Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-02-07FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Members George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Towns Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS Vincent Nicotra, QPK Designs Herman Sieverding, IAD; Jonathan Miller, 4 The Byway; Bruce and Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects; Deborah Perotti, 310 Forest Home Drive; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Bill Wendt, Cornell University; Tim Moore, Washington, DC; Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Road; Tony Egner, Egner Architectural Associates; Gordon Nickerson, Genex. 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 January 30, 2006 and February 1, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on February 1, 20066 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. . Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 634-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/= 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. The proposal also requires a recommendation "to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant. , Chairperson Wilcox — Once again I will point out to members of the board, Town Attorney and those in the audience that I both live in and work in a building owned by IAD. The floor is yours. Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition Development Good evening. My name is Herman Sieverding. I am with Integrated Acquisition Development, 15 Thornwood Drive, Ithaca. We are here for final site plan approval for the proposed project on Pine Tree Road. We submitted a final site plan review package that addresses each of the conditions that you attached to the resolution granting preliminary approval in the order in which they appear in that resolution. This the time that this packet was prepared and submitted to staff to send on to you, two things have resolved themselves. They were open issues at the time that we did the submission. The first was the fire department final review and approval of the entrance driveway and circulation plan and making sure that their fire trucks could get into and adequately circulate around the site. Dave Herrick and I met several times with Tom Parson, I think you now have a letter, Jon has a letter, dated February 3, 2006 where Tom has finally agreed and approved of the site plan. The second was at the time of preparing this package, there was some question regarding the location of the crosswalk of the proposed sidewalk that we would be building on the east side of Pine Tree Road, across Pine Tree Road to hook up with the sidewalk along Maple Avenue. The County Highway Department has some concerns about the proposed location of that crosswalk, sight lines, speed of traffic, volume of traffic, and felt that it should have been shifted to the south. In the intervening time, Town Highway Department staff, County Highway Department staff has met on the site to review the situation. I think Susan, in her cover memo to you, sort of addressed the resolution to that question, which is move it .140 or so feet to the south, which is fine with us. Splitting the sidewalk and building a portion of it on the west side of Pine Tree Road as long as by the time that we get to that point somebody can assure us that it is all within the County right -of -way for Pine Tree and we don't need to get into any land acquisition discussion with East Long Cemetery. Other than. that, I think everything 2 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved that we have put together in this package responds very directly to this resolution so we have prepared that we can go through, but I'm not sure it is really necessary. We are here to address any questions you may have about what we submitted. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Board Member Thayer — Are you going to have some samples of the materials? Mr. Sieverding — We brought that to the previous meeting. Board Member Thayer — Okay. You haven't changed that? Mr. Sieverding — No. We have not. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I just have a comment. I was out, on West Hill this afternoon and as I was driving by on Trumansburg Road I noticed that some of the buildings...I specifically noticed that Alterra had a small sign, but it was very clear and visible. _ Earlier in the day I saw the sign for Ciser, the existing building there and it looked very large. How does the size of the sign that you are proposing to put along Pine Tree Road compare to the Ciser sign in size? Mr. Sieverding — If I remember the Ciser sign correctly, I think it is higher, a little bit narrower, and a little bit taller than what we are proposing. The sign that we are proposing is relatively low and I think an easier comparison in terms of getting a sense of what the sign is going to look like is to look that the signs that are on the median at. the entrance to East Hill Plaza. It is very low. It is rectangular and I think Susan and I have discussed several times in terms of how this size is measured and the way I read the ordinance, I think the sign that we are proposing in the median is 271/2 square feet rather than 381/2 square feet that is suggested in the memo, therefore, not .much larger than. what is allowed, which is 24 square feet. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing that makes a difference because I purposely looked at all the signs in the area as I went by is the color of the sign and it happens that the Ciser sign is pure white with black letters on it and it really stands out whereas the sign into the Equestrian and Tennis Center area is maybe the same size, but it is dark brown with light lettering on it and the sign does not stand out so much. I also think that the signs that lead into East Hill Plaza have a dark background rather than a very light background. It makes them blend in. better. You can still read what it says on them, but it makes them blend in with the background and I would hope that you take that into account when you prepare the signs. The other question that I had about the signs, I understand that maybe you don't know what they are going to say 3 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved quite yet, but the ones that you show pictures of say the street address on Pine Tree Road and says Cornell University. Mr. Sieverding — It says Cornell University in sort of large letters. They are &inch letters. Then under that it will say, right now it says 391, but I guess the address now is going to be 395 Pine Tree Road and that is all that it will say. Board Member Hoffmann — Wouldn't it be enough if it just said 391? Mr. Sieverding — No. I think Cornell wants to identify this as their building on Pine Tree Road. Board Member Hoffmann — But it doesn't identify the building. It just says Cornell University so it still doesn't help someone who is looking for a specific building. Mr. Sieverding I think it helps them identify that at that driveway by entrance to the Cornell. building, which is further into the site. Then when you get into the site on that entry circle in front of the building, there is that second sign that says 391 Pine Tree Road. Then all the signs at the entrances that tell you who the occupants of that building area. I think that there needs to be something at the intersection of the site driveway and Pine Tree Road to identify that you drive down with rather long driveway, 600 feet long, to get to this Cornell building. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am just concerned about this profusion of signs that will be there. There is the Ciser. There is this sign. The Olivia sign. There is going to be a sign to the carwash. It seems like a lot of big signs there. So whatever you can do to make them not so intrusive into the streetscape would be very good. Mr. Sieverding — Okay. Board Member Conneman - I have a question about the crosswalk. It is just going to be striped? Nothing else? Mr. Sieverding — Yes. Striped and nothing else. Board Member Conneman — I am impressed, as I said before at our previous meetings with what they have done downtown Ithaca where they have raised it somewhat, which makes it in my opinion,. a heck of a lot safer, but I ... that is a busy road as you probably know. Mr. Sieverding — Yeah. Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Was that your decision or the County's decision to stripe it? 0 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Sieverding — I think it was something that we recommended in the traffic plan. As a safety consideration, I think it is a good idea to at least indicate to cars going by that that is a crosswalk and. hopefully they slow down. Chairperson Wilcox — I will just look over to staff. Comments over here at all? Ms. Ritter - I'm good. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. All set over here for now? Board Member Hoffmann — One more comment. At the latest meeting of the Conservation Board of the Town, somebody mentioned that there is some recent information about buildings like this, which have very large windows and problems with birds crashing into them.. I have never heard about this before. I don't know if any of the rest of you has heard about it. I know what I do at home, I pick up these decals of birds of prey and that stops the young birds from flying into my windows, trying to sort of fly through my house. You probably, I know that's something that you could.do in this building to prevent a lot of birds from killing themselves trying to get through your building because of those nice big windows making it look like you can fly through. Mr. Sieverding - That is not a problem that I am familiar with. Board Member Hoffmann — We have some people on the Conservation Board who are very knowledgeable about birds. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Herman, do you want to take a seat? .Mr. Sieverding — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. and invites the public to address the board. With no persons present wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the. public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Howe seconds the motion. Ms. Brock — On the second page, under the resolved, it is going to be 1d. It says submission of record of application approval status of all necessary permits. I think that word status should come out. This was something that we actually talked about last time, too, right? We want submission of the approvals themselves, not just an update on the status. In e, it says... 5 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go on, we don't need documentation from the City Fire Department any more, but it doesn't hurt to leave it there. Ms. Brock — You have it already? Chairperson Wilcox — We have it already there, yes. Ms. Brock — I think it is fine to leave it there. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Ms. Brock — Under e, it says said sidewalk is to terminate at a location on the east side of Pine Tree Road. I just didn't know if you wanted to be more specific here or whether you are content to just leave it that way. Chairperson Wilcox — What do we have that actually...we have a hand drawn... Ms. Ritter — That hand drawn shows 200 feet, but that is not where the agreed location was and I hesitated to give a number. I think it is around 140 feet, but I didn't want to put a number in there because it hasn't actually been measured out on the site just with GIS I measured it and I am not positive it is correct. Ms. Brock — Could we say said sidewalk is to terminate at a location satisfactory to Town Planning staff? Ms. Ritter — Or our highway. Chairperson Wilcox — Actually it is the County highway department and our Town highway department. Ms. Ritter — I would say Town Highway Superintendent and County. Highway Superintendent. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe one should indicate that it should end opposite where it is supposed to begin on the other side, which is more specified. Ms. Ritter — Essentially, it is just south of the northern cemetery driveway entrance, across the street. It should end across the street. It is a lot of words to say. Ms. Brock — So said sidewalk is to terminate at a location satisfactory to the County and Town Highway Superintendents and then if you, on the east side of Pine Tree Road, and to begin...do you want to say directly opposite on the west side? Is that correct? So just add the words "directly opposite" before on the west side. Then under g, in the Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved second line, so what it says the two signs located at the rear and front building entrances contain language other than the identity of the department or unit that will. occupy the office building. Actually, the exemption is for university buildings so I think we need to say. other than the identity of the university department or unit t -that- will occupy the office building because what if for some reason they don't put in a university department or unit and they put in some other non - university office, so I think if we add the word "university" we are going to be covered there. One more question under c. We need a submission of a letter or document stating that Cornell University has agreed to maintain the new sidewalk. Do we need to say that they have agreed to build and maintain or is Cornell not actually the one building it? Is IAD building it? I'm not quite sure what is going on in terms of ownership. Who owns it? Who builds it? Who maintains it? Mr. Sieverding — We are building it. Then Cornell will own it and maintain it. Ms. Brock — Okay. So would it be accurate to say that Cornell University has agreed to have built on its behalf, and thereafter own and maintain... that we know with liability and things like that. Board Member Hoffmann — Could we add a condition saying something about the color of the sign so that it is not as noticeable as the Ciser sign that's there now by choice of color? Ms. Brock — Can we do that? Ms. Ritter — That would be a personal taste almost. Ms. Brock — As the design review board, do they have that act in the capacity to do that kind of thing? Does that apply? Chairperson Wilcox — We can make recommendations to the Zoning Board. Mr.. Kanter — Sign detail, colors, sizes, the whole works. Board Member Hoffmann — I just think that with the signs that I looked at it was very striking that the signs that I looked at that were darker did not stick in my eye as much as the sign for Ciser for instance which was pure white. So I would think if the signs that are to go up would be in a darker color that would help make them not so obtrusive. Mr. Sieverding — The sign panel is dark brown with light backlit letters. It is not white. 7 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, they are lit. I thought that they were not supposed to be lit? Mr. Kanter — They are note Ms. Ritter — It is not allowed in a residential zone, but they are going to be going for a variance for it. That was one of the list of variances that they would need. Mr. Sieverding — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — So additional variances now. Mr. Sieverding — So it is a dark bronze background with punched out white letters. So it is very subtle. We use it all the time. It sort of blends into the background. .It doesn't jump out at you when ... yet because they are white backlit letters you can read what the sign says. Board Member Conneman — Sounds good to me. Ms. Brock — And the colors were specified in the drawings? Mr. Sieverding — Yes. Ms. Brock — So the sign has to be built as shown in the drawings. So you will get those colors. So if they want to change them they would have to come back. Mr. Sieverding — On the 11 by 17 drawings, there are pictures of the sign in the package. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So Rod and Kevin, those changes are acceptable? Okay. Any further discussion? Susan, you are all set? Okay. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion. PS RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -014; Final Site Plan Approval and Sign Board Review Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Cornell University Pine Tree Road Office Building Tax Parcel No, 634"3.4 and 62- 243.2 MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS; Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and a Sign Review Board Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located due east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of _- - Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -3.4 and 62 -2 -13.2, Low Density - Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several dilapidated barns and other structures associated with the previous agricultural livestock operation and constructing a new three story, 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces Cornell University, Owner, Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant, and . 2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, did at a special meeting held on November 29, 2005, make. a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a special meeting held on November 29, 2005, did grant preliminary site plan approval and special permit for the proposal and, 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on December 19, 2005, did issue a height variance for the proposed project and, 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings and site details included in a submission entitled "Final Site Plan Review Submission, Pine Tree Office Project, 391 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY" submitted by Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., dated January 5, 2005, and other material, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Pine Tree Road Office Building located just east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -3.4 and 62=,2- 13.2 as shown on drawings and details included in the site plan submission entitled "Final Site Plan Review Submission, Pine Tree Office Project, 391 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY" dated January 5, 2006, submitted by Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp. and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign variances prior to the issuance of any building permits, and �97 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved b, submission of a stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan /Schedule for the b/oretentlon pond satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and c, submission of a letter or document stating that Cornell University has agreed to have built on its behalf, own and maintain the new sidewalk from the building to Pine Tree Road and along Pine Tree Road to the intersection with Maple Avenue to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and d. submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent for NYSDEC, and curb cut permit from Tompkins County Highway, and documentation from the Ithaca City Fire Department that access plans pertaining to fire and emergency services are acceptable, and e, modification of the final site plan drawings showing the revised location of the sidewalk and crosswalk along Pine Tree Road. Said sidewalk is to terminate at a location satisfactory to the Town and County Highway Superintendents on the east side of Pine Tree Road, and to begin directly opposite on the west side of Pine Tree Road, just south of the northern cemetery driveway entrance, terminating at Maple Avenue, and f, submission of one original set of the revised final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and g, if the two signs located at the rear and front building entrances contain language other than the identity of the University department or unit that will occupy the office building, then the sign details need to be submitted to the Town for review, and determination as to whether they still meet the criteria for an "exempt " sign. