Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-06-03FILE ?� DATE i741 g PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA REGULAR MEETING 215 NORTH TIOGA ST JUNE 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. Board Members Present: Rod Howe, Chair; George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Hollis Erb and Fred Wilcox Absent. Eva Hoffmann and Kevin Talty Staff Present: Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:10pm) Others Present. Melinda Stanizewska, Coddington Rd Katherine Wolf & Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge &Wolf Bill Wendt, Cornell Transportation Director Andrea Riddle, Montessorl School Steven Moolin, Beardsley Design Associates Bill Wendt, Maple Ave Call to Order Chairperson Howe called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Persons to be Heard Melinda Staniszewska, Coddington Road I am continuing with my quest to see Coddington Road improved between Hudson Road and the College East Entrance, and I continue to have petitioners sign as I meet them passing my home. Nowadays it's summer students or local residents, and I'll present that to you as a full page at the next meeting. Just this afternoon I spoke to Ed Marx, County Planning Director, and we reviewed the results of the City of Ithaca Planning Board meeting, which I attended last week. I presented my concerns about the path being a duplication of service already existing on Coddington Road. Paving is there, lighting is there, and the number of feet of path versus the number of feet of the existing Coddington Road and Garden Drive is ... there's very little difference. Not to mention the fact that students can only choose to go one way or the other and the College will not be solving the problem of students and residents needing to walk and bike along Coddington. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 2 I approached... Mr. Marx had said to me that if...l am trying, as an individual person to get the parties involved, the City, the Town and the County. There is the issue of the intersection of Hudson and Coddington which isn't clearly marked or sidewalk properly, and there's the issue of the distance between that intersection and the College, which is heavily traveled. Mr. Marx said this afternoon that if I approached... if approached by the Town, he would support their interest in a proposal to sidewalk and bike lane the Coddington block that I am trying to focus attention on. I have a handout here which I presented the map portion to the City at their meeting and then I included a letter that I have written to the editor for the Ithaca Times of today. (Passed out to Board) The map really just shows the intersection and how there are three stop signs, how there is a proposed crosswalk from the College path to the Recreation Way but nobody has ever defined a crosswalk from the triangular section, which is City, and it goes across to Coddington ... I've seen people cross ever which way and I think the crosswalks should be marked...) think we ought to pay attention to sidewalks and I think we ought to even include bus shelters. Now that people are possibly going to be taking more public transportation, the students already congregate to go to class and to return. There are lots of students living in the South Hill area. I think that should all be considered in this entire project. Just for me to read the letter to the editor, I passed it out to you, so I hope you will pay attention to some of the points I am trying to make ... the College already owns 65% of the properties along Coddington, they say that they're doing their path because we aren't doing anything on our part. And so I think we have a duplication of efforts here. The Recreation Way closes at 8pm so there's no contiguous use and if they really want some sort of path at the end of the completion of the Athletics & Events Center, I think that should be where the emphasis should lie. Thank you very much. Chairperson Howe — I think that we've always felt that this is an issue that needs coordination amongst different municipalities or entities, but it wasn't our role to initiate that dialogue. So I don't know if the right parties are talking about this issue and the intersection, and Coddington Road ... Does anyone know if that's being initiated in an intermunicipal level? Board Member Wilcox — If I may ... Melinda, if I could get you back up to the microphone, because we were talking before the meeting ... you mentioned to me that you will be back here next week when the Town Board meets [yes], you are speaking to County officials, Ed Marx, possibly others, [yes], and then you also mentioned to me that you were going to get in touch with Will Burbank as an elected official to the County, [yes]. So I think those are the players, the elected officials who control the purse strings and Ed Marx who I believe, besides being the Commissioner of Planning, is also the Head of the Department of Public Works in the County, I think he wears that hat as well, whose recommendation would be important if the County is going to allow some sort of construction of a sidewalk along that stretch of road. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 3 Chairperson Howe — I concur with Fred that you're talking to the right people who will then... Board Member Wilcox — Who control the money... Ms. Staniszewska — Right, except we really need the participation of Ithaca College. We need to reach them. I've written a letter to Peggy Williams, even though she is stepping down as President, she is remaining to fundraise for the Athletics & Events Center, and should have some input, possibly into a collaborative effort here... Chairperson Howe — I can't speak for the College, but I can't imagine if there was a meeting called together that Ithaca College wouldn't be willing to send somebody... Ms. Staniszewska — That's what I ask. Board Member Riha — I thought there already was a plan to expand and put in bike paths along Coddington Road. Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't say there's a plan. Board Member Riha — So it's not like Hanshaw? They never got to that stage? Mr. Kanter — Not at all. Board Member Riha —Okay. So the County has no plans to put in any.... Mr. Kanter — There have been preliminary concept discussions; it has not gone farther than that. