says off campus on street and off street parking, and I wonder whether
anything related to parking structures fits into the study in any way. I'm not just sure
where it fits. The City is thinking nowadays of investigating the possibility of expanding
the Dryden Road parking ramp and perhaps even building a parking structure in
Collegetown. This, it seems to me, should fit into the study. in some way and I'm. not
sure just where. When it comes to ... oh, there was mention of carpooling on page 8.
Kathryn Wolf mentioned carpooling or reducing single occupancy of vehicles. I don't
.know whether thati means an investigation of carpool strategies, but I should think that
that should be specified maybe somewhere on that list in 5.1.2.
When it came to intersections, I noticed that for one thing the intersections on.
Green Street did not show up here at all and I thought that was strange because Green
Street is surely a major artery leading to the campus. So I would suggest adding about
5 more intersections for study, West Green and. Fulton, West Green Meadow, West
Green and Albany, Green and Cayuga, major intersection in the City and very
troublesome one. Then Seneca and Cayuga somehow didn't get on the list either. So
those are my suggestions and I would like to say that this study seems to me to be an
abstract exercise and to the good, I guess, but when it comes to something definite
and concrete, I think you can count on the City being a major player. They will just
have to be.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to be next? I am not sure who is left.
Kathryn Gleason, 206 Pine Tree Road
I am here in my capacity as a faculty member at Cornell, but also chair of the Adhoc
Committee on Sustainable Transportation, which is listed among the group of
constituents in the report. I wanted to just speak publicly that our group was formed
as a result of the Redbud Woods Controversy by the President and the protestors in
72
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
their agreement. And part of the aim of this committee's charge, was to prevent
scenarios like this from happening again. So the committee is looking in part to come
up with ideas to reduce single car use to reduce the need for any further parking lot
development on campus,. but it became clear to us immediately that we were really
looking at the broader transportation scenario on campus and with the neighborhoods.
So our group is only functioning until May. We are serving as a clearinghouse for ideas
and to be very proactive. We are not constrained by the TGEIS governmental structure
so we welcome comments and ideas that can feed into this. process, but we can serve
as a filter and think through and follow up on ideas that come to us and so I wanted to
provide the groups website, which is http:media.cce.cornelI,edu /hosts /estn. It is an.
interactive site through moodle. So we can take suggestions. Part of our charge is to
engage in the TGEIS process and to encourage our fellow faculty, staff, and students to
become aware of this process, become aware of its proactive nature, and bring to the
table progressive ideas for this process. It is one where I think many of us can come
up with solutions and ideas for solutions rather than see this as a kind of them and us
tension, however one frames that. I think that was all If you need a representative or
a contact person on the Pine Tree Road community group, we do meet very rarely, but
I would like to add the Pine Tree Road community association to the group.
Board Member Mitrano — I have a fast question. Sometimes long urls are difficult to
remember. If you had to give 3 key words on search engine that would most likely get
it in the first 3 hits, what would you recommend?
Ms. Gleason — If you put sustainability at Cornell, you will hit a web page that lists most
of the groups now dealing with sustainability at Cornell and our group has an initial
front page listing that would take you into our website where information can be added.
Robert Boothright, 807 North Cayuga Street
Like Jane, I am a member of the City Planning Board and you folks have my sympathy.
But aside from that, in reading the draft for traffic mediation for Cornell University and
the stated purpose of it, which is to reduce single car riderships, what jumped out at
me and what Jane Marchum mentioned was single ridership vehicles. My profession
took me out of town early in the morning over the years and I made it a point to count
the vehicles coming into the City and the number of people in them. Nine out of 10
vehicles only had 1 person driving the vehicle. That is a national statistic also. I didn't
believe it to begin with, but I do now. I believe the Chamber of Commerce said that
there are some 7,000 vehicles a day coming into Tompkins County. That does not
count the vehicles that come to work, but coming into Tompkins County. So if we can
change the statistic from 1 in 9 to 1 in 6 that would be 1500 or 2000 or more vehicles
we wouldn't have to deal with to park. So to me that is anything that Cornell could do
further or any incentives to me would certainly go a long way to serving the problem.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you have any recommendations?
73
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
Mr. Boothright — My experience, my limited experience and observation is that financial
incentives work best.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Joann Cornish, City of Ithaca Planning Department
I am also a resident of the Town of Ithaca. I live on West Hill. So I am going to speak
in a couple of different capacities. I would like to say that it is a little bit unfortunate
that the scoping session was put on a .night when you had such a heavy agenda. This
is a critically important document and movement and it is unfortunate that we had to
squeeze it in. Also unfortunate is the fact that the University Neighborhoods Council
meeting was this evening, direct conflict with this. I think we would have seen more
people had.these two meetings not been on the same night.
I would just like to state that much of the Cornell commuting traffic does do
through downtown' Ithaca. So I want to be sure that downtown Ithaca gets is share of
study. It is critically important for everyone in this county to understand the
importance of downtown and the traffic problems that we have encountered, much of
which is Cornell related. I also would like to reiterate what Faye said in that education
in the community is critically important. The students have to understand that they are
part of a community. I think speeding is an issue. Cell phone use is an issue and the
fact that they are living in a- community with neighborhoods is an issue that needs to be
stressed inii an outreach program. It also needs to be enforced, which is certainly part
of the City responsibility.