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED,• 1. That the Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed sign variances for the Pine Tree Road Office Project, for the sign locations shown on drawing C101 (Layout Plan) and sign details shown on drawings C107, C108, and C109 (Site Identification Slgnage) in the "Final Site Plan Submission Pine Tree Office Project, 391 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY" dated January 5, 2006': 10 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:23 p.m. SEQR Genex Monsanto Building Addition, 521 Sheffield Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Name and address when you first speak. Professional address works fine and then if you are going to be alternately speaking, just a name would be just fine to help out when we transcribe the minutes. Anton Egner, Egner Architectural Associates I am Anton Egner and professional address is 408 West State Street. It is corrected from last time, as you remember. I have with me Gordon Nickerson from Genex. The materials that we sent you I think pretty well explain the level that we are at. We have gone beyond that level and we met with the Fire Chief, the Assistant Fire Chief, Tom Parsons, and met with the gas and electric people because we had a problem moving a power line, as you may have picked up on the drawing. There was a. power pole right next to the drive that we proposed. So we met this morning and they are going to pivot that pole, essentially, just to make it simple to the west, using the same lines, hopefully, that they have on the previous pole, which is about 300 feet away and put is on the bank west of the building and west of where it is now. We proposed to add a pole to the north of that just beyond the building addition so we will drop from there to service the building underground and then come into the new building and our main service will now be in the new building and we will serve the primary building, the old building, from this new entrance. The information there also includes that we probably are not going to have a pad- mounted transformer. The transformers will probably stay on the pole, as they are now, only a new pole. The Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chief and I talked about the road that goes through there and used to go through there. We will be extending that and we will be showing it on our documents as a phase after the temporaries are removed. So we will regrade that. It is not on our documents at this point, so you'll see it next time around. 11 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Aside from that I informed them that we were looking for a variance from the sprinkler system and I think his letter that Jon got today kind of confirms that he will support that after we give them a list of chemicals or agents that the new addition will be using. I informed him at that point that they are doing the same thing that they -did in the old building and the only real chemical we use is nitrogen gas. I say we because I have been related to them for a long time. So the nitrogen is used to freeze the semen and maintain it in a frozen condition until it is shipped away. Then it is shipped away in freezing containers so until the final use it is under a nitrogen freezing condition. Aside from that, I don't think there is any change in the building. There is no change in the building geometry. There is no change in the building's administration. There is no change in anything that we have showed you last time geometrically, even on the flat surface of the ground. I will take any questions. It was very cold up there this morning. Chairperson Wilcox — I bet you the bulls were warm. Mr. Egner — The bulls were warm. Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Questions with regard to the environmental review? Dan, do you want to talk about stormwater briefly? Mr. Walker — There really isn't too much of a problem up there. They had an existing stormwater system for when they built the original building consisting of big diversion around the building. It is sited in the middle of the hay field. So everything is being filtered pretty well. The existing area has some gravel on various surfaces on it. So it is not adding a lot of impervious surface to the site. Chairperson Wilcox — So you are comfortable with what David Herrick has stated? Mr. Walker — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — The ... in terms of the road for the driveway that has been recommended by the assistant Fire Chief, that is not currently shown on the drawings, right? Mr. Egner — That is right. Mr. Kanter — I actually have something written up if you want to add a conditions. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so we will have to deal with that when we get to the actual site plan. 12 Board Member Thayer - Ill move the SEQR. - - - -- Chairperson Wilcox So moved by - Larry Thayer. Chairperson Wilcox asks if there is any further discussion. votes on the motion. Qz2,►=7.,.a Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Seconded by Kevin -- Talty.- There being none, the board Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Tax Parcel No, 24 -5 -1, 521 Sheffield Road MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Special Permit for the proposed addition at the Genex /Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent, and 2. It has been determined that the above - described actions are Unlisted actions, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 — Environmental Quality Review, for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review, and 3. The Planning Board, at its meeting held on February 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including a letter from the Tompkins County Health Department dated December 20, 2005, a letter from T.G. Miller regarding Stormwater Management, dated December 29, 2005, a series of site and location maps for the Genex - Monsanto Building . Addition Production Center #2 labelled 4 -C (Vicinity Map), 4J (Tax Parcel 24. -5 -1), 4K (Existing Site Plan /Proposed Addition), 4L (Floor Plan, Elevations and Section), and 4M (Site Plan), all prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and date stamped received. Dec. 30, 2005, and other application materials, and 13 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved 40 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and. Special Permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced actions as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 21 located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan? Board Member Howe — No. Chairperson Wilcox — The sketch plan reviews really do make these go that much ... they really do help and we thank you for coming before and letting us see that information before. Board Member Mitrano — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - I have to give the public a chance to speak. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:29 p.m., and invites members of the public to address the board. With no persons wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 14 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Motion moved by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Conneman. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan? Ms. Brock - So on the first page where it says, now therefore be it resolved, you have 1. Then follows a listing of the different factors listed in. Section 270 -200, which are findings you have to make as to whether or not a special permit should be granted and they are all set out, but there are certain things in 270 -200 that actually aren't listed here. They are just little pieces here and there that aren't listed. I don't want anyone to infer that you are finding these things are met, but not the little pieces that have been left out. So I think all we have to do is where it says as follows: right before a and be start, just strike as follows and put in the word including and that shows that you are not meaning this to be all inclusive. Then under e, one of the factors that is listed here that you find that the operations will not be more objectionable to nearby properties, basically cause or other public nuisance by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations or elimination or other public nuisance, actually the way it is worded in the code is other potential nuisance. There are really different types of nuisances, so I think it is important that the word public be replaced by the word potential. The only other thing is on page 4, under h, which is under the be it further resolved, again, we have that word approval status and just strike the word status. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay with those changes? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Now we need the one with regard to the road. Mr. Kanter — Okay so if you want to add something. I just did wording reflecting what the fire department letter said and that is and this can be an additional.. condition j, revision of the final site plan to include the extension of the access road from the entrance on the south side of the facility that is continuous around the new building addition to the north side of the facility to connect to the existing gravel driveway back to Sheffield Road as recommended by the Ithaca City Fire Department. I can read that again if you like, but it is basically taking the wording from the letter. I think it is appropriate if the board would like to have that. The other possibility is if you also want to make reference to the submission of the list of hazardous chemicals for our receipt prior to. issuance of permits, we could do that. I think it is something that is more applicable to the fire department's review and comfort level, but if that is something you feel should be added we could certainly add it to. Chairperson Wilcox — Is this something that you want to. have? 15 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — From my understanding, the list is going to be very minimal. In fact, it probably won't include very much other than what Mr. Egner just had indicated before. Mr. Walker - I don't believe it is anything different than they are using now. Mr. Kanter — So I don't think it is necessary. I think the reference in the fire department letter is sufficient. Mr. Walker — The building code does require if you have very hazardous chemicals that you have appropriate safe guards built into your building, too. Chairperson Wilcox — So we are comfortable with the addition that )on Kanter made? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — George, you are okay with that? Board Member Conneman — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, you're all set? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NON 2006 -016: Genex /Monsanto Building Addition, Preliminary Site Plan Aavroval and Special Permit, Tax Parcel No, 24 -5 -1, 521 Sheffield Road MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS; 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed addition at the Genex /Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to housee offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent, and 16 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved 2. These are Unlisted Actions for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on February 7, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a letter from the. Tompkins County Health Department dated December 20, 2005, a letter from T.G. Miller regarding Stormwater Management, dated December 29, 2005, a series of site and location maps for the Genex- Monsanto Building Addition Production Center #2 labelled 4- C (Vicinity Map), 4J (Tax Parcel 24. -5 -1)1 4K (Existing Site Plan /Proposed Addition), 4L (Floor Plan, Elevations and Section), and 4M (Site Plan), all prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and date stamped received Dec. 30, 2005, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for the proposed Genex /Monsanto Building Addition as described above, determining that the proposal meets the standards for the granting of a special permit listed in Section 270 -200 of the Town of Ithaca Code, including: a. The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and the specific purposes, are being promoted, and b. The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and . c. The proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts su>fic%nt to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and e. Operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of no /se, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other potential nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and 17 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved f. Community infrastructure, and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and g. The proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and h. The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i. The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimentaf to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and j. The lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and k. Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainage ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and I. To the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary 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. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex /Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone, consisting of a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities, as shown on a series of site and location maps for the Genex - Monsanto Building Addition Production Center #2 labelled 4 -C (Vicinity Map), 4J (Tax Parcel 24.-54), 4K (Existing Site Plan /Proposed Addition), 4L (Floor Plan, Elevations and Section), iE? Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved and 4M (Site Plan), all prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and date stamped received Dec. 30, 2005, subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to Final Site Plan Approval, unless otherwise noted: .a. 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 b. Obtaining the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the installation and operation of an approved sprinkler system as required in Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, and C Submission of a detailed erosion and sediment control plan, including, but not necessarily limited to, the installation of silt fencing at the down gradient perimeter of site grading and disturbance, inlet protection on existing catch basins that may receive silt laden runoff, and stone check dams in the existing drainage ditch along the west edge of the site, and d. Submission of a detailed drainage plan, including, but not necessarily limited to, the modification of the existing drainage ditch along the west edge of the site to create a longer grass lined swale into which runoff from the proposed access drive will drain, and the discharging of roof downspouts across lawn panels at the south side of the addition if determined to be desirable and feasible by the Director of Engineering, and e. Submission of design details for all buildings and construction details of all other proposed structures, roads, water /sewer facilities, and other improvements, including, but not limited to, specifications for water lines, including locations and descriptions of any mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc., and . f. Submission of details of any exterior lighting, including the type of any entrance lighting fixtures and amount and area of illumination of any such lighting. All exterior lighting fixtures 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 g, Submission of all. final site plan drawings, revised to include the name and seal of each registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of the site plan materials, including the topographic survey; drainage plans, etc., and the addition of the appropriate date on each document, and . Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved h. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, or documentation that no such approvals are required, prior to issuance of any building permits, and i. Documentation of approval by the Tompkins County Department of Health regarding the reclassification and modifications to the water system, as outlined by the Department of Health in its letter dated December 20, 2005 (John Andersson, P. E, to Anton Egner AIA), prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the building addition, and j. Revision of the final site plan to include the extension of the access road from the entrance on the south side of the facility, that is continuous around the new building addition, to the north side of the facility to connect to the existing gravel driveway back to Sheffield Road, as recommended by the Ithaca City Fire Department. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann., Conneman, Mltrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Moore Dock, Sea Wall, Boat Lift & Mooring, 1028 East Shore Drive Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Tim Moore, 3039 Q Street NW, Apt 26, Washington DC 20007 I am here tonight to address any questions or concerns and to provide any clarification on the application to install really a four part; it is the open pile dock, boatlift mooring and seawall riprap at 1028 East Shore Drive. I have currently gone through the US Corps of Engineers and .obtained their approval and guidance on the riprap wall, the dock and the mooring. I also worked with the NYSDEC for their. approvals for these four items as well. I am here to address any concerns and go through the documentation that we provided in the application. Chairperson Wilcox - Environmental impacts that you are aware of? Mr. Moore - None whatsoever. Going through the DEC and through of the US Army Corps of Engineers, none proposed or perceived going forward. Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Certainly one potential environmental impact is while the sea wall is being constructed. Right? Do we have the potential for more erosion during that period? Mr. Moore — Without a sea wall there would be more erosion. A contractor and the Corps of Engineers have provided guidelines as to how to construct the barrier to not allow runoff into the lake during construction itself. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, questions? Board Member Thayer — Are the stones in that riprap rather large or is it like in a smaller stone like in a basket type thing. Mr. Moore — They are actually fairly large stones. Board Member Thayer — So it doesn't need a basket around it. Mr. Moore — No. They will be .placed in the water and they will ... but of the water towards ... with the landscape (not audible) Mr. Walker — It is very similar to what exists at the Town Park. Board Member Thayer — They are much larger. That's why I wondering. A smaller stone could be kicked around pretty good. Mr. Kanter — Where are the rocks imported from? Mr. Moore — I don't have that. Corps of Engineers is providing a list of quarries that we can get the rocks from. We haven't gone through that step yet. Board Member Mitrano — How far out do those rock go on the Town park area? Mr. Walker — Well the bank is about 5 or 6 feet high and I think they extend into the water. The bottom rocks are covered under the water so probably 3 -5 feet out into the water. Mr. Kanter — Actually if you recall, that was part of that Lake Source Cooling project and they had to substantially build that section up where the intake pipe. Mr. Walker — It actually extends out over the pipe. Board Member Conneman — Did the staff lend you reaction to Mr. Marx's letter? 21 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Balestra — Oh, the County Planning. Board Member Conneman — He , says impacts on the quality-and character of the environment. Last paragraph, third sentence. Ms. Tedesco — I can address that. After having visited the site and noting the extent of the development to the north of the property and to the south. What Mr. Moore has proposed is very much in keeping with the character and I think if we want to consider incremental changes to the development of the lake shore that might need to be another, much longer discussion. I am satisfied that it fits in with the character of the surroundings. Board Member Talty — On the drawing, on the site, there is that area owned by the railroad. It is like a concrete type of structure that emanates from the ground. Where is that indicated on this graph? Is it in between the railroad and this line or is it actually part of? Mr. Moore — It is actually part of the lot. So it is drawn in the upper left hand corner. I am working with Mr. Kanter's office to discuss how we are going to allow half of the pumping station. to receive a new door that can be driven over so that we can park there. The other half has to be accessible once a week to allow someone to go in there and actually inspect the other half of the pumping station and then we are working to get landscaping to just put around that and conceal it and take away those barriers that are currently there temporarily. Board Member Talty — That answers the second part of my question with parking. Mr. Moore — That is why I am doing it. We have parking off that. Board Member Talty — On the proposed boatlift, is that enclosed? Mr. Moore — No. That will be transparent open air as possible to not obstruct the view of other cottages. Board Member Thayer — With a roof? Mr. Moore — Not with a roof. We are not proposing a roof on that structure. Board Member Talty — Have you spoken to your neighbors? Mr. Moore — Yes. We have written letters. We gave them letters. We met with them and they signed off on the activity that we are doing. 22 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano I want to say that I appreciate this extra documentation because we have been struggling with this question of docks and dimensions. It is complicated so until we have a clear global- picture of we are dealing -with here; this kind of detail is very helpful for us to. make a decision. Chairperson Wilcox — We should congratulate the Moores for proposing something that doesn't require width and surface area variances... . Board Member Thayer — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — Every one that we have seen so far has required lots to struggle with, length and width and surface area. Ms. Balestra — It will still require variances. Mr. Moore — We are trying to be proportional to the lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you for not coming and wanting 70 foot long and 10 foot wide with a 15 by 15 foot extension on the end. Mr. Moore — I took your guidance, Mr. Kanter. Mr. Kanter — There was an earlier set of plans that was really submitted to show the seawall proposal that was larger and after we talked for a while and we went over the zoning requirements, Mr. Moore did agree to resubmit it meeting the requirements that he could meet. I think it is going to be typical that because of the varied lot sizes and weird topography along the shore line, there are always going to be cases that you are not going to be able to meet all of the zoning requirements there. I think that we are going to need to look at those so that we really have realistic regulations in place. Board Member Mitrano — Well, kudos for the staff then for taking the extra time that each of these individual applications requires. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I wanted to ask you about the mooring. What kind of mooring are you proposing to build? Mr. Moore — We put the mooring beyond the dock for safety reasons of the boat so when we moor it; it doesn't drip into the dock itself. So it will be a weighted device that will be sunk to the bottom and then will be a rope or a chain, depending on how the US Corps of Engineers recommends it that comes up to the surface with a buoy to 23 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved attach the boat. I am trying...we are proposing to stay within a certain distance of the end of the dock, but not any further out necessary to not produce an accident on the lake with another boat or some other activity going on in that area. Board Member Hoffmann — I am glad to hear that it is just a buoy and a chain because very often moorings are constructed with poles. That would be another problem if it were that far out from the dock. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you all set, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I have another concern with the riprap along the edge. I understand that it will prevent some erosion, but at the same time I don't exactly ... the purpose of the lakeshore ... we are supposed to minimize excessive and undesirable development on the fragile lakefront areas to protect the natural beauty and ambience of the lakeshore for all the citizens in the community and enhance the experience provided to those living near ... (not audible) ... the lakeshore is going to disappear eventually, the natural lakeshore. It. is a little bit inconsistent with one of the things in our resolution. On the last page where it says, the condition is that the construction of the dock, mooring, riprap and boat lift shall be undertaken in such a way so as not to impact... destroy the natural beauty of the shoreline, cause erosion or sedimentation problems along the shoreline, create hazards for navigation or impinge on imperial rights . of other parcels as required and so on. It seems to me it just destroys the natural beauty of the shoreline, not that there is very much of it there, but that is my objection to this kind of... Mr. Moore — The one thing to the north and south are sea balls that are there so without doing something, there will be significant erosion to that particular lot in between those two sea balls. So in a way it will protect further erosion on that one particular lot and it will be very inconsistent with the two cottages on either side. Board Member Hoffmann — I was there today and it looks like it could just wash away. Ms. Tedesco — It is already eroding as it is. So I think installing the sea wall will stop erosion that is already happening. Board Member Hoffmann — But it doesn't live up to what the zoning ordinance says exactly. Board Member Mitrano — I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Board Member Talty — Ultimately it could look a lot worse if it was undisturbed and it kept eroding and eroding. It could get to a point where it is a lot worse. 24 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — The point is that it probably wouldn't erode so badly if there weren't all these things sticking out in the water. Board Member Talty — I think that traditionally the east side of all the lakes in the Fingerlakes are much more eroded than the western side of the lakes because that is the prevailing wind. I don't know if I tend to agree with that. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you want to say something? Ms. Balestra — I wanted to ask a question to the applicant because I hadn't been in touch with you about the size of the boat and the type of boat that is going to be moored. Do you know? Mr. Moore — 214/2 feet. Ms. Balestra — Is it a sailboat? A motorboat? Mr. Moore — It is a motorized boat. That would be in the boatlift itself. Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan? Ms. Brock — Under the resolved it says you are making your negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the environmental assessment form part 2 and 3, but I don't believe there is a part 3. Ms. Tedesco — I was under the impression that part 3 was the ... maybe I misread the email that was sent out to staff, but part 3 is the recommendation that staff makes to the board. Mr. Kanter — It ... yeah...what that was in reference to was in the long environmental assessment form. Sometimes the staff recommendation is listed as part 3, but that really isn't the right reference because part 3 in the long eaf is actually when there is a large potential impact then you go to part 3 to further explain what those large impacts are. Normally we are going to have parts 1 and 2. Ms. Tedesco — Okay. Then I was also wondering if part 3 could apply to the attached comments to the part 2? So we can just... Ms. Brock — I think the comments that you attached are part of part 2. So Jonathan, should it really read parts 1 and 2 if you want to include 1? So I think just say parts 1 and 2 instead of parts 2 and 3. 25 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox- - Is that it, Susan? Ms. Brock — Yes. Board votes on motion. PH RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -017: SEQR, Prelim inary and Final Site Plan Approval & Specia/ Permit, Moore Dock, Boat Lift, Mooring, and R /vraa, 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19, -2 -16 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS; 1. This action is consideration of preliminary and final site plan approval and special permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed construction of a rock riprap wall along the shore, a dock, a boat lift, and a mooring at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile wooden dock, 6' wide by 30' long with an "L "extension to the south, 15' wide by 8' long. The plans also include a 10' wide by 15' long boatlift and a mooring placed approximately 65 -75' from the shoreline. Timothy J. Moore and Michael C. Moore, Owners/ Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permits, and 3. The Planning Board, on February 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions outlined in the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Resolution, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning stab, site plan drawings, entitled, Wlprap Shore Protection, Piling Dock, Boat Lift,. and Mooring Drawing (proposed), " "Cross - Sectional Drawing of Riprap (proposed), " "Cross Sectional Drawing of Open Pile Dock (proposed),// and "Overhead Drawing of Riprap & Open Pile Dock (proposed),' prepared by the applicant, dated December 30, 2005; and other materials; and 26 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II referenced above, 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. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mltrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a rock riprap wall, a dock, a boat lift and mooring at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -161 Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile wooden dock, 6' wide by 30' long with an "L" extension to the south 15' wide by 8' long. The plans also include a 10' wide by 15' long boatlift, a mooring placed approximately 65' -75' from the shoreline and the construction of a sea wall along the length of the property's shoreline. Timothy J. Moore and Michael C. Moore, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. With no persons interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Board Member Mitrano moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion. Ms. Brock — Under the whereas, paragraph 2, it says that this is a Type 2 action. It should be an unlisted action. Under the resolved, 1b, sets up some of the things that are required to be complied with when you are giving a special permit for docks, mooring, riprap, and boat lifts, but there are a number of other things that have to be . 1 27 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved complied with as well. Structures and. facilities shall only be constructed of materials that are stable, chemically inert. It talks about dredging and how you do that. There are actually 2 pages in the code of the requirements. It says that these requirements shall apply to all such structures and - facilities. So I'm afraid if we only list the things that are list in b, that somehow implies these other things that the code says are left out. I propose we keep the very first line...then I would strike the rest of that paragraph and after the word in, say compliance with all the requirements of section 270 -45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, except for those requirements for which variances are granted. Board Member Mitrano and Board Member Talty agree with changes to the resolution. Ms. Brock — Then I just had a question on number 2 under the resolves, you make this reference to side yard setback requirements. Is that the term that you use for these? In the Code they talk about adjacent property lines and I was wondering if maybe we should instead of saying in regard to the side yard setback requirements say regarding the adjacent property line setback requirement, but that maybe a term that you use all the time, even for these kinds of things. Chairperson Wilcox — It is the first time that we have dealt with side yard in the water.. Ms. Brock — I think the Code actually talks about adjacent property lines. I don't think they really use the word . side yard so I would just strike the word side yard and substitute adjacent property lines. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Works for me. Board Member Mitrano and Board Member Talty agree to the additional changes in the resolution. Ms. Tedesco — Could I just clarify one thing for the record? The way this resolution was worded is to give approval to the sea wall so that way that can be constructed during February and March. Then to condition the approval of the dock, the L extension, the boat lift and the mooring, all the rest of it, upon getting the variances from the Zoning Board. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on that. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -018: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Moore Dock, Boat Lift, Mooring, and Riprap, 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19. -2 -16 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved 1. This action is consideration of preliminary and final site plan approval and special permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed construction of a rock riprap wall along the -shore, a -dock, a boat lift, and -a - mooring at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile wooden dock, 6' wide by 30' long with an 1 " extension to the south, 15' wide by 8' long. The plans also include a 10' wide by 15' long boatlift and a mooring placed approximately 65 -75' from the shoreline. rmothy J. Moore and Michael C. Moore, Owners/ Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency /n environmental review with respect.to site plan and special permit approval, did, on February 7, 2006, make a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, on February 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions outlined in the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Resolution, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff site plan drawings, entitled, " Riprap Shore Protection, Piling Dock, Boat Lift, and Mooring Drawing (proposed), " "Cross - Sectional Drawing of Riprap (proposed), " "Cross Sectional Drawing of Open Pile Dock (proposed)," and "Overhead Drawing of Riprap & Open Pile Dock (proposed), " prepared by the applicant, dated December 30, 2005; and other materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that. such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Moore dock, boat lift, mooring, and riprap, as shown on the site plan drawings, entitled, "Riprap Shore Protection, Piling Dock, Boat Lift, and Mooring Drawing (proposed)," "Cross Sectional Drawing of Riprap (proposed), If "Cross- Sectional Drawing of Open Pile Dock (proposed), " and "Overhead Drawing of Riprap & Open Pile Dock (proposed), " prepared by the applicant, dated December 30, 2005, subject to the following conditions: a. Granting of the necessary variances from. the Zoning Board of Appeals, in particular, the requirements of §270- 45(A)(1)(b)[10] regarding the 29 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved minimum clearance or setback from adjacent property lines, and the requirements of §'270- 45A(2), regarding the placement of the mooring, if applicable, before issuance of building permits for the dock, boatlift, and moor-ing; and- b, - _ _ -_- - -- Compliance with all permit conditions of the Army Corps of Engineers' Regional and Nationwide Permits, received on December 20, 2005, for this action and with all permit conditions of NYSDEC's Excavation & Fill in Navigable Waters and Water Quality Certification permits, received December 9, 2005, for this action; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit to allow the construction of a dock, seawall, and "similar waterfront structures, "including a mooring and a boatlift, in a Lakefront Residential zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code §270 -45 ("Accessory structures and uses authorized by special permit only, " Lakefront Residential zone), subject to the conditions of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, finding that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, subject to the following condition: a. Compliance with the permit conditions of the Army Corps of Engineers and NYSDEC permits, referenced in condition (b) of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for this action; and b. That the construction of the dock, mooring, riprap, and boatlift shall be undertaken in compliance with all the requirements of Section 270 -45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, except for those requirements for which variances are granted, and. 2. That this Special Permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the dock, boatlift, and mooring, as referenced in condition A of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, regarding the adjacent property lines setback requirement variance for the construction of the dock, boatlift, and mooring, and for the placement of the mooring, if applicable. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS.• None. .Lml Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Sokoloff Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Road My name is Ron Knewstub. I reside at 180 Calkins Road, Ithaca NY. Since the last meeting I sent a letter to Mr. Wilcox,- explaining that I talked to Jason Sokoloff and he told me that he intends to buy a 26 foot boat rather than a 23 foot boat. So we decided that he really needed a longer dock than 60 feet. So we thought maybe we could trade off square footage for a little more length. So we reduced the ... the original submitted proposal was for 720 or 725 square feet and this proposal is for 496 square feet. So there is .an overall reduction in square footage from the one that you gave preliminary site plan approval for. This proposal is to make it 6 feet wide by 50 feet long, plus an L to the north 14 feet wide by 14 feet long. Chairperson Wilcox - Who wants to go first? Board Member Thayer - We struggled to get it to 12 by 12 at the end. Chairperson Wilcox - I know we did. '?I must admit that I am not too sympathetic about I need a bigger boat. Board Member Mitrano — You're not kidding. Mr. Knewstub — I thought he was buying a 23 -foot boat, but I misrepresented what his intentions were. He had always planned to buy a 26 400t boat. Chairperson Wilcox — Can he put a mooring out there just like the Moores have proposed? Mr. Knewstub — He can put a mooring out there, but I don't think he would sleep as well at night. Board Member Mitrano — Oh, I'm so sorry. Mr. Knewstub — .Quite sincerely. Chairperson Wilcox - You are being sincere: We're being sincere. Some of us just heartbroken that he can't put his 26 400t boat on it. I'm sorry. I'm not sympathetic. 31 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Knewstub - Motorboats don't do well on moorings. You don't see a lot of them on moorings. It just doesn't happen. Sailboats, but not motorboats. Board Member Talty — Why is that? Mr. Knewstub — They tend. to swamp. Sailboats have scuppers and they shed their water. Motorboats take on water and you have to be very:vigilant with them or they will fill up with water and they will sink. Ms. Balestra — The previous applicant did indicate that the boat was going to be in the boatlift. The motorboat. Board Member Mitrano — the 23- foot... Ms. Balestra — The 211/2 -foot boat of Mr. Moore. Mr. Knewstub — It is probably a guest mooring, I would guess. Board Member Thayer — That's what he said. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question. The last time you were here you were proposing to move the whole dock 10 feet to the south. Is this new proposal doing that to? Mr. Knewstub — No. It says in the letter that it is going to site at the original location. Chairperson Wilcox — Why? Mr. Knewstub — He wants to keep it there. He really doesn't want to go closer to his southern neighbor. Chairperson Wilcox — Does Mr. Sokoloff live in town? Mr. Knewstub — Yes. I believe that he lives at 1126 now. Board Member Talty — What's on your mind, Fred? Board Member Thayer — Bring him in.. Chairperson Wilcox — Bring him in. I mean lets hear what he has to say. I don't know if we can force him to come in. I am certain he can be represented by his agent or an agent and that agent can be an expert in the field or a lawyer, but you can't make the 32 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved case that he needs a 26 foot boat. You can make the case that he needs a longer dock to handle a 26 -foot boat. - Mr. Knewstub.7 See I don't think anybody needs a 26 -foot boat unless they "are in- the rescue. business maybe or something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Other than to show the world they have enough money to afford a 26 -foot boat. Mr. Knewstub — A 26 foot boat is not out of the ordinary at all on this lake. I don't think there is anything extraordinary about a 26 400t boat. Chairperson Wilcox — But aren't there places to put those boats besides at your dock? Board Member Thayer — I was going to say it is out of the ordinary to put it at a dock. Mr. Knewstub — He has lakefront property, that's where he'd like to keep it, that's his best access, but I did ask him to come tonight and he said he might, so, but evidently he didn't make it. But I can call him and ask him, I don't know if you have anything else on your agenda... [laughter] Board Member Conneman — Are there other people in Ithaca who put a 26 foot boat in a slip someplace rather than...? I . Mr. Knewstub — do people do that? Sure, they put them in slips. Board Member Conneman — Yeah,. someplace, where do they put them? Mr. Knewstub — well, they put them in slips unless they have a dock. Board Member Conneman — Thank you, that's what you said, OK. Mr. Knewstub Well, they pay, rental, slip rental. Board Member Conneman — Of course, they're not free, I hope. Mr. Knewstub —.No right, of course not. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan? 33 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock = It's not clear to me that this board can really tell people what size boats they can and can't have. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right,--we can't. Ms. Brock — Also, I don't know that we should really be focusing on the size of the boat, what the... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, they're asking for a longer dock because he wants to get a longer boat. Ms. Brock — Right, and so what you can do, there is a requirement in the code that the docks be no longer than 30 feet, and then there is a provision that longer dock lengths A% may be approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of this chapter when necessary to reach adequate water depths for proposed boat docking, while. complying with all other standards contained in this section." And so if you feel that the longer dock is not going to comply with other standards or that some of these other requirements aren't going to be met because of the size and location of this particular dock, then you would have the discretion to say no we cannot grant you the dock, the longer dock that you are requesting. So I think those are the factors that you really need to be focusing on, what's the impact of this dock in this location, and do you feel that this length is necessary to reach adequate water depths for proposed boat docking. And there may be more information that you need before you can make that decision tonight, I don't know, but these are just things for you to consider. Board Member Mitrano — That's what I don't know, that last question. Chairperson Wilcox— When we considered this before, we approved a length of Board Member Mitrano — 60 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — 60 feet. Wee considered that... Mr. Knewstub — 8 foot wide. Chairperson Wilcox — 8 foot... we considered that reasonable given the information we had. The revised information is the owner wants to buy a longer boat, and therefore wants 75 feet. Mr. Knewstub — No, no.. Board Member Mitrano — 4 feet.. 34 Mr. Knewstub — 4 more feet is all. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, thank. you, thank you. Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — 6 feet wide by 64 feet long, and then the L, is the L different from what was approved? Mr. Knewstub — The L is... Ms. Brock — It's 14 by 14, and what was approved? Mr. Knewstub.— 12 by 128 Ms. Balestra — 12 by 12. One of the reasons, Susan, that the size of the boat is sort of coming up as an issue is because this board and also some of-the staff members are not as knowledgeable as to what adequate water depths would be appropriate for certain size boats, so we're trying to get an idea of what size boats require what depth of water, and then so the lengths of the dock will have to reach certain depths. Ms. Brock — And if you feel you don't have adequate information tonight and you can't get it tonight, then I think you would have every right to put off a decision on this until you can get that information. Board Member Talty — So it's 4 extra feet, right? What's the difference between 60 to 64, .what's the drop off? Mr. Knewstub — Well, you're going to get a little more water, that's all. Ms. Brock — But what's the drop off in this location? Mr. Knewstub — Well, generally there it starts to go one in ten, so it's "I Board Member Talty — One in ten? So for every one foot... so it would drop off 40? Mr. Knewstub — For every ten feet it would drop down one foot. Board Member Talty — Oh, every ten feet it would drop one. Mr. Knewstub — Every ten feet it would run out into the lake. Board Member Thayer — So you're talking inches. Ms. Brock — He would get about 5 inches. . 35 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved .Mr. Knewstub — well, inches are significant though when you're talking about really rough weather, and there's a great deal of fetch from the north, the sea builds there, - -you can get 4 or 5 foot waves. And 4 or 5 foot waves means there is a trough 4 feet below the sea level, right, so you're dropping that far, so the depth of the water is 6 feet, you're going to be 2 feet off the bottom. Board Member Talty — What's the difference in the keel on this size boat from the first size boat? The 26 to 23, what's the difference in the depth? Mr. Knewstub — It could be as much as a foot. Ms. Brock — It depends on the boat design though. Board Member Talty — If it's a foot, and we're talking inches, we're talking a minimal difference overall. Right? Board Member Mitrano — And did I understand your phraseology correctly? It's he might get or he did buy it? Board Member Thayer — He wants to. Mr. Knewstub — I think that is what he plans to buy. Board Member Mitrano — Well, that's another arbitrary approach to how we are supposed to be making decisions. He might get a smaller boat. Ms. Brock — The way that this is worded is, to reach adequate water depths for proposed boat docking. I mean even if he actually owned the boat now there is nothing preventing him from selling it. Board Member Thayer — You shouldn't build the dock to the boat. Mr. Knewstub — Well that is the criterion that the Army Corps uses, though. Board Member Mitrano — Well, that's them. Mr. Knewstub — Right. A sufficient depth for boating. Board Member Mitrano — And that is all that they care about. We care about different things. That is why we are a different body. Mr. Knewstub - Sufficient depth, but you want a canoe. and I want a yacht. 36 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Talty — He could go and sell the property tomorrow and somebody would want a 42 footer and we would be right back in here talking about a longer dock. Board Member Thayer So why does he need 2 feet longer and 2 feet wider on the.L because of the length of the boat? Mr. Knewstub — It is to accommodate the gear and people and everything. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva has been waiting very patiently. Go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — I. think that we should think about the dock, actually, and the water depth. It sounds to me as if what you are saying is generally what the depths are at certain distances from the shore. But I think what we need to hear is specifically what the water depths are where this dock is proposed at various distances because we cannot make a decision based on approximately what it might be. Mr. Knewstub — It is at the point shifts all the time and it ... so the just north of where this dock is from the north it can put that all you get a lot of weather out of th all the times. where the creek washes into the lake. Believe me, it gravel washes out. So you have a delta that washes sited. You get enough pushing around, enough flow further south. The depth is going to change and then e south it is going to change back. The shore changes Board Member Mitrano — By how much? What's the difference? Mr. Knewstub — You go out far enough so you are not subject to that constant worry about the shallowness. The other thing is, 26 feet long, if he puts his stern out at the end of the dock, it is going to be 64 minus 26. So where is his bow? What does that come to? So the bow is at 30- something. Board Member Talty — Doesn't the bow usually face the shore? Mr. Knewstub — Yes, but what I am saying that is going up and down. So he is getting in fairly shallow water. Board Member Mitrano — Gee, has he thought about buying another location? This just doesn't sound like it will work for him with that boat. Board Member Talty — I would like to know where the sediment goes year to year. Ms. Balestra — The south end of Cayuga Lake. 37 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Knewstub — Right. Ms. Balestra — Stewart Park. Board Member Talty — I want to know. I mean if it is coming out and it has a tendency to drift around and progress south because of the winds etc, isn't that what dredging is all about? Isn't that where they remove the sediment that is coming in because of the shifts? Mr. Knewstub — Who does? Board Member Talty — No, I'm just saying that. Where does the sediment go .year to year? Mr. Knewstub - It gets pushed around and eventually washes into the lake. It continually goes out and fills up the south end of the lake. Board Member Talty — That is right. But if you are saying that the creek is right there and the sediment is coming out, his property is probably going to be one of the first ones impacted by the sediment, right? Mr. Knewstub — Right. Board Member. Talty — My question is, as the sediment settles and the following year the sediment comes down, and the following year the sediment comes down. Are you telling me that it is constantly maintained at the same level or does it keep increasing towards the surface? Mr. Knewstub — Sometimes you gain and sometimes you lose. It is not always the same. It is kind of like a constantly changing environment that the shoreline changes. Some years some people gain a great deal of gravel and silt. A couple years later it is all gone. Board Member Mitrano - So the people all along here that 4042 foot docks, what are they doing with this constant variance of the lake? Mr. Knewstub - They are not affected that way. The lake is getting shallower. I think everyone at the south end...its fairly well documented. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. Mr. Knewstub — It was never dredged and it probably should have been years ago when it began. Not everybody down there, like the ones on your map, a lot of the Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved people down there south of that dock don't have that wash coming in all the time. There are not creeks running between their property: This has a large runoff creek... Board Member Howe — Even so, this is 18 feet longer than many of the docks, I mean if we go to 60 feet. Board Member Thayer — We have already done that basically. I think we should stick with what we voted on before. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — The main reason that I had a problem with it last time and this still remains is that this dock is built in an area that sticks out into the lake: It is one of the longest docks to be added there. So it is really sticking out from everything else. There are lots of docks... Mr. Knewstub — I think it is proportional to the shore, though. When you drive along the shore in a boat, you are not close to the docks at all. I don't know from what perspective it seems long; maybe in your aerial view it does, I'm not sure. Where does it seem long from? Board Member Talty — This aerial photograph is very, very accurate and there is no question in my mind that 1126 is one of the furthest properties out in the lake. Mr. Knewstub — Right, but I'm saying that is only from a bird's eye view. It is from an airplane. Where else is it long from? That is my question to you. Board Member Talty — What other perspective... Mr. Knewstub — What does it impact? Board Member Mitrano — Why do they have rules for our code that have any lengths on them if it doesn't matter to anybody? Mr. Knewstub - They used to be 150 feet. Board Member Mitrano — Now, what is it again now, dear? Ms. Balestra — 30. Board Member Mitrano — Oh, 300 Mr. Knewstub - Right, but where did you come up with 30? Kull Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Talty — You know, Fred, we are not here to debate this. I think Eva has got some serious points and I think that actually all of us do and I've got to tell you, -and this is from this board- member talking, I hope you took- some -- -notes from the previous guy. Okay? Because we don't mind you coming in here representing your clients, but this is a waste of time in my opinion. I want you to come in here with a battle plan and not negotiate a battle plan. I am not happy about this whole thing at all, if you don't notice. I'm just not. You are in here for the third time. Mr. Knewstub — It is not a waste of my time. Board Member Talty — Well, let me tell you a story, it is a waste of my time. Mr. Knewstub — Well, I am sorry it is, sir, but I am here to do something for my client. It is what he requires. It is what he wants. Board Member Talty — He doesn't require anything. It is what we require representing the time and I am here to tell you that you better start working with staff because they know exactly what they want and if you don't get the.... Ms. Balestra — It's not. Board Member Talty — I'm going to have to quiet down at this point. So you as the chair do what you do before I really come unglued. Alright? Because this is crap. Chairperson Wilcox— That's a technical term, of course. What is the pleasure of this board? And I remind you that we are still doing the environmental review at this point. Board Member Mitrano — I don't know who is even going to propose it. I'm not. Board Member Conneman — I can't either. Board Member Hoffmann — I think if they come back in again, either Mr. Knewstub or the applicant needs to come in with precise measurements, not just approximations of the water depths and soon because I understand that it changes, but you have to set it at a time... Mr. Knewstub — Well I did tell you... Board Member Hoffmann.