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Is there anyone else Planning Board? I forgot to mention that Eva and Kevin but we still have enough members to move forward. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item, s1swn ueiermination' Cornell Unive Apple Drive and PUBLIC HEARING: Plan Anoreval fnr iha nr^nr%&ea Z.dd: rO Ln rO Ln s an enol who would like to address the Talty are absent this evening, logy Building Addition 128 Crisi ation of Preliminary and Final Sits Cornell University Pomology Cols Apple Drive (Cornell Universit, Tax Parcel No. 63 =1 -11 Planner s constructing a 2.700 +/. sguan 119800 +/_ square foot Pomolog� :hinn lah and i•G.ie...�..�... Associates, Agent PB 6.3.08 Pg. 4 We have a brief presentation, and then if we have questions we have a chance to ask the agent. Steven Moolin, Beardsley Design Associates Yeah, I wanted to thank you for the legal notice because it named me as "agent" and for the first time in 30 years as an architect, my son thought I was very cool. And I'd like to thank Mike Smith too because I called him back on April 17th and that's how I am here today. So, Anything you see up here tonight is in the packets that you've already received, the 11x1 Ts and the other things, but, very briefly, the program, the Onology Program, is currently conducted up at the Geneva Ag Station and so this addition is to accommodate that program until future provisions can be made on the main campus. The location is along Dryden Road here, on Crisp Apple Drive here. The addition is on the south side of the building facing away from Route 366, Dryden Road and there was a question that Mike Smith had forwarded me about the impervious area, which was when we originally looked at impervious area, we looked at it in terms of the building, so, in terms of the building, what we're actually doing is we are building on, well, as you can see here, we have gravel drives and gravel yards on all sides of the building which is currently impervious area, but when you look at the addition to the building, you look at an area that is currently semi - enclosed back here, we're taking that down and putting a building in that place. When you look at the building plan, there's a , on your 11x17's there's a bold dash line here, that's a footprint of this existing semi- enclosed area. So what we're doing is we're tearing that down, building there plus this additional square footage. So there's approximately, with this and a concrete apron out front, which is, frankly, a housekeeping device for the use of the building, approximately 2,000 additional impervious square feet. As far as the building is concerned. As far as the site is concerned, however, we are building on existing gravel so we are not adding to impervious square footage. That is really the extent of my presentation. It is not a large addition, it is in keeping with the use of that P -9 zone and when we evaluated the building from a building code stand point, we looked at the most restrictive use of the entire building, which is mercantile, and we used the square footages there to allow for a non - separated use building. Chairperson Howe — And I think I read that when it's no longer being used as part of the Onology, it will just be used by the Pomology Department. Mr. Moolin — That's correct. And that was one of the reasons for choosing a more permanent structure rather than a metal building. Use a masonry building. But using a masonry building with a metal roof also is in keeping with the existing building construction and as an attempt to be, frankly, unadorned small addition to the building. Chairperson Howe — Are you aware of any environmental issues? Mr. Moolin — No I am not, no. Chairperson Howe — Questions? PB 6.3.08 Pg. 5 Board Member Wilcox — I have a couple. In your letter dated May 2Id, you point out that the estimated cost of the project is $550,000. Mr. Moolin — I was doing that to be conservative for the fee for tonight's meeting... Board Member Wilcox — You're putting together a 2,000 square foot addition, how can is cost $500,000 +? Mr. Moolin — Well, the buildings that I have built recently were between $200 and $250 a square foot once we get permits and the like in so the total cost of the building structure is there. We're also, you know, a prevailing wage rate job too. Board Member Wilcox — Amazing. I thought that was a typo, frankly. Mr. Moolin — No, no Sir, no. Board. Member Wilcox — I really, given the construction ... alright. My other question is, on the sort of west side of the building is a liquid nitrogen tank, and you might want to use an overhead photograph, might be the best way to show it, uhhmmm, it's the side of the building on which the very narrow part of the addition will extend ... yes...it would appear right now that the tank truck that comes to fill that probably enters from the front, goes to the west side of the building, stops, unloads the liquid nitrogen, and then could proceed around the building and then back out to the road, this addition will block that, or change the access to that nitrogen tank. Mr. Moolin — It will change the access to it, yes. Board Member Wilcox — How will the truck unload with the addition being there? Mr. Moolin — I don't know. Board Member Wilcox — It's an important question. Mr. Moolin — I believe one of the things the owner is doing is also looking at replacing that facility too, the liquid nitrogen. Board Member Wilcox — It's not the answer I want to hear now. I would expect Cornell and you to have already figured out how you're going to deal with that situation given the addition. Mr. Moolin — I know that one of the things that the owner had looked at when we went out and kind of paced off the site, is the ability to move around the entire building because we're really not, we're not encompassing that entire roadway. We probably have about 10 feet on one side. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 6 Board Member Wilcox — I visited the site this afternoon and that's when I noticed the issue. You haven't convinced me that you've thought about it and have a solution for it. Mr. Moolin — I think we can get back to Mike if there is any more information that we have to get to you. Board Member Thayer — How often do they have to be fueled? Mr. Moolin — I believe it's a monthly filling. But that was not a major program issue for ... and we had the staff involved who use that facility too. Board Member Wilcox — It may not be a program issue, but it's a site plan issue which is the responsibility of this Board. Mr. Moolin — I understand. Board Member Wilcox — Is there a representative of Cornell here, by the way? Just...did anybody accompany you from Cornell? Just out of curiosity. I ran into a gentleman out back, his name was Curt, who works at the building, he gave me a tour, he answered my questions, and I want it on the record that he was very helpful and I appreciated his assistance. Chairperson Howe — So Fred, keep it in mind, in case you want that to be a condition when we get to the... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, it's possible an answer... Mr. Moolin — Sorry. Chairperson Howe — Hollis ... any questions? I am somewhat frustrated they don't have Board Member Erb — Not specifically about that... Chairperson Howe — This ... if you have any questions, this is a good time... Chairperson Howe — For purposes of being consistent from one application to another, I thought we checked "commercial" at the Plantations building demolition because they have a shop in the building. Chairperson Howe - Your talking about on the SEQR form? Board Member Erb — Yeah, so on the SEQR form I would have thought we would have checked "commercial" again. Mr. Kanter — They definitely have sales there. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 7 Board Member Erb — There definitely are lovely sales there. And there are residences as close as the intersection to the east. Board Member Wilcox — It's quite a distance. Game Farm Road? Board Member Erb — Yeah. Is it too far for... Board Member Wilcox — You know what, I don't... Board Member Erb — I don't know what the rules are. Board Member Wilcox — There are no rules. Chairperson Howe — We've checked it. Ms. Neilsen — Did you want "residential" also? Chairperson Howe — Did you also say "residential" or just if . Board Member Erb — Well I was, especially "commercial" for sure. Chairperson Howe — Are you okay if it's just "commercial" that. we check? Board Member Erb — Yeah,. if everyone else is. Board Member Riha — So I am just following up on my email to Mike.. .56, gravel counts as impervious surface? Gravel is considered an impervious surface then? Mr. Walker — Pervious or impervious? Board Member Riha — Impervious. I thought it would have been pervious. Mr. Walker — Semipervious. We look at it ... if it's a parking lot it's less pervious than a lawn area. Board Member Riha — So how is stormwater handled in this facility right now? Mr. Moolin — Well, what happens right now is that it runs off the roof, is gathered in gutters, downspouts, and then splash blocks onto the surface. Board Member Riha — So it's just kind of your basic surface... Mr. Moolin —just like your house probably. Board Member Riha — Well, I think Cornell should be doing a little better than that, but, for now, it meets, I think, the requirements. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 8 Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Chairperson Howe — George. ..any questions... Board Member Conneman — I wanted to say, I'll answer Fred's question about buildings at Cornell. When you have the State involved in it, for example, when Cornell builds a new dairy barn, that'll probably cost five —times as much as we would, a commercial farmer, because they have to have all these architects and pay everybody off, whatever that means, and so it's four or five times... Board Member Wilcox — Did that $550,000 strike anybody else as... Board Member Riha — It is amazing. Board Member Conneman — Knowing what the deal is, you can't do anything... Board Member Thayer — I'm assuming it includes all the internal stuff. Board Member Wilcox — Presumably, too, but. ..what are they, gold plated stuff? Chairperson Howe — Larry has moved the SEQR resolution...is there a second? Seconded by George. All those in favor ... so it was unanimous, there was no opposition or abstentions. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 048 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Cornell University Pomology Building Addition Tax Parcel No 63 -1 -11 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, ,tune 3, 2008 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman, WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Cornell University Pomology Cold Storage Building located at 128 Crisp Apple Drive (Cornell University Orchards off Dryden Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -11, Planned Development Zone No, 9. The project involves constructing a 2,700 +/- square foot addition on the south side of the existing 11,800 +/- square foot Pomology Cold Storage Building to house an enology teaching lab and cider press. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven F. Moolin, R.A., Beardsley Design Associates, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and PB 6.3.08 Pg. 9 3. The Planning Board, on June 3, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Watershed Boundary Plan" (L -101), date stamped May 5, 2008, "Foundation, First Floor, Framing & Roof Plans" (A -101), dated March 7, 2008, "Elevations & Details" (A 201), dated May 9, 2008, prepared by Beardsley Design Associates, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — If you want to have a sear, we'll open the public hearing. This is a public hearing on the preliminary and final site plan approval for the proposed addition to the Cornell University Pomology Cold Storage Building. Is there anyone who would ... and I am opening the public hearing at 7:20p.m ... is there anyone who would like to address the Board on this issue? I'll leave that open for a couple minutes. Are there further questions? It looks like you have a... Board Member Erb — I don't know if this is a necessary clarification or not, but on both the SEQR that we just voted on and on this, sheet L101 is referred to as having a May 51 2008 date stamp, and I've been all over the sheet and I can not find a date stamp. Mine says unstamped. Has the word 94 unstampedif . And I don't know whether that's important to anything. (Everyone looks) No, Lone - zero -one it refers to. I tried to catch his.... Mr. Moolin — The term unstamped.... Chairperson Howe — Can you use the mike please... PB 6.3.08 Pg. 10 Mr. Moolin — The term 16 unstamped" in this case means that we do not have a professional seal on it yet, and no, I don not find a date on that drawing either. Board Member Erb — The word is in the "date" slot. Mr. Moolin — Yes. Chairperson Howe — Any other comments? We will close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m, and see if we have any language we would like to add to the proposed resolution. Would you like to propose something Fred? Board Member Wilcox — I'm sure Susan's on top of it already... she's not laughing. Ms. Brock — So Fred, do you want a condition... Board Member Wilcox — Normally in something like this, we would want to see evidence presented, I guess, the approval of the Director of Planning, at this point, that safe access to the liquid nitrogen storage tank is provided, something like that. Mr. Kanter — Well, let me just ask a question, because it looks like, on the aerial photo, there is there are two ways of accessing the tank now. My assumption would be with the addition going behind it, there still would be access to it from the lower side. However, .. . Board Member Wilcox — If I may. ..