I just have a couple of other things. I do think air quality is an issue that should
be addressed. Certainly traffic is one of our biggest contributors to air quality concern.
A couple of things that came up as I was sitting there is one is I don't know where it
fits in, but, construction related traffic is a huge impact on our community, certainly.
through our neighborhoods. Going up to Cornell, coal delivery to Cornell, I s a huge
impact on our neighborhoods as is truck traffic and bus traffic so I am hoping those
things can be incorporate somewhere in the study. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox— Who wants to be next?
Board Member Mitrano — It might be worth noting to the public, Fred, that because of
the very heavy schedule that we have had, this is actually the 3rd week in a row that we
have met trying to'' accommodate and we have gone past 10 o'clock on all 3 meetings.
So it has just been an unusually...
Chairperson Wilcox = Which is why I thank the public for being so patient.
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public. hearing at 10:25 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — The recommendation has been made that we might want to hold
a second public scoping session in early January. The intent is not to give everyone a
74
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
second bite at the apple, but to potentially give those people who could not attend the
opportunity. Anything you want to say, Kathryn, at this point?
Ms. Wolf — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know when the minutes will become available. I am sure
you will .want a copy of the draft minutes. I know you are feverishly taking. notes..
Contact Carrie and I am sure you will get a copy of the draft minutes when they
become available. Comments over here? We are all set then.
2006 PLANNING ''' °BOARD SCHEDULE
MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
RESOLVED,. that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does
adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2006. Unless
otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each
month, commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m.
SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 3, 2006 January 17, 2006
February 7, 2006 February 21, 2006
March 7, 2006 March 21, 2006
April 4, 2006 April 18, 2006
May 2, 2006 May 16, 2006
June 6, 2006 June 20, 2006
- - July 18 2006
August 1, 2006 August 15, 2006
September 5, 2006 September 19, 2006
October 3, 2006 October 17, 2006
November 7, 2006 November 21, 2006
December 5, 2006 December 19, 2006
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Connemara, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
75
Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2005
Approved
2006 CHAIR RECOMMENDATION
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005 -Z23s 2006 P/annin4 Board Chair Recommendation
To Town Board
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board
that Fred Wilcox III, be appointed as chair of the Planning Board for the year 2006.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES.• Hoffmann, Connemara, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: None.
ABSTAIN: Wilcox.
The motion was declared to be carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox mentioned that the year end luncheon is Friday, December 30th,
1:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn.
Mr. Kanter informed the board that Conifer Realty would be on the December 20tH
agenda. Some items will need to be moved from the 12/20 meeting to the 1/3/06
meeting. Mr. Kanter gave an overview of the agenda items coming up before the
board.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox, adjourns the December 6, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 10:31
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rrie Co es itmore
Deputy Town Clerk
76
1
Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement - preliminary
Draft Scope as of November 15, 20056
"Concerns & Questions from Forest Home Improvement Association"
We welcome the opportunity to comment upon the Draft Scope. While recognizing the
importance to Cornell of establishing the impact of different traffic scenarios on its
employees and students, the problem with the current draft is that it seems to be focused
on moving people and goods to and from campus, rather than on the actual impacts that
such traffic could have on residential neighborhoods close to Cornell such as ours. In
fact, a description of the impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods is mentioned
only once (4.2.4.4), under the general heading of Impacts of Growth on Vehicular
Circulation.
Also, the Draft Scopes specifically states that it will not analyze air quality or historical
resources, yet air pollution could be a significant impact of increased traffic on our
historic little hamlet.
Also we would like to suggest that information of traffic accidents be included within the
Scope — such information would provide another window into the impact on pedestrians,
bicycles and cars of changes in traffic flows, roads, bicycle paths etc.
Our specific suggestions are:
1. On page 1 is a list of impacts that will NOT be addressed by the. study.
Included in that list are "visual resources," "air quality" and "historical
and archaeological resources." For Forest Home, these are indeed of interest
and importance, as is noise. We would propose that these be deleted from the
paragraph in question and included among the issues that WILL be addressed,
either in list form or under the general heading "quality of life in
affected neighborhoods." For the residents of Forest Home, an increase in
noise and/or air pollution would significantly affect our quality of life,
as would projects that substantially alter the aesthetic or historical
character of the neighborhood.
2. On page 4 or 5, where existing traffic conditions in various
neighborhoods are listed as factors to be addressed by the study, we would
propose that a line be added to include the consideration of "existing plans
for traffic calming or mitigation, expansion or reconfiguration of
pedestrian or bicycle lanes, changes in parking facilities, etc." Forest
Home has put a great deal of effort into .a comprehensive traffic calming
plan, and this must be considered when traffic or parking mitigation
strategies are discussed.