— I'm speaking to the chair right now. I think that unless they can do that, it would be a waste of our time again. I agree with you, Kevin. .N Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Talty — You made it very clear, Eva, that you wanted it down and you made it for very logical reasons and this applicant has failed to come back with a plan that measures up to your recommendation. Chairperson Wilcox — Would this board be willing to entertain this application if we had more information such as information that justified the need for the additional four feet given whatever, the average depth of the water at whatever distance from the shoreline? I mean would we entertain an application with the appropriate information that would justify the need or justify the size of the L extension? Board Member Conneman — If the information is unbiased, of course. Board Member Mitrano — I will look at the lake levels and all of the deltas and omega and the alphas, but I am not interested in the size of the boat. That is a red herring, so please, don't even mention it to. me. Board Member Thayer — We gave preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Kanter We gave preliminary and final. Board Member Thayer — So this is just a... Chairperson Wilcox — So there is an approved... Board Member Mitrano — Exactly. Board Member Thayer — My recommendation is we just stick with that. Board Member Mitrano — I'm with Larry. Ms. Balestra — I want to double check because in my recollection, let me just double check. You granted preliminary site plan approval contingent on them bringing in additional information to the Zoning Board regarding where the exact location of the dock would be because they were going to move it. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is another point that they were going to move. it to the south and the applicant doesn't want to move the dock to the south. Mr. Knewstub — No. Board Member Mitrano - I'm with Larry. I want to go back to what we said before. 41 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Thayer — Yeah, I mean we have already approved preliminary. I think we should stick with that. Ms. Brock And the reasons are? Board Member Mitrano — That we don't have any more information at this point to change it from the long discussion that we already afforded_ this applicant on that last discussion that gave the preliminary. Ms. Brock - So you are incorporating all the reasons that you had at the January 3rd meeting where you gave preliminary approval and you had a certain size requirement and you had reasons at that meeting, which I wasn't at, for saying this is how long it can be, it can be no longer. - Board Member Mitrano — Right. Ms. Brock And the location. So now you are basing your decision tonight not to entertain, for now, the proposed revised configuration and location, until you get more information showing a justification for changes. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — We appreciate the fact that they have offered to go to 6 feet wide instead of 8 feet wide. Lets acknowledge that. Board Member Mitrano — Sure. Board Member Howe — So we are leaving open the door for them to come back with more information. Board Member Thayer — They still need final. f Chairperson Wilcox — I am still going to look over here to Susan. The question is we gave preliminary subject to certain conditions. Board Member Thayer -They didn't meet those conditions. Ms. Brock — But is there a time limit on it? I mean they still could meet those conditions? Board Member Mitrano — No, no, but make the information relevant. Mr. Kanter — There are time limits as to how long the preliminary site plan approval is good for, which I think is 180 days under the Town Law. So there is plenty of time. 42 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — So the application has a couple of choices. They can pursue final site plan approval for what was already approved. You could work with staff to determine what additional information this board would require to further entertain a revision, right? Mr. Kanter — I will speak for staff.. It is very difficult to put us in the position of being the all- knowing, all- seeing ones to determine what you want to know because we don't know: Ms. Balestra — We don't know. Mr. Kanter — This is a brand new subject area and we just don't know. Ms. Balestra Which is why we couldn't guide the, applicant toward some form of advice or approval. Board Member Mitrano — Well the applicant, Christine, was suggesting some very interesting information that we don't have ... (not audible) ... the delta, the this and the that and the other thing. I need to look at it before I can even get an idea as to whether that is appropriate information or not. Certainly if I might repeat myself, the size of the boat is not appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — You comfortable? Ms. Brock — Is there any further guidance the staff would like? Board Member Thayer — Except for the location, is the only reason we didn't give final last time. So if we get a change in the location, they come back with that I would think that we would be able to give it final. Final for what we gave preliminary approval for. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets talk about guidance to. staff. What do we want to see? What is missing here? Board Member Talty — Depth of water for the proposed dock in. Board Member Thayer — It says 6 feet. Board Member Mitrano — And with all of the possibilities of like a 100 year tidal wave, a 500 year tidal wave. Chairperson Wilcox — Now... Board Member Mitrano — I'm not trying to be silly. I just don't know all of the actual variables, but weren't you talking about ... it could be 5 feet. GK, Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Knewstub — Well, I did tell you that I walked out into the water and measured the depth at one of these meetings and told you what the depth was. So that is what the basis of this was, what the depth is now. Board Member Mitrano - ...(not audible)...what were the dimensions? Not audible — several people talking at once. Chairperson Wilcox — Isn't part of this also, I'm not a boat person, what about the draft of the boat, the amount that is under water? Board Member Thayer — That depends on the size of the boat and we go back to that again. Board Member Mitrano — Well, maybe those other things are relevant then. Board Member Hoffmann — But the figures I think we are missing today are the figures for what the depth was at the greater extension of the dock. Board Member Thayer — It is here. Its says 6 feet. Board Member Talty — I mean we have to know what the waterline is, ball park, for May, June, July, August, September, October, Board Member Thayer - I don't know. He just said that he just walked out there. Ms. Balestra —That's going to fluctuate. Mr. Knewstub - Correct. Board Member Talty — You're right. We need to know what the lake depth is at that point, where that dock is going to be built all the way to the end, but May, June, July, August, September because the lake levels change. We need to know this. Chairperson Wilcox — What I am hearing is, some of you would .be willing to entertain the different configuration, but we were looking for information that justifies the need. Is that what I am hearing? Board Member Mitrano — Is it my understanding, Susan, that an applicant, by law, can keep coming back with any variety of new applications? What are the limits on that or the perimeters on that? 44 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — I don't think that there are particular limits. Board Member Mitrano — My assumption would be, in general, that the applicant can come back as many times as the applicant wants. But if the applicant wants -to come back and raise issues about how high the water gets at different points and everything else, then bring us the documented information and we will look at it. Mr. Knewstub — There is a summer ... high between April and November that is 384 feet. Board Member. Mitrano — Did you include that information in here? Mr. Knewstub — It should be on there. Board Member Mitrano - Of how it changes? Mr. Kanter — Could I suggest ... we have a very important final agenda item, which we really need to get to and this is not going anywhere. Board Member Mitrano — I agree.. Chairperson Wilcox — I need to wrap it up in some definitive way that provides guidance to Mr. Knewstub. Board Member Mitrano — Without more information, I am not prepared to change the decision that we made on the previous meeting, which we gave preliminary approval. Board Member Thayer — I agree. Ms. Brock — Can I ask? You have provided information at what the depth is at 64 feet. Do we have specific information as to what the depth is going all the way back in to the shoreline? Mr. Knewstub — Yes. Ms. Brock — We do have that? Ms. Balestra - Yes. Ms. Brock — It is not on here. Mr. Knewstub — Usually on those I put a halfway out and then the end, if there is a regular slope to the bottom. That slope is fairly accurate. 45 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Well, we don't know all that, sir. Ms. Brock — But we don't have any numbers assigned to this to know what the depth is. Mr. Knewstub — It is scale. I can give them to you if you like. Chairperson Wilcox — Where are you going? Ms. Brock — If in fact a shorter dock could be justified, I mean, you don't know until you actually know what the depths are as you get in closer and closer and we don't have those numbers. We don't have a scale on this drawing. It doesn't say that it is to scale. Mr. Knewstub — It is one foot and ten. Board Member Conneman — That should be part of your application, part of your proposal. Mr. Knewstub — Okay. Ms. Brock — I think at a minimum that they would need drawings actually showing, I don't know what intervals do you want them to show the depths at? Five foot intervals? Board Member Mitrano — Five would be good. Mr. Knewstub — These poles are... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Board Member Talty — Well if the poles are 10 feet apart, then 10 feet. Everywhere you put poles. Board Member Howe —.I don't know what it really matters. I think we were very accommodating to extend the deck 60 feet and then it is up to the person to say, okay, what boat can I accommodate. I think we went out of our way to extend it pretty far. So I don't know what...do I really care then in incremental ways what the depth is? I don't think that I do. Board Member Mitrano - Okay. I agree with you entirely. The only distinction is, in law, the person can come back as many times as they want and we can continue to say the same thing over and over again as many times as we want. So if you want to know Planning Board Minutes February 7,. 2006 Approved by law whether you can keep coming back, yes. If you want to know the disposition of what we are going to say I think Rod is expressing it. Mr. Knewstub — I never asked if I could come back. I will take what you give us. Board Member Thayer — The consensus is we rejected today's proposal and we are still approving the other one, which we have already done. Ms. Balestra - Okay. Board Member Howe — I don't think it means that we are looking for the staff to get any new information. Ms. Balestra — Can you say that again? Board Member Howe — I don't think we're looking for the staff to generate any new information. Ms. Balestra — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — So I am trying to get a sense here and before I asked if we had additional information, then the board collectively could use that to review the different configuration. Now with what Rod said and the nodding of the heads, I get the sense of the board that, you know what, they can bring all the information that they want, we're not going to change. Board Member Thayer — The reason we didn't give final before was because of the location: Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Board Member Thayer — If they bring back the. pinpoint of the location further south, is what Eva suggested, I think it will be approved. Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't suggest 10 feet. I would have liked to see it a little bit further south because that would have made it enough not to stick out so far. , Board Member Thayer — Right. If he doesn't want to move it, that's okay. Chairperson Wilcox. — We don't have to approve it, right? Board Member Thayer — That's right. 47 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — So we haven't heard, collectively, I'm not asking you individually, but collectively if you have a strong objection please voice, but collectively we haven't heard anything that makes us feel inclined to extend the dock another 4 feet and - change its configuration and not move it to the south. Board Member Conneman — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — (not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — Procedurally, I'm, going to look at Susan. We are still in the environmental review. We can ask the applicant to withdraw the application at this point, is one thing that we can do. We can vote on SEQR. Board Member Mitrano — I'm thinking with a. If rejecting, we could move to b. Chairperson Wilcox - If .we make a SEQR determination that it could have significant impacts then that raises the whole... it would be better if they withdrew their application, in my opinion. Board Member Mitrano — Its up to him. Chairperson Wilcox — Or he could force us to a vote. It is up to you. You could decide to proceed, which we will go ahead and vote on the environmental review and go from there or you can withdraw your application and then go back to the people that you represent and huddle and make a determination on how to proceed. Mr. Knewstub — But you can't vote on the one that you gave preliminary site plan approval for, is that correct? Board Member Mitrano — We have to get through SEQR.first. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, no. Let's step back here. Interesting. He could ... what you are asking is to withdraw the revision and substitute the original one. The one that we gave preliminary approval to. He could do that. The problem is, I don't have information in front of me. Board Member Mitrano — No. We don't have those ... no, no, no. Chairperson Wilcox — You can do that, but I would urge that we not vote because I don't have those papers in front of me tonight and I didn't have them on Thursday or Friday in order to review them. I don't have anything that shows where the new dock location would be. .• Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — Oh, you are talking about final approval for that. No. We haven't, even advertised it that way so you absolutely cannot do that. Chairperson Wilcox - We.- advertised it as a public hearing for a revision, not as a public- hearing for final for what we gave preliminary to. Thank you. He gave the legal reason and I gave the procedural reason why it didn't make sense. So what do you want to do? Mr. Knewstub — So as submitted this evening, chances are that you won't pass it, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Chances are... Mr. Knewstub — I didn't think so. It has already been submitted previously so you have all of that documentation so the question is, do we have to do a new application? Ms. Balestra - No. What you will do is, if you submit the information that they required for final for the Zoning Board, you can appear before the Zoning Board for February 27t�' or March 20th, then you would come back to the Planning Board for final approval. Mr. Knewstub - The Zoning Board doesn't have that though, correct? Ms. Balestra — Correct. Mr. Kanter — You would want to submit the revised drawing to the Zoning Board so they will be granting variance on that specific proposal, which is what the Planning Board, granted preliminary approval for. Mr. Knewstub — Correct. So they need to get copies of that. Chairperson Wilcox — As revised to show the new location of the dock. Mr. Knewstub — So they can approve it without... because you have already given preliminary. Chairperson Wilcox — If they grant the zoning variance then you come back here. Mr. Knewstub — Then you would give final. Chairperson Wilcox — Then we would give final: Ms. Brock - We can't guarantee what the Zoning Board will do in terms of the variance request. They will look at that separately. EEO Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Knewstub Nothing is a given. I understand that. Clear enough. Chairperson Wilcox — So you are... Mr. Knewstub — So I'll withdraw. Chairperson Wilcox — You'll withdraw for this evening. You will go back and discuss this with Mr. Sokoloff and decide at that point how to proceed. Mr. Knewstub — Yes. Chairperson. Wilcox — Are we all set Susan? Ms. Brock —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, did you have anything else you wanted to say? Board Member Talty — I just wanted to say that I don't mind working with applicants, but I feel that its like Lets Make a Deal and I might be way off base,: but they came in at 15 by 15. We said 10 by 10. They came back 12 by 12 and that is not how I like to do business. So that is how I am going to leave it at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine. Do you get paid by the hour? Mr. Knewstub — I don't know ... I am not. I might consider changing my fees. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Ms. Brock — We should probably just state for the record that while a public hearing was scheduled to be held on this tonight, there.wouldn't be one because the proposal has been withdrawn. Board Member Talty — I would like to ask the chair something, though. It seems like I bring this up every time there is a dock. I want to know when the Town Board is going to come into play here and give us some direction on docks because this is going to be never ending. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we discuss this at 10:30 p.m. when we get there? Board Member Talty — Not really. Fred. How about that? I want some kind of direction, 50 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Here is what I can tell you. At the last Codes and Ordinances meeting, we were setting priorities for 2006. The issue for addressing the various dimensional requirements for docks, the priority of that was elevated in Codes and Ordinances to the first group, high priority. Within that group, as opposed to the second group, which is not high priority, where it falls hasn't yet been determined. Mr. Kanter — There is a whole bunch of stuff in that high group. Chairperson Wilcox — There is some stuff very behind the hospital and PRI, for example. So am on Codes and Ordinances, Eva is, George's We will report back the first meeting in Marc changed. I will also tell you that COC meets 2 We spend way too much on them. high u Codes wife is h and hours, p. For example, the steep slopes and Ordinances is aware of it. I on Codes and Ordinances as well. we will tell you if its priority has once a month. I hate docks, too. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Continuation of consideration of acceptance of the Draft Scope document (revised January 27, 2006) as the Final Scope document for the transportation =focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) for a Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy (TIMS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going, let's deal with a couple of procedural things. We have a copy of a letter from Mr. Wendt. You will note that Cornell University has agreed to an extension of the 60 day review period for an additional 23 days to today, which kind of puts us under the gun to have something done by today. Board Member Conneman — That is unfair. Chairperson Wilcox - Or... Ms. Brock — Or the project falls apart. Mr. Kanter - Or we get another letter. Chairperson Wilcox - Or they sue us or whatever. Notice the law does mandate 60 days. Board Member Conneman — I understand. 51 Chairperson Wilcox — Though I think this process has worked been able to use it to .our advantage to get additional input and Susan, do you want to make -any comments before we begin v that you provided the board that was in the packet? Let me Anybody have questions about the memo that Susan provided environmental impact statement will be used in the future? Board Member Thayer — It was very clearly stated. Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 AMroved very well and we have we will see how it goes. rith- -regard to the _memo throw it the other way. with regard to how the Chairperson Wilcox — Because some. people had some concerns about what rights we may give up. Board Member Conneman — I thought it was very good. The question is, where does it get filed so that we always know that it is there. My suggestion to Susan was that it go with the GEIS because I think that is important so it is a place where you can find it rather than a file cabinet where we can't find it, but they may not be possible either. I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — You expressed a legal opinion, right? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Based upon New York State law. Ms. Brock — Yes Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, lets attach it. I think that's a good idea. Ms. Brock — Attach it to what? Board Member Howe — To the document. Ms. Brock — To the scope? Chairperson Wilcox — Its not part of the scope. Ms. Brock — Right. So I don't think it would be appropriate to attach this to the scope.. Board Member Mitrano —.You can't make an appendix a or something? Ms. Brock - Well scope tells you what is going to be in the GEIS. This really has nothing to do with it. 52 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano - Well, what would you recommend? Ms. Brock- I think- that we can just ask that -it be made an official part of the meeting minutes so it is part of the official record. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. If that's as good as it gets, then that is great. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make any statement or have you learned that sometimes it is best not to? Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street, And I do not. I think that...I just wanted to be sure that you have the memo that I prepared and forwarded to Jonathan Kanter this afternoon reflecting a few additional changes. in response to additional comments that you received over the last few days and then I also wanted to ... you may or may not want this. This is the actual complete draft scope that incorporates those changes into the complete draft scope.,, So whatever is your pleasure in terms of what is more ... what is easier to review it? The memo goes point by point in response to Eva Hoffmann's memo and point by point to the Brittain Brothers memo. Then those same changes are incorporated in here in bold. So you can ignore this if you want. Whatever is easier for you. Mr. Kanter — So we did, just for your information, we did receive the memo from Kathryn Wolf fairly late this afternoon and this was based on a meeting that the project team had earlier today. Once we received it, I looked it over and it did seem to accurately reflect what we had talked about at the project team meeting. As I mentioned in my email and I don't know how many of you actually had a chance to review these materials before the meetings, hopefully most of you did, but as a I said in my email message with the accompanying attachment that Kathryn provided, the Town representatives who are on the project team namely Cathy Valentino; Susan Brock and myself, after going through these comments that are now reflected in the attachment are quite comfortable with the further revisions and responses. So that is where we are right now. Chairperson Wilcox — I remember at the last meeting Kevin saying we want one document and what we end up with is a document and revisions and another document. I say that, one I understand everyone is working hard to incorporate input and make this best thing possible, but I also realize that we study certain things and then we get a lot of information in the few hours before the meeting. Nonetheless, the committee.that met this afternoon, they saw the letter from Bruce and Doug? Mr. Kanter — Yes and they saw Eva Hoffmann's. 53 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - I will get to you last. _Board .Member Hoffmann — I already made - my comments. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, comments? Board Member Talty — No. I'm set. Chairperson Wilcox — Rod? Board Member Howe — I still in section 3.2.1, I'm glad to see that many of the suggestions were made. I still have a problem with the word qualitatively just because to me it implies that it won't be strict quantitative analysis as well. I see that the university, it's not just the Forest Home group that was looking at changing this, but I think it was also passed by the... neighborhoods. But anyway, I would like to see the word qualitatively taken out of section 3.2.1. My only other comment, I agreed with the comments from the Brittain Brothers about section 5.2.2 and we obviously know that section 5.2.1 addressed that modal shift from single occupancy vehicles to alternative modes, but I am glad to see that we actually say traffic reduction now in 5.2.2. I think that was an important thing. So that change got made and I wanted to say that I think that was very important change. So I think primarily for me it is that word qualitatively. I don't know whether that was discussed at the meeting this morning. Mr. Kanter — It was and I think I would ask Cornell's representatives to talk to that point. Ms. Wolf — Yes. I can speak to that. In this particular location of the scoping document where we are talking about analyzing this for, I think 28 neighborhoods named at this time, the intention is to go to each of those neighborhoods and say and I think I described at the previous meeting, to look at these characters of the features that are described here and say okay, what are really the character defining elements in this neighborhood. Is it street trees? Is it narrow streets? What is the whole mix of elements that really create the character of this street? In this section, we are saying that we're not going to quantify those... Board Member Howe, — And I'm not suggesting that we put.._. Ms. Wolf — We are not going to measure everything. 54 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Howe — But I think we need to some room because a number of those characteristics might need more than just a qualitative analysis. Ms. Wolf — It is. true that there might be elements that may need -them, but I think that ... and certain of these items as. we've...the new additions that we have made, for example, the vehicular travel and we have referenced back to section 3.1.4, you will recall that we have at this point 60 intersections and those that meet the criteria. we will be quantifying, we will be standing out there at that intersection. We will be counting vehicles, trucks and buses. So for all of those intersections that is quantified. So in earlier sections certain things are quantified, but we are not comfortable saying that every one of these elements is going to be quantified for 20 neighborhoods. It's just not practical. It's not useful. I think we are moving forward in good faith and those elements are really critical and where there is something that is critical that that's the information that's critical to understanding the impact and mitigation that will be looked at.. I think to eliminate the word qualitative for all of these elements at this point, we're just not comfortable doing that in terms of sort of managing the expectation. Board Member Conneman — But if you are going to do it earlier, why not repeat it here? Why put qualitative in there? Because qualitative says it's nice, you know, where quantity says there are numbers that go with it. I think that is why the idea of measuring the number of trucks and so on and so forth is very important in a neighborhood. Ms. Wolf — Well; we could certainly say ... we have added the language vehicular travel, including automobiles, trucks and buses, as quantified in section 3.1.4. We could say that. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Mind you she is offering something. We don't have to accept it. If we as a board collectively want a certain word and can justify to our satisfaction that it is. appropriate and necessary, than that is what we have got to support. I mean again, quantifying noise? We're not going to take meters out there. I mean that is the problem with eliminating the word qualitative. Then...I mean it's not practical for 20 neighborhoods. Board Member Conneman — If you left out the word noise, since we are negotiating, would it be okay to put in...(not audible)... Ms. Wolf — Well, you could make the argument about many of these and I think we have already identified which would be quantified in great detail in earlier sections. I mean it is spelled out pretty clearly that the 60 intersections, for example, where we will count trucks, buses, vehicles. There will be a general quantification in air quality, 55 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved but we are not going to measure every single street. Where there is a problem, we will look at that. We will look in greater detail,. but in this stage, we are looking at every neighborhood and trying to characterize okay, what is important about the neighborhood. I mean again; I remind your the-purpose of this study is lets look at a very large area, lets overlay the growth and identify where there might be problems. Then we will zero in on those areas and look at them in great detail, but at this stage here, we are leery to look at everything and I think the qualitative is appropriate except, as it has been detailed in other sections about the quantitative. Board Member Hoffmann — This is one of my shortcomings since English is my` second language. Could you tell us what is meant by qualitative in this case? Ms. Wolf — Well, lets see. I don't know the dictionary definition, however, we often do, as a landscape architect, we are often asked to do a qualitative analysis of a neighborhood to identify what the characteristics are. So a qualitative analysis would identify what are the characteristics that are really important contributors to the quality of that neighborhood and describing them in some detail. Again, I am using it in somewhat of a simplistic example, but I think it is quite relevant. An older neighborhood, for example, a qualitative description would be that there are narrow streets, mature trees, buildings close to the road. These are the characteristics that really make that neighborhood unique and are very important to the neighborhood character and livability. So therefore, going forward, those would be things that we would not want to negatively impact. That would be a qualitative, I mean I'm simplifying, but that would be a qualitative description. It would not necessarily tell you that.the road is 22 feet wide and every tree species, but these are the characteristics and the qualities that are important in what should be preserved or any proposals should mitigate against impacting. Board Member Conneman — It . would also be important to know what the vehicle speeds are and how many trucks and buses and cars go through and so forth, wouldn't it? I mean ... (not audible) ... but I think... Ms. Wolf — Those we will have because in 3.1.4 we have set for the major corridors we will be ... well we will be taking traffic counts at the intersections. That is where the counts occur. But we will also look at where for certain roadways; there is information available about how many cars travel along that roadway per day. Board Member Conneman — In 3.1.4? Ms. Wolf — And that is all spelled out in 3.1.4. So, George, when you take counts at the intersection, you identify if it is a car, bus or truck. Board Member Conneman — But then do you relate that to the neighborhood. I mean... 56 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — That is what we are saying we're going to do. We are going to relate it back to the neighborhood. Board Member Conneman - 3.1.4.6 Board Member Mitrano — I want to test Susan's memo against this very question. So far in the discussion I am leaning on the side of the applicant. I get it. I think qualitative is enough under these circumstances given that they previous action, 3.1.- stuff has a great deal of detail about the quantitative work that would be done. But say, Susan, we get to a situation where we want to look at some of the things where the 3.1.4 doesn't cover and we might want at that stage in a specific application quantitative research done. Help us now understand. Ms. Brock — So you are talking about a specific project application that comes in at some point and to the extent that you feel your SEQR review needs to have it to do it adequately, you need specific information that is not in the GEIS. For example, we need specific quantitative traffic information... Board Member Mitrano — Well, traffic is covered in that 3.1 so lets take something else that is in here, building setbacks, streetscapes. Ms. Brock — If you need additional information to evaluate the impacts of that specific project, you will be able to ask for and receive that and consider it in making your SEQR determination, in deciding whether any mitigation is needed and in deciding whether you should grant site plan approval or any other approvals that might come before you. So what is in this GEIS will not limit your ability project by project in the future to ask for specific information that you need to do your job. Board Member Mitrano - Thank you. Therefore then I am satisfied actually, for whatever it is worth on this. Chairperson Wilcox — Is this Kevin or Rod's issue? Board Member Howe — I'm okay, but I just want to reiterate on 5.2.2 that the way it was written before it was almost like you were just trying to mitigate strategies for increased traffic. So I am glad that we say that we are also trying to go for traffic reduction, which is very much in line with what this is all about. So I think that was a really important. point that wasn't in there before. So thank you. I'm set for now. Chairperson Wilcox — Sir? 57 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Thayer — I'm set. I would just like to say that the hours and hours of work that has gone into this is starting to pay off. Very satisfied with the revised draft, as of today that is...tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — It gets better every time, doesn't it? Board Member Thayer —Yeah, it does. Board Member Mitrano — Same. Board Member Conneman — I just want to go back to 5.2.2. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that 5.2.2 as proposed by the Brittain Brothers was a lot clearer and a lot more meaningful than 5.2.2, which I think is your latest thing. I wonder why you rejected what they proposed there because I thought that was really good. In fact, I have 15 copies of it because I was prepared to pass it: out to this board and say this is what we should do. Mr. Kanter — I could answer part of that, which was in my email message. I could start that off anyway. I'll read what I put in my email first, in regard to comment number 2 in the Brittain's memo, which refers to section 5.2.2, Cathy, Susan and I believe that what the Brittains are recommending in section 5.2.2 of the draft scope are actually fully addressed in section 5.2.1 of the draft scope and that the further changes proposed by the Brittains actually change the meaning and intent of that section to the detriment of covering the safety and access elements that are currently listed in the January 27th version of the draft scope and I think we felt when we were discussing it that it would not be a good idea to undo what was already done, but rather, as Rod was indicating, to add onto that with the additional wording of traffic reduction, which clarified that that was really a key component amidst those safety elements that will be looked at. So again. the project team did recommended that added wording clarifying the traffic reduction component, but otherwise recommended that section 5.2.2 remain substantially as it was in the 1/27 version. Chairperson Wilcox — Current language is as protective, if not more than what .might have been proposed by someone else. Mr. Kanter — Or it seemed to us to totally change the meaning and the intent of that whole section, which we didn't think was where that section should go. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. AEOO Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — So I don't know if you have anything to add to that, Kathryn? Ms. Wolf — I think the changes were suggesting different user groups and the user groups are addressed in different ways, but their change, for example, would eliminate this assessment of impacts on roadways and intersections. It would eliminate that and I think people really want to know that. I think Fernando de Aragon and your Town Engineer. .everybody wants to know. It's an important piece. Of course people want traffic impact to be a minimal result and we are all striving to minimize that. We want to know what is going to be the impact on roadways and intersections and that would just eliminate that. So I think there are some fundamental things here that that would change. And I think that pretty much everything they had listed, I don't have their list in front of me at the moment, I mean they listed these different user groups. I mean they are in there in other ways, but those user groups are all incorporated in the assessment, but to eliminate roadways and intersections, it is a transportation study. Board Member Conneman — Jonathan, you are saying that traffic reduction substitutes for the other things that were proposed? Mr. Kanter — We thought it put it in a better context within the framework of what was originally proposed. Board Member Conneman - My concern is that it looked like it...parts of this we were sort of accepting the traffic increase and not really adjusting. Mr.. Kanter - But, no, that is exactly what 5.2.1 was all about was the reduction component. It was just that 5.2.2 didn't verbally carry. that intent over and that is why the word traffic reduction was carried into it to make it clear that was the case. Board Member Conneman — I have a couple of other things, Kathryn, originally. I can't deal with your new revision., but I will go over the old one. On 116, thank you for putting in a major objective is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips through neighborhoods and that takes care of one thing, but that same thing should be in page 16, the first paragraph where it says the primary emphasis should be to reduce single occupancy vehicles including ways to reduce going through neighborhoods. You have it in ... this is essentially the proposal, the executive summary, it should be in both places. I know it is repetitious, but you got to do it. Ms. Wolf — Now, wait a minute, George. Isn't it if we go to page 3.11? Board Member Conneman — It says through residential areas. That is different than saying ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods and from Cornell. 59 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf So you want to repeat... Board Member Conneman.— I want to repeat that because I think it is important to put that in there. Again, somebody... look, not everybody is- going to read--your whole document, but they are going to read what they perceive to be the introduction and probably the executive summary, where you called it a description of the proposal. I think it should be repeated there because if they read that far and you only worry about single occupancy vehicles, it doesn't say neighborhoods. Ms. Wolf — I guess if its we're repeating the same language, we have already said it. If you want to repeat it, I don't see a problem. Board Member Conneman — Well I- think if you put it in two places because that is how people read things, just as when you eventually get this done, you will have an executive summary, a major summary, and you will have an abstract. You've got to put the things in the same things. Board Member Mitrano — So it says in the second sentence, the TGEIS will identify and examine...over the next... transportation system and neighborhoods ... and you want them to what, repeat that again at the end of that paragraph? Board Member Conneman - ...(not audible)... Tracy. Board Member Mitrano — I want to be clear. Board Member Conneman — I want to see where you get to SOV trips, including ways to reduce the ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell. I assume that you .would agree with that, Kathryn? Ms. Wolf — Yeah. I think we can agree to that. Chairperson Wilcox — That doesn't change ... I want to make it clear that it doesn't change anything. Board Member Conneman — It doesn't change anything. It just repeats in a proper place what should be there. Now the other thing lets go to 3.1.1. 3.1.1, A81 I think Bill Wendt said last time that we did. not have a master plan at Cornell, but we have a capital plan. Is that the same as a comprehensive plan? Because I have minutes from the comprehensive plan committee that says that they are going to do a comprehensive plan at Cornell O Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — I don't think a capital plan is ... a capital plan is basically what is on the five year horizon. That is what a capital plan is. Chairperson Wilcox -- Of-what-they are going -to build. ... -.__ -_ Board Member Conneman - Wouldn't you include... Ms. Wolf -Yeah. It may or may not happen, but. it is on the table. Board Member Conneman — Wouldn't you include material from a comprehensive plan? Shouldn't that be 9 then...? Ms. Wolf —There is no comprehensive plan. Board Member Conneman — Well, do you want me to read to you from the minutes of the November 5t" campus planning committee that says they led a discussion for upcoming comprehensive plan? They are going to have an rfp. They are going to hire consultants and so and so and so forth. Ms. Wolf — I think that is in process, but I mean we are so far ahead of that that it doesn't exist. They are going to be interviewing people. I mean that we are so far ahead of that that it doesn't exist. Bill Wendt, Cornell University Bill Wendt, Cornell University. 3.1.1 talks about adopted plans, things that exist today that we know of. I attended that campus planning committee meeting. What you are referring to is that the university has had many discussions and continues to talk about the need for a comprehensive plan, which I think I addressed to some extent last time that a comprehensive plan will talk about strategic opportunities that the university will have in the future in the academic arena and what we may be doing as an academic institution in Ithaca, NY. The relevant study or plan, I believe, is the Cornell University capital plan, which is a document that exists and that is a document that exists that lists the initiatives that are out there now in front of the university that may or may not become reality. For instance, very recently there was an initiative for computer science that has been in the capital plan for a number of years. Now since the last time we met, very publicly that initiative has turned into the Gates Computer Science Building. Board Member Conneman — And you did include that, but you didn't include saying there would be an information campus, which at least according to the Ithaca Journal...(not audible) Board Member Mitrano — It's in the capital plan. They are just saying that the money has come in for information science building so it is very likely it will in fact happen. 61 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Mr. Wendt — The capital plan will show you all the buildings and initiatives that are out in front of the university. Board Member Conneman — Under 4.1, you list all the things that you know about. We now know there is a Gates. Hall so you added it. We also know there is going to be some other buildings connected with that, which is the information campus. And I assume that that will be taken. into account as you develop this transportation study. Talking between Ms. Wolf and Mr. Wendt. Mr. Wendt — I don't really know that, but I know this is not the extent of the university capital plan here. The capital plan goes beyond this to talk about initiatives that the university would certainly like to see happen and if the funding comes they happen and if the funding doesn't come they fall by the wayside. This is not intended in the scope of this document to be the university's capital plan and every project that is coming along, but these are examples. These projects include such as ... things that we know now. Board Member Conneman — So then why did you add Gates Hall and. not the other one? I mean that is... Mr. Kanter — Because it happened to be announced during the discussions that we are having. Board Member Conneman — At the same time they announced that they also announced that there would be an information campus and other things. Board Member Mitrano — That's the same thing. Information science is going to be the William H. Gates Building. Chairperson Wilcox — William and Melinda. Board Member Mitrano - Whatever. Ms. Wolf — It might not be buildings. An information campus could be a virtual thing. Board Member Conneman — In the Ithaca Journal, it says and other buildings. Mr. Wendt — I promise you, the university's capital plan will be the university's document, not a newspaper article that appears among other things. 62 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board Member Conneman — The Ithaca Journal may not get everything right, but it seems to me they got that one right, but anyway. Ms. Wolf — George, by listing the capital plan the point is that, I mean I think, I'm not sure now is the time to debate what projects we are talking about. We have identified the capital plan so anything that is in the capital plan will be included. That is the point. Board Member Conneman — I just want to be sure ... look, I'm not arguing with you. I want to be sure that you include all of those things that would affect the number of people on campus. If you build an information campus,. it means that you have more faculty, more people, more cars, more of whatever happens to go with that. That is part of the reason to study this, I assume. Mr. Wendt — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — That gets in through the capital plan and not through the list in 4.1. Board Member Conneman — Well, last time Bill told me the list in 4.1 was the list. Chairperson Wilcox— I don't... Mr. Wendt — I told you the capital plan would be the plan that would inform this document about what the university is doing. I never said 4.1, that one paragraph includes every initiative that the university plans to undertake. Board Member Conneman — I'm not sure why you listed it there and just didn't say... Mr. Wendt — We listed it because people wanted examples of what we knew. That was the question. What do you know about? Then we had everything that we did. Then the Gates was announced so we added it. I think the Chair at the last meeting said if we are off the mark in terms of . our scenarios and we have underestimated the population, then this will be a useless document to us and that is not why we are here spending this effort on. We believe the hypothetical growth scenarios that we have outlined more than cover all the initiatives that are out there. Board Member Conneman - The other thing I wanted to say is if you look at the faculty numbers, you have 43% of the faculty retiring in the next 10 years, that is going to have tremendous impact because you have to hire new people and a lot of those people aren't going to leave Ithaca, not everybody goes to Florida, is my point. I think the ... the other point I would make is I think the rates that you are looking at for growth 63 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved are low. I think you should take one more scenario, but you said you weren't going to do that last time. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, we can force them, if we think it serves -a purpose. As Bill --- - -- - said and I said, if they are going to spend $250,000 or $1,000,000 on this thing, if they spend all that money to investigate potential growth scenarios and it turns out to be 5 and the highest they want is 3, they have a worthless document. I have got to believe that they do not want to spend the money on something and have it ... Board Member Conneman — But you agreed last time you thought it should be a number scenario ... (not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox - I thought that have zero and .5% was kind of the same thing. When I work with numbers, if something doesn't increase or grows by .1% per year, to me that is constant. They are close enough to be the same. They had a reason for ... the point of doing zero is a baseline, no changes and then the various growth scenarios and I understand that. The floor is still yours. Board Member Conneman — I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I thought of a couple of things to say... Chairperson Wilcox — May I interrupt? Did everyone get Eva's memo? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — About 5.2.2 and the comments that Bruce and Doug Brittain made why not leave the existing points and added the ones that they proposed in addition ... (not audible) ... but for the first one, instead of saying...(not audible)...and so on through that list. Ms. Wolf — Well I think that Cornell commuters, for example, again I would refer you...I think that we are doing. that in fact. That...if you look at section, right above 5.2.2, 5.2.1.4, transportation demand management that is doing exactly...I mean this is completely redundant. Those are programs to encourage a modal shift of Cornell commuters. That is what 5.2.1.4 is. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Ms. Wolf — The same would be true of resident students. I mean I think all of section 5.2.1 is targeted to the Cornell population. Right? It is targeted to Cornell students, .- Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved staff and faculty. So those are all the strategies, 5.2.1.1, 52121 521.31 58261641 those are the strategies to get the students .and the commuters to shift modes to get out of vehicles and use other modes of transportation. So that is exactly what we are - doing in 5.2:1. Lets -see. And then - the --non = commuting trips those - are:.: those - numbers were taken into consideration in the development of a background growth number of which the resource committee spent extensive amount of time. I think at least 2 full meetings and then there were additional meetings with local economic development people to come up with an agreed upon rate of growth for. the community and that will be the assumed background growth. So that is added to the Cornell growth. That number would include then, those families. Board Member Hoffmann — Where in the most recently revised scope: does this information appear? - Ms. Wolf — The background numbers are not described here, although. we did explain...but they will be, of course... Board Member Hoffmann — Where is that described? Ms. Wolf — On page 3, the second paragraph. Board Member Hoffmann We were talking about studying speed at intersections, I believe, earlier tonight. Ms. Wolf — I believe I talked about traffic counts at intersections. That is what occurs at the intersections, traffic counts and you distinguish between automobiles, trucks and buses. Board Member Hoffmann — There was some comment about speed, too, if I'm not mistaken. That is a concern that I have whether I spoke about it or not in my comments, and where is that? Ms. Wolf - We have added that and that have been added to 3.2.1, page 9, again the version I passed out this evening, the bold section at the top of the page. Board Member Hoffmann — I did not make any comments about the responsiveness summary, but since you made a comment about that, I would like to correct that comment because I actually made a note to correct that and I didn't do it. In responsiveness summary, point 39, where I believe in your note to us you said in 3016464 ... (not audible)...because... This all on page 8 of the November 15, 2005 minutes. I only asked where was it located, but it was already included in the scope. So you need to change that. 65 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — That's true. It was in the scope and ... (not audible) Board Member Hoffmann - I have some more comments and the rest of it is also on page 8 -of -the November -15 minutes. What I did do is I did add - Snyder Hill Road and Eastern Heights to the suggested areas to include and that does not reflect it in the. responsive summary. Ms. Wolf — That you are not listed as having made that comment? Board Member Hoffmann — Correct. Then later on I also suggested looking at Hanshaw Road and Warren Road and also some other roads. Ms. Wolf — Actually, Eva, you know what? I think an explanation for why... I think I can tell you the explanation for why you were not identified here. At one point we have ... we had treated some of your earlier comments and then if you will notice, no - Planning Board members are mentioned in the matrix because it was something that we decided...I mean your comments are going on every single meeting. So we decided this was only public comment. This was the decision that we made, right or wrong, we said this is only public comment so we backed out attributing anything to Planning Board members. I believe that is true because we felt that your discussion was going to be ongoing and we didn't want to be updating this...it seemed like a different...so this was public comment. Board Member Mitrano — Is what we are voting on the scope or the table of comments tonight? Board Member Hoffmann — It is the scope. Mr. Kanter — It is primarily the scope, of public comments to accompanying it Board Member Mitrano — Lets do that. Board Member Thayer — I agree. but the responsive summary is a `documentation Board Member Hoffmann - I have one last statement and that is I don't understand, and I am referring now to what I wrote in the notes that I sent out to )on yesterday. I don't understand the resistance that I feel to including the areas along the roads within this hypothetical growth area, like Pine Tree Road, Hanshaw Road, Warren Road, as residential areas in the document rather than residential areas along corridors. I don't understand why you don't look at them as residential areas. Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf - I'm sorry it came across as resisting. Somehow we ... it wasn't a matter of resisting. We had tried to list what we felt were sort of identifiable neighborhoods. I mean a lot of this is semantics and, you know, how you define a neighborhood is, of ­-.­.course, debatable. We thought that many of these...because this--is primarily:.:whene - we were coming from initially, you'll remember that one of the first presentations that I made was this is a corridor analysis. We are looking at all these major corridors. We are looking at everything on these corridors and so the fact is, many of these corridors go through neighborhoods. That was sort of how we loo_ ked at things initially. In addition, there are all these neighborhoods. That has sort of shifted now and so now we are saying there is going to be all these neighborhood,.,. lets look at everything from all these neighborhoods, so lets just call them ... I don't think it matters. It is semantics. We are not resisting it. We put the language in there that they are being addressed. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, my impression, and I havr said this before when I talked about some of these neighborhoods, especially the ones in the southeast area. It makes me feel as if those neighborhoods are treated like stepchildren as compared to some of the others, in a negative way. Ms. Wolf — True. Board Member Hoffmann — And I don't understand it and I don't like it. Board Member Mitrano — Maybe one of the reasons why they chose the wording the way that they did is that there wasn't full consensus of the board on that either that or I am the dissenting position on that from your position, Eva. I think I understand that there are sort of, not sort of. There are two categories here of analysis. One is a neighborhood and one is a corridor and that each serves different functions according to traffic patterns and the mapping and all of this. I felt that it was appropriate categories and that they were able to get the analysis that they needed and that they worth differentiating. So if I am the only opinion, at least I wanted to state that now. Board Member Hoffmann - I will talk to you about it later because I don't understand what you are saying, but I won't take time with it now. Board Member Howe — It's your turn, Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to say, are we done? I am comfortable and I am comfortable with the document. When I say document, lets make sure we all agree that we are going to talk about the document dated February 7th. We'll deal with the resolution as appropriate. I think the various committee meetings have helped a lot. I think I can look at Mr. Brittain and his brother. He still may not be happy...oh, I'm sorry. He's hiding over there. I'm not sure that they are entirely happy right now, but I appreciate the time and effort that they put into this, expressed their opinion, educate 67 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved this board. And the representatives of Cornell because they have all worked to. make a far better document. Let alone our Supervisor sitting out there. I am very happy with the way that it has come. We have gotten some substantial changes in wording, we did, someone else -did, they occurred. Lets -not talk about who did it: - -.I think We are pretty comfortable with most of the language in there right now. Board Member Mitrano — III move it. Chairperson Wilcox — Just a second. There was some concern about what this committed us to in the future. That has been addressed. We are all comfortable With that right now? Board indicates they are. Chairperson Wilcox -- So moved? Board Member Mitrano — So moved. Chairperson Wilcox — Moved by Tracy Mitrano. Susan? Seconded by Kevin Talty, Okay. Ms. Brock — Well, they are your changes. On the proposed resolution we just need to substitute on page 2, there are some dates for the revised draft scope of January 27th, but now we have the February 7th dates. We need to substitute that. That substitute needs to happen in item 9 on page 2, in both of the resolved clauses. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you a question? If you look at item 8, its says in the second line that we had a revised draft scope document dated the November 15th, revised January 11th. I was thinking somehow we wanted to reflect the fact that we came into this meeting with one dated January 27th and then got one dated February 7thh...kind of what I was thinking. Ms. Brock — So in number 9 we can say that Cornell has submitted a further revised draft scope dated, just leave that language, and thereafter submitted another revised draft scope dated February 7th. Would you like to do that? Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to do that to reflect the fact that there have been numerous versions and that there has been a lot of input. It also reflects what we have had to deal with. Ms. Brock — Then for the resolves, you will want to actually have February 7th. Chairperson Wilcox — That is correct. All set, Susan? .: Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved Board votes on motion. __.___PB RESOLUTION-NO.- 2006 -019: SEAR - -- Acceptance -of DraftScope-Document as Final Scope Document for t -GEIS - Cornell University transportation" focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GETS) for Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) MOTION by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. Cornell University has submitted a report outlining a proposal for a "transportation - focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- GEIS) and Ten year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS)'; dated August 26, 2005, being undertaken by Cornell University in cooperation with 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 information obtained from the t -GEIS, and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes Cornell University, Applicant, Kathryn Wolf, RL4, Principal -in- Charge (Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP); Martin, Alexiou, Bryson (Transportation Consultants), and 2. The proposed transportation- focused GEIS would be a generic environmental impact statement that will identify, examine and evaluate Cornelis transportation- related impacts and potential mitigations for several hypothetical population growth scenarios over the next decade. The GEIS is a tool availab le under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, commonly referred to as SEQR. Unlike an Environmental Impact Statement, a GEIS is flexible enough to explore hypothetical or alternative scenarios, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on September 12, 2005, and received no objections to the . Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this matter, and 4, The Planning Board after having reviewed the report referenced above, which includes a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Cornell University, a description of the proposed action, a cover letter (August 261 2005) . indicating that the applicant proposes to prepare a transportation- focused Generic EIS and is requesting a positive declaration of environmental .• Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved significance for the Planning Boards consideration, and Part 2 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency on November 1, 2005 to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed transportation- _.-...._ focused GEIS - and Ten -year -Transportation Impact Mitigation --- Strategy; as described above, and made a positive determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, confirming that a transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) will be prepared, and 5. Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope. and content of the t- GEIS, and that Cornell University would prepare a draft written scope of issues to be addressed in the t -GEIS, and 6. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on November 15, 2005, has reviewed a Preliminary Draft Scope, dated November 15, 2005, for the t -GEIS, submitted by Cornell University, and determined that said Preliminary Draft Scope was adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and 7. The Planning Board held two public scoping sessions, one on December 6, 20051 and a second on January 3, 2006, to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the t -GEIS, and accepted written comments on the Preliminary Draft Scope through December 16, 2005, after distributing the Preliminary Draft Scope to potentially involved and interested agencies and numerous stakeholders that had been identified, and 8. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on January 17, 2006, has reviewed a Revised Draft Scope document (dated November 15, 2005, revised January 11, 2006) for the t -GEIS, along with a "Responsiveness Summary for All Comments Received on t -GEIS Draft Scope, dated January 11, 2006, " and copies of all written comments and records of all oral comments made at the public scoping sessions, and provided comments and suggestions regarding additional revisions to these documents, and 96 Cornell has submitted a further "Revised Draft Scope" dated January 27, 2006 and thereafter submitted another "Revised Draft Scope" dated February 7, 2006 for the t -GEIS, along with a revised "Responsiveness Summary for All Comments Received on t -GEIS Draft Scope During Public Scoping, " dated 112712006, and the Planning Board has reviewed these documents at its meeting held on February 7, 2006, Wei Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines that the Revised Draft Scope -- document (dated - -February 7, 2006) for the t= GELS adequately incorporates the relevant comments and concerns of the Planning Board, the public, and involved and interested agencies, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the above - referenced Revised Draft Scope document (dated February 7, 2006) as the Final Scope document and as being adequate to define the scope and content of the t, GEIS. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — What is the next step? Ms. Wolf — We are ready to get to work. The next step will be for the consultants to develop a detailed outline of how we are going to accomplish this now that we know what we have to do. Chairperson Wilcox — The various committees will continue to meet on a regular basis? It seems that they are meeting monthly or every couple of weeks or something like that. Ms. Wolf — Well, I think at this point that they might be delayed somewhat. until we get some work going. Chairperson Wilcox— The website? Ms. Wolf — I think our intention is to begin, shortly, doing a monthly update on the website just to say this is what was done the last month and this is what we're doing in the month ahead. Chairperson Wilcox,— All set then? Mr. Wendt — Let me just thank the board. This is a rather novel process because this is about hypothetical growth and it is not the type of thing you normally deal with and it is 71 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved nothing that we have dealt with before. So I realize it is going to take a great deal of trust on our parts to really make this a successful endeavor. It is the first in NYS that I am aware of. I understand how people have had concerns because it is something new - - - -- and - novel.- I just- think-in-terms of the neighborhoods, Cornell has -tried through several— means to talk to the neighborhoods in different ways. In the transportation arena, we also can talk to the neighbors in the neighborhood and I look at the people who are in the room and have concerns and I don't want them to feel that they can't talk to us directly either. And I think a two way street or a three way street between us and you and the neighborhoods would be a better way for us to proceed as we go down this because it is really kind of the creative energy that we bring to this that is going to bring us some new solutions and creative solutions for the community in the future and that is what I am hoping in the end we will see this as a very proactive way of us not making mistakes that have been made in the past. There are certainly a lot of mistakes out there that may not be able to be corrected, but we don't want to make mistakes as we move forward. So I really appreciate your effort and all that has gone into this. Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann - I appreciate what you are saying and I hope that there will be a way of making sure that the neighborhoods that don't have neighborhood associations and aren't active and involved to be involved and I see what you have written to try to do that...(not audible)... Mr. Wendt -Thank you, Eva, I appreciate that. Chairperson Wilcox - Good night. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:39 p.m. MINUTES PS RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -020: Approval of Minutes: January 17, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the January 17, 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: None. 72 Planning Board Minutes February 7, 2006 Approved The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. VICE CHAIR NOMINATION PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -021; Nomination and Election Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2006 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Eva Hoffmann as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2006. FURTHER RESOL VED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.' Wilcox, Conneman, Mltrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Coates Whitmore reminds the board to get .in their ethics disclosures by February 28t"e Mr. Kanter gives an overview of the February 21st agenda. Chairperson Wilcox mentions that he will be attending developer who is looking to develop the land behind PRI. a meeting next week with the ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the February 7, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:46 p.m. R. spectfully submitted, f� Carrie Coa es 1A more Deputy Town Clerk 73 Attorney at Law 306 East State Street, Suite 230 Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone: 607- 277 -3995 Facsimile: 607- 277 -8042 TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: SUSAN BROCK RE: TRANSPORTATION GEIS DATE: JANUARY 30, 2006 E -mail: brock (&clarityconnect.com At your request, this memo. explains how the Planning Board will use the Transportation GEIS once it is completed. The GEIS is a planning tool to evaluate proposed strategies to mitigate transportation - related impacts that could be caused by future Cornell population growth. The final GEIS will identify mitigation strategies that are feasible and are likely to reduce neighborhood traffic impacts. The Planning Board will use this information to develop, in cooperation with Cornell, what has been called the Ten -Year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies ( "TIMS "). Until the GEIS is completed, we will not know what TIMS will look like or which entities will be expected to implement its various components. But we know the Planning Board will evaluate the array of mitigation strategies studied in the GEIS and will likely select at least . some of them to be included in TIMS. Ideally, the Planning Board would consult with other involved agencies, such as the Town Board and City Common Council, to develop a TIMS list that is acceptable to those entities as well, since they may also want to adopt TIMS if they need to implement or issue approvals for any of the strategies. Once TIMS is.adopted, the Planning Board might then be requested to issue approvals (such as site plan approval) for implementation of some of the TIMS components. The Planning Board will also continue to receive requests for approvals. for various non -TIMS construction projects at Cornell. The rest of this memo discusses the interplay between the GEIS and the SEQR process that the Planning Board will undertake for both of these categories. SEQR Review of TIMS Implementation Once TIMS is approved by the Planning Board, at least some of its components likely will be implemented. Cornell might implement some components (for example, increased car pooling incentives) that do not need any municipal approvals, so there would be no SEQR review of such components. Cornell might implement other components (for example, construction of additional on- campus bike routes) that need municipal approvals such as site plan approval. The SEQR process will apply to any requests for approvals that the Planning Board considers. To the extent the GEIS already evaluated the impacts of the specific project in its DaYc� 1!1e 1,rq v2l o,'Zvv�e 'ArvCu Xwu,o TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 7, 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to. be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. The proposal also requires a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant, 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Genex Monsanto Building Addition, 521 Sheffield Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/ 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Moore Dock, Sea Wall, Boat Lift & Mooring, 1028 East Shore Drive. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a rock riprap wall, a dock, a boat lift and mooring at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile wooden dock, 6' wide by 30' long with an "L" extension to the south 15' wide by 8' long. The .plans also include a 10' wide by 15' long boatlift, a mooring placed approximately 65' -75' from the shoreline and the construction of a sea wall along the length of the property's shoreline. Timothy J. Moore and Michael C. Moore, Owners /Applicants. 7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination: Sokoloff Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the construction of a dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 6' wide by 64' long with an "L" to the north 8' wide by 14' long. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on January 3, 2006, Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant. 8:15 P.M. Continuation of consideration of acceptance of the Draft Scope document (revised January 27, 2006) as the Final Scope document for the transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t =GEIS) for a Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy (TIMS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, February 7, 2006 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, February 7, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. The proposal also requires a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant, 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves. constructing a +/ 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a rock riprap wall, a dock, a boat lift and mooring at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile wooden dock, 6' wide by 30' long with an "L" extension to the south 15' wide by 8' long. The plans also include a 10' wide by 15' long boatlift, a mooring placed approximately 65'- 75' from the shoreline and the construction of a sea wall along the length of the property's shoreline. Timothy J. Moore and Michael C. Moore, Owners /Applicants. 7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan. Approval and Special Permit for the construction of a dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 6' wide by 64' long with an "L" to the north 8' wide by 14' long. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on January 3, 2006. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may.appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, . upon request: Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 30, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, February 1, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&WIN SHEET DATE: February 7, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME 4 PLEASE PRINT ADDRE55 /AFFILIATION rm Y ju J)o On Aft d o � � v rm TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication: January 30, 2006 February 1, 2006 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:. COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1" day of February 2006, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052876 Qualified in es De Commission Expires 26, 20 _