(Fred goes to the illustration board and explains what he means). So the entrance is here and right now they could probably pull up, let's use this one, they could pull in, stop and go around this way, which is very safe, the tanker never has to back up. With the addition in place, and I don't know what they are going to do with the dumpster here, but with that addition in place, are they going to come in this way and pull in and back up ... I'm just worried about them backing in this front area because apparently, they can't go all the way around. That's my concern Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I guess that would depend on how large that truck is that delivers it also because it may be that going in, backing up to it and coming out is absolutely no problem, depending on when they do it because that parking lot is not usually full, in fact, there usually aren't cars in it unless its open for retail. Board Member Wilcox — Which that's my...l think we've all seen the trucks, they're large, milk- tanker truck sized, you know, large fuel - delivery truck sized and clearly, it's safer for them to not have to back up. Chairperson Howe — I think it's reasonable to add a condition, and I missed whether you were comfortable with the Staff reviewing whatever, or would you want them to come... Board Member Wilcox — No, I'm comfortable with the Staff doing it if they're willing to accept that responsibility. Yeah, yeah... PB 6.3.08 Pg. 11 Mr. Kanter — Sure. Why don't we say whatever we're saying, subject to review and approval of Director of Engineering and Director of Planning. Ms. Brock — How about "submission of plans or other information satisfactory to the Town's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering showing adequate access to the liquid nitrogen tank" and let me amend that by saying, showing ... uhhh adequate... okay... we'll put that at the end... "showing adequate access to the liquid nitrogen tank by delivery vehicles." Board Member Wilcox — What do we mean by "adequate "? I mean safe ... I don't like the word "adequate"... we can leave adequate but my primary concern is safety. Ms. Brock — Alright, .. "adequate and safe "? Okay. so that would be condition c. Chairperson Howe — And while we are doing changes, are there other changes? Do we have to address this issue of the date stamp... Board Member Wilcox — So should we change reference to that L101 as being undated. Ms. Brock —And that shows up in the 3rd whereas clause and the 1St resolved... we'll say undated.... Mr. Walker — I noticed on these plans there really are no site - grading plan or site plan on here ... so, I'm assuming that they are going to put a driveway all the way around that, so I don't see that as a big issue. Board Member Wilcox — But again, if that's what they are going to do, then that should be on the plan that we have... Mr. Walker — Well ... (inaudible) ... no building permit shall be issued until an adequate driveway is shown on the plan. I mean, you look on the elevation of the rearview of the proposed addition and it looks like there's about a 25 400t wide driveway to the left of the new addition...you see there's quite a bit of gray area ... they haven't done a very good job of revising site plan, these are building plans, not site plans... Chairperson Howe — Do you have any other changes? Ms. Brock — No, I think the language I proposed actually would cover what Dan was talking about. Chairperson. Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution? Hollis.... seconded? I'm always afraid I missed a step ... I did close the public hearing... Fred... all those in favor ... it was unanimous. PB 6.3.08 Pg, 12 ADOTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO, 2008 - 049 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Cornell University Pomology Building Addition Tax Parcel No 63 -1 -11 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 3, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Cornell University Pomology Cold Storage Building located at 128 Crisp Apple Drive (Cornell University Orchards off Dryden Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 63 -1 -11, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The project involves constructing a 2,700 +/- square foot addition on the south side of the existing 11,800 +/- square foot Pomology Cold Storage Building to house an enology teaching lab and cider press. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven F. Moolin, R.A., Beardsley Design Associates, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on June 3, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 3, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Watershed Boundary Plan" (L -101), undated, "Foundation, First Floor, Framing & Roof Plans" (A -101), dated March 7, 2008, "Elevations & Details" (A 201), dated May 9, 2008, prepared by Beardsley Design Associates, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the addition to the Cornell University Pomology Cold Storage Building located at 128 Crisp Apple Drive, as shown on the drawings titled "Watershed Boundary Plan" (L -101), undated, "Foundation, First Floor, Framing & Roof Plans" (A -101), dated March 7, 2008, "Elevations & Details" (A 201), dated May 9, 2008, prepared by Beardsley Design Associates, subject to the following conditions: a, submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and PB 6.3.08 Pg. 13 b. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. C, Submission of plans or other information, satisfactory to the Town's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering, showing adequate and safe access to the liquid nitrogen tank by delivery vehicles. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T =GEIS) Chairperson Howe — We were handed additional material this evening, much more compact ... than the materials of a couple of weeks ago, many of us were dutiful and brought in our notebooks and I believe that tonight ... many of you are probably like me where I may have opened and started looking... there will be plenty of opportunities for us to more thoroughly discuss ... I think tonight is a chance for us to have... orientation think is probably the right word, and then of course if you have some questions already, you can ask questions. Katherine Wolf & Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents for Cornell. Ms. Wolf — So I think you characterized it quite well, Rod and I think I would also like to emphasize that people shouldn't feel pressured to get every detail nailed down tonight. I think there will be many opportunities to have your questions answered. I think I mentioned last time that the transportation planners can be available at the next meeting, if you'd like, to answer your questions as well and we anticipate that there will be many opportunities to review the material. What I'd like to do tonight is, I have a few comments and then I've put together some talking points that we could go through, this outline together, briefly. There's just a few things that I thought would be helpful if I brought them to your attention and of course we are happy to take questions and feel free to interrupt me at any time and ask questions. We put together an outline of things we thought might be helpful as you embark on this, just to clarify some things. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 14 Again, just to remind you, this is adequacy review, so that means, really, your job, your task at this point in time, is to verify that the TGEIS does in fact contain everything outlined in the scoping document. That is your primary charge at this point in time. You are not conducting an adequacy review on the TIMS, just to sort of clarify that piece of it. I think one way you might think of this is if you were receiving a site plan review application that had a environmental impact statement with it, in a way, the TIMS could be sort of thought of, that would be the site plan. So you are doing the adequacy review on the SEAR process, not on the TIMS. I think that the TIMS very closely parallels section 5, the mitigations, so I think that as you're reviewing the mitigation section, that's really, probably you're going to find that's the most logical time to also be reviewing the TIMS. I think the distinction between the TGEIS and the TIMS is really the TIMS represents those mitigation measures that are being proposed to be carried forward as action items, if you will, by Cornell University. And so the TIMS is really viewed as sort of the strategic transportation plan for the next 10 years. So these are the action items by Cornell University. It is a draft and it will not be completed until we have completed the SEQR process. So it is anticipated that there may in fact be revisions to the TIMS as well, based on what comes out of this process. Let's see, what else do I want to talk to you about ... I think L J guess maybe with that, maybe we could take a look at the talking points that I have provided and we'll just kind of go through this and I will try to move through this fairly quickly and again, feel free to stop me with questions. First of all, just the general organization of the TGEIS. Fairly obvious, but, the first section of course is the Executive Summary. The, well, preceding that of course is the final scoping document, so that's in there as well, for your reference. Chapter 2 outlines the action, Purpose, Need and Benefit. And Chapters 3, 4, & 5 the Existing Conditions, the Potential Impacts of Population Growth, and Potential Mitigations are really structured in a parallel fashion. They each address in the same order, bikes and peds, vehicles, transit, etc. etc, and again, the TIMS very closely resembles the Mitigation section. The Action described in Chapter 2, 1 think ultimately, ultimately we decided that, we've all had a lot of discussion about what the action is, and I think that ultimately we decided that the action is really future site plan review and other approval applications that come before this and other Boards that will utilize the TGEIS. So it's really future applications, that's the primary, future actions are really the primary subject, and then in addition, there is the TIMS which we believe would not be formally accepted by the Planning Board, again, because it really is sort of an internal action plan for Cornell University but it's something that you can perhaps accept or receive. So those are really the 2 components of the action. Board Member Riha — So I had a question about that because some of the actions involve, obviously, parts of the Town and so, how does that work? Because Cornell could obviously do certain things, like some of the policies they've taken with providing PB 6.3.08 Pg, 15 Freshman with free bus passes and things within the campus, but then, a lot of this has to do with making changes in some aspect in the Town. Ms. Wolf — You're referring to the TIMS now? Board Member Riha — Yeah, and the last chapter. Ms. Wolf — The mitigations... right... Board Member Riha — Right, because you look and say "oh, that looks interesting" but... Ms. Wolf — That's correct. Well, I think that mitigations are, well, not all of the mitigations will happen. Not all of them will be implemented as in most strategic plans, some things move forward and some don't and it's a clearly stated intention of the University to work with the partners... there has been a lot of collaboration to date and in fact, I think that the, those items, those components that have been moved forward have already, we've heard a lot from municipal leaders and transportation planners in the community, I think there's been a lot of consensus already, and agreement, that these are components or elements that should move forward. So, there's already been, that's part of what has taken this process so long. I think it's been very inclusive and broad based