ATTACHMENT #1
',PLANNING BOARD.MEETING DECEMBER 61 2005
2
3. We would like to propose that data on traffic accidents be included within the Scope
document. These data would provide further information as to the likely impact of
different transportation scenarios.
4. Under Section 4.2:4, we would like to add a description of the impact of increased
traffic on problematic sections of road such as for example the sharp curve between the..
bridges in Forest Home.
5. Lastly we are unclear as to who gets to choose the mitigation measure if a problem
results from increased traffic. If the GEIS is accepted with a list of potential mitigations,
someone has to choose from the accepted list. What criteria will be used? (Will the
choice be based on which is cheapest? Which is best for the neighborhood? Which gets
traffic through the fastest ?) More information on this process could helpfully be included
in the Scope document.
7:00 P.M.
7:05 P.M.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York .14850
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
AGENDA
Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
SEQR Determination: Drake 13 -Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road.
7 :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
13 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362
Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 274-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The
proposal involves the construction of a new cul -de -sac road off Mecklenburg Road for the
development of 12 residential lots and one +/- 2.0 -acre area reserved for open space. .
Approximately 62 acres of the original +/- 92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for
agricultural use. The applicant is also seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Lot No. 1
located directly on Mecklenburg Road. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P.
Fabbroni; P.E.; L.S., Agent.
7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Rite Aid
Pharmacy ( +/- 14,564 square feet), which is the first phase of the redevelopment of the Judd
Falls Plaza properties located at 322 -350 Pine Tree Road and 930 and 946 Mitchell Street,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 1 -3.2, 62- 1 -2.2, and 62 -1 -1, Community Commercial
"Zone. The proposal includes removing the existing plaza and construction of new
stormwater facilities, parking, landscaping, and lighting. Future phases of development will
consist of up to 30,000 square feet of additional retail, office, or other commercial space.
Susan Hamilton, Owner; Ellicott Development Company for 1093 Group, LLC, Applicant;
William A. Paladino, Agent,
8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated
November 15, 2005) for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies
(TIMS) and the associated transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(t -GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca.. The t-
GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related
to an increasing population traveling to 2Comell. The TIMS will evolve in response. to the
feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for
transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and
circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge.
Copies of the Draft Scope outline are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North
Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (607- 273 - 1747), or on the website for,this project:
www.tgeisproject.org.
8:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, Conifer Drive.
8 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary
Subdivision Approval and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change
for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community proposal consisting of a seventy-
two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located
on an 9.0 + / -.acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and III,
OVER
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
t Tuesday, December 6, 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 on Tuesday, December 6, 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 Subdivision Approval for the proposed 13 -lot subdivision:
located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2, Agricultural. Zone. The proposal involves the
construction of a new cul -de -sac road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12
residential lots and one +/- 2.0 -acre area reserved for open space. Approximately 62
acres of the original +/- 92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for agricultural use. The
applicant is also seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Lot No. 1 located directly on
Mecklenburg Road, Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S.,
Agent.
t
7:25 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy ( +/
14,564 square feet), which is the first phase of the redevelopment of the Judd Falls Plaza
properties located at 322 -350 Pine Tree Road and 930 and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 1 -3.2, 62- 1 -2.2, and 62 -1 -1, Community Commercial Zone.
The proposal includes removing the existing plaza and construction of new stormwater
facilities, parking, landscaping, and lighting. Future phases of development will consist
of up to 30,000 square feet of additional retail, office, or other commercial space. Susan
Hamilton, Owner; Ellicott Development Company for 1093 Group, LLC, Applicant;
William A. Paladino, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November 15, 2005) for the proposed
Ten -year Transportation Impact. Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and the associated
transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) being jointly
undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address
transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing
population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback
obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for transportation
demand management, . multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation
modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of
the Draft Scope outline are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, NY (607- 273 - 1747), or on the website for this project:
www.tgeisproj ect.ora.
8:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval and
a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change for the Conifer Village '
Ithaca Senior Living Community proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit
independent- living rental project for seniors 55 years of age' and older, located on an 9.0
+/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax
Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be developed into a residential
subdivision in the future. The proposal involves a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story
R "W
. /`n `
<
.
%
own'
/
rVI
nsts
.
.
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: December 6, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
P
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
Tv I( i
kv
( v ( C L '2
, !N
1 -
dz
A* A24 COY
J v✓ .A -.Tw1 , J
?LAS o 135 132
sir, L`, iV11�11 fl� c�I�G (.
c
SIGN-IN SHEET
DATE: December 6, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT AD ORES S /AFFILIATION
t
s�
cvT c A ,JE-
7TlW\"
=
g oC- i��jJ.I
yr
13�_ _
z
zD �.
ceo cl
wrc S6 hr
��1 5. �i��U3 _ Siti #t 101
DZ
—Tal wta+4
ra
ewtzcs�
3SOV\ �tvLa`C'L
�so
X06: j
A4
j
C&t( 5b
At-
t
s�
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
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date
of Posting:
November
28,
2005
Date
of Publication:
November
30,2005
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30`x' day of November 2005.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 Ne