and a lot of input and so, it's true, they can't do it alone, and some things might not happen because a partner is unwilling or doesn't want to. So, again, it will be a process that evolves, that's also why there are 5 year updates to the TIMS, that things can be reassessed. You know, maybe, what didn't work or what wasn't successful and so are there other things that perhaps need to happen or perhaps become a higher priority because of that. Board Member Riha — Yeah, so, just what I wasn't quite clear on, and maybe Jonathan knows the answer, is whether by essentially accepting this plan, then the Planning Board is saying that this is a vision of how transportation should look like in the Town of Ithaca for the next 5 years or... Mr. Kanter — Well, no, because we already have that. We have our Transportation Plan... Board Member Riha — Exactly... Mr. Kanter -- ....which is our vision of how transportation should be in the future. But we can look at this as a supplement to our Transportation Plan in some ways, but I think more so, we would look at it more as a resource document that the Planning Board, the Town Board, and others can use when you make future decisions. So I think the key would be what we come up with in the Findings Statement in terms of the Planning Board's findings, you can say as much or as little as you want to and you can put as much weight into this or as little as you want to. And likewise, whatever statement we might make about the TIMS could range from acceptance, you know, we have received the document, thank you very much, or it could even have some more, a stronger form PB 6.3.08 Pg. 16 of supporting statement or something like that. And there could, in the Finding Statement, there can be all kinds of language about what we would want to see happen in the future. Chairperson Howe — Well, and does this suggest some sort of ongoing, inter- governmental agency and government communication? Because there's a lot of that that had to come together for this, and to get back to Susan's point, I'm hoping that somehow there a structure for using that framework to do this periodically. Ms. Wolf — And I think that's a good point, and I think that's already been discussed. There's a Resource Committee that we have been working with throughout this process which is a group of, we view them as technical advisors, Jonathan is on that Resource Committee, as are engineers and planners from all of the surrounding municipalities and DOT as well as Fernando DeAaregon who is the Executive Director of the Ithaca - Tompkins, ITCTC, Tompkins Transportation Council, and I think it was ... that organization currently coordinates transportation for this region. And so I think it's been pretty much agreed that that is the logical body to continue to coordinate these efforts, the multi - municipal efforts that are suggested in the TIMS so that they're coordinated with other things that are going on regionally. I mean, they really are very much in the driver's sear in terms of grant applications for federal aid, so all of these have to be coordinated in the context of that, and so I think, I think there's been discussion about having a subcommittee that works on the implementation component from ITCTC. Okay. Then, moving on on the Talking Points then. Item C, the Travel Survey, I just wanted to point out to you that the scope ... if you look at the Scoping Document, it refers to, it says that part of our method will be to conduct a web -based survey. I think in the TGEIS we refer to that as a travel survey. So, a travel survey was designed and conducted and I think I presented soma of the findings of that at some of the previous meetings, there was a very high response rate so we feel very confident of what we learned. It provides a good baseline of the mode split. Why people commute the way they do commute. What it might take to change their commuting patterns. And the Executive Summary of that travel survey is one of the appendices in your Appendix. And we also used the information in the Survey, there were questions in the Survey, people had, people responding had to tell us how they actually came to campus and so that was very helpful in understanding where people were coming from and that information was utilized then in the traffic analysis. So, with that in mind, I also just wanted to... there's a couple of diagrams in here that I think can be somewhat daunting...if you want to turn to page 248 in your document, and then, actually, I am drawing your attention to the diagram on the right -hand side, Figure 424 -A1 and the following page, 424 -A2. I just wanted to explain these diagrams to you ... I think if it's explained to you, it's quite easy to understand, but it's maybe not so obvious otherwise. So, utilizing the Travel Survey, and then this was cross - checked and verified against geo -coded address data, but utilizing that information, we were able to identify where people are living and what corridors they arrive on to campus. So for example, if you look at Route 13 coming in from Dryden, the number in black tells you that 15.4% of the Cornell driving population, actually, this is the important part of this diagram ... if you look PB 6.3.08 Pg. 17 at the name of the figure... Origin Area of Existing and Future Cornell Driving Population. So it's only, so for all those people who actually drive to Campus, so this isn't people who take the bus, or walk or bike, it's not the entire Cornell Population, it's the driving population, because this was utilized as a base for our traffic analysis. So, of the driving population, 15.4% of the existing driving population reside in that sort of tan wedge and arrive along Route 13. And these wedges, of course, expand way off the map. Of the future additional population growth, okay, we expect that 18.7% of just that future growth, will come in on Route 13. Chairperson Howe — At. ..What scenario though are you using for that? Ms. Wolf — That's under all scenarios. And so... Board Member Thayer — So that's a maximum you're talking? Ms. Wolf — Whatever the future growth, additional growth is. So we've got three scenarios. Board Member Thayer — Right, that's why I asked. Board Member Erb — So under all three growth scenarios, you have the same distribution of locations of origin... Ms. Wolf — Correct. Correct. Board Member Erb — So the fact that,--,if it's the higher growth scenario, it's not suddenly going to shift, to come in from a different location. Ms. Wolf — That's correct. That's correct. However, some locations, for example, so the point here is that we did not assume the same level of commuting, we did not assume the same distribution and this is based on an understanding of where housing is likely to develop, more housing... there are certain areas, for example, if you look on the map and you look at Cayuga Heights, okay, and Cornell Heights, for one thing, we don't really expect more housing growth there. We don't really expect a lot of the future additional population growth to be located there, because we don't really expect that there's going to be, it's pretty built up, so, so we don't, we haven't attributed hardly any trips of the growth to those neighborhoods. Board Member Thayer — So that's why 96 and 79 are much more, in percentage, increased. Ms. Wolf — Correct. It takes a little getting your brain around... Now, okay, if you're ready, we'll go to the next page ... weIre looking ... the previous page separated existing and future, now we're saying, now we've thrown them all together and we've said of the entire Cornell driving population again, again, we are only talking about those who are driving, the top number, and we can look at Route 13 again, so again, 15.4% of the PB 6.3.08 Pg. 18 existing driving population is coming in on Route 13. Under scenario one, excuse me, under scenario one, which is no Cornell growth, so therefore, it's the existing number, 15.4% under no Cornell growth, will come in on Route 13. Under scenario two, 15.5% of the Cornell driving population will come in on that corridor. Under scenario three, 15.7 of the entire driving population comes in on that corridor and under scenario four, 16% of the entire driving population comes in along that corridor. Board Member Thayer — So why doesn't it equal 18.7? Ms. Wolf — Well, yeah, this is ... I don't know why we put that first diagram in there... because the 18.7 is only of the additional population. Then when the ... it's a blended number. Ms. Wolf — Does everybody else understand that distinction? Board Member Conneman — It seems that the difference between 15.5 and 16 isn't very great. That's a pretty narrow thing to measure. Board Member Thayer — All of them are very narrow. Board Member Conneman — I mean, that's so narrow, you could flip a coin. Ms. Wolf — Well, I mean, what it's telling you is that those corridors that are the predominant corridors are going to continue to be the predominant corridoors. I think, we don't expect to see in the next 10 years some major population shift, right, it's really going to be that small I think. There are minor shifts, but it's not like we expect there's going to be some new, major population center and all the growth is going to go there. And when you take the number of growth that we are talking about ... first of all, for example, in scenario 3 for example, which is 1,500, that's the total population growth, they don't all drive. So it's an even smaller number than that, because a certain percentage of them take the bus, walk, bike, so you've got a smaller number, and by the time you distribute them all around.... Board Member Conneman — So don't get excited about the numbers. That's my conclusion when I looked at this. Ms. Wolf — Right. Board Member Wilcox — When you started this project, what was the price of gas? Let's pick a number, $2.50 a gallon, now it's $4.00. Has anybody had discussions about how that change in the price of a gallon of gas has impacted either the data that you have collected or the conclusions you have or will draw from the work that you've done? Ms. Wolf — Yeah, well it's gone up since we went to press, I think ... It's a bit of a moving target isn't it. We certainly had discussions about that. I think it's acknowledged in here in a general way. Did we quantify that? No. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 19 Board Member Wilcox — I understand it's not on the scoping document, I understand that. Ms. Wolf — I don't know if you want to address that Bill. Bill Wendt, Cornell Transportation Director Fred raises a good point, and I think as you read through the document and its TIMS you will see that we're proposing to do an annual update, a report, that will update the Planning Board on a regular basis as to the population and how it exists at Cornell and as to the participation levels. So for instance, Countywide right now, the TCAT Board heard this week that ridership is up 3 %. That seems small, but we have a big percentage of ridership now, and that's pretty much the idea, to keep you informed over the next decade on a year4o -year basis where we can take a point in time and report to you have different it is and what kind of progress is being made. Because the price of gas is certainly going to have an impact. Ms. Wolf — Okay. So those were the only diagrams that I was going to point out to you and I am happy to go through that again in the future if you'd like. I think the other thing that we did ... moving on on the talking points then to letter D, we did want to remind you that we had extensive public input. Of course that is above and beyond the public hearings that we will have as part of the SEQR process and the focus of that input was on neighborhood livability. I think we can say very confidently that that input very much influenced and is reflected in the document in terms of identifying deficiencies in the transportation system. Identifying problems in neighborhoods Suggestions that were made for mitigations. I think all of that has very much been intergraded into the TGEIS and I think it reflects a lot of sentiment in the community in terms of a lot of the sections in the TGEIS. There were, in terms of sort of formally organized public forums ... we had 7 of them. Four were public open houses specifically focused on neighborhood livability and there were two in the Spring of '06 and two in '07 and my goodness, now it's '08. Those were sponsored by the University Neighborhood Council and the Ithaca Neighborhood Council and there was extensive outreach to get people to those workshops. I'm not going to go through all the detail, but the first one was really to listen to their concerns and the second one was really to get comments and feedback on preliminary proposals. We also had one public open house focused specifically on bike and pedestrian issues, and we had two public forums with the Disabilities Advisory Council. Those were held at City of Ithaca Common Council Chambers and we had pretty extensive outreach to the disability community, the larger disability community. There was also a TGEIS website where people could comment, and all of the comments that we received at these public forums, both in written or comments in terms of making comments on maps that we had there, these are all in the Appendix B so every single comment that was made, was recorded and those are all there. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 20 Board Member Riha — I had another question ... so, in the TGEIS website, because I haven't gone to it. ..Is this information available? I'm thinking ahead in terms of our own public hearings, how are people going to... Ms. Wolf — Good question. At this point in time,. the TGEIS is not there at this point in time. At this point in time it's really a Planning Board undertaking. Jonathan did pose the question to me, you know, would we want to put it on the website for the public, to make it available to the public. I think that's probably you're call. Certainly at the time it's released for public comment, it will definitely be put on the website. That will be done for sure, and then usually we, usually it's put at the Public Library, we put it usually at all the libraries at Cornell University and there may be other locations...) don't know... maybe the TCAT office ... I think we will identify other locations and then those will be advertised, that these are locations where you can go to look at a hard copy, and it will definitely be on the website then. Board Member Riha — Because I would think that a lot of people who have attended these previous meetings will want to see what you came up with and comment on that. Ms. Wolf — Absolutely. Board Member Riha — Especially for their neighborhood. It's going to be a huge file... We'll need a pretty reasonable way that people can access what some of these plans are when they want to see what's being proposed for their neighborhood. Ms. Wolf — I think they are trying to identify any places that are convenient as possible and probably, you know, Public Library ... more than one copy... Ms. Marchesseault — I just want to interject that the maps that we put together and most of the information that we put together for the workshops was posted to the website. So, after the first workshop that was posted to the website and then a year later, what we synthesized and what we saw as potential mitigations, we put those graphically on maps, and those were posted to the website. So that information has already been made available and it's just the TGEIS that's not, the formal TGEIS that's not up yet. Board Member Riha — But especially having those maps seems like it would be, the public would really like to see them, I bet. Board Member Wilcox — We have the benefit of having just gone through an Environmental Impact Statement process so we understand that we have to review for adequacy and assuming that it is adequate, i.e addresses in some way the items that were in the Scoping Document, it can be released to the public, or that is often when it is released to the public for their review and comment. Board Member Riha — Okay. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 21 Mr. Kanter — We actually have a couple of extra copies at Town Hall and the office that people are certainly welcome to come in and look at at any time. It's there for the public to see, it's just that not having been accepted by the Board yet, it certainly could change. Board Member Riha — Right. Ms. Wolf — Then, in addition to the fairly extensive public forums that we organized, letter E, there was other public outreach. Again, I talked about the ITCTC, that's our local, regional transportation planning organization and we made numerous presentations to the Planning Committee, different components of the ITCTC and then we had many requests, .the Tompkins County Advisory Board...there were many other bodies that requested presentations, informational presentations, and we always provided those, and again, Appendix C has a list of all of the meetings that we had and where we presented this project. A little bit different than letter F we are calling Coordination Efforts. These were really sort of almost partners in a way. We coordinated very closely with the Cornell Master Plan, many people on the Cornell Staff were involved in both projects and we met repeatedly with the consultants of the Master Plan and we would talk about mitigations that we thought would be beneficial and then many of those were carried forward as proposals as part of Master Plan. So we were very much working to, toward common goals. TCAT, similarly, the comments Bill was just making, transit is a very important component of this so we worked very closely with TCAT all the way through the process, from information gathering and sharing. All of our findings were shared with them before they were carried forward with other groups because it was something that as very beneficial to them and we had multiple coordination meetings with their staff and presentations to TCAT. Board Member Conneman — I wanted to go back to the Mast Plan. I only got up to about 250, but it seems to me that the Mater Plan and TGEIS should be inter- related, but I think there is a definition in here of Cornell Campus as being the Campus where a lot of things that are going on, unless you are counting what they call East Village as part of the Campus, has that really been taken into account? I didn't see this anyplace, if you really do something with East Village or whatever you want to call it...You built an office building out there, all this kind of stuff. .seems to me ... so far that hasn't been mentioned. if it's mentioned someplace, tell me where so I can read it. Ms. Wolf Well, the TGEIS did not ... I need to remind you...the TGEIS is not dealing with specific project proposals. We're dealing with population growth, and we don't know the timeline of when something like the proposal for the East Village will actually be implemented and in fact, we would expect that the build -out of that would occur not within the next 10 years. Right. This is ... the TGEIS is a 10 -year horizon. That was our, the time period that we were looking at. We were looking at population growth at PB 6.3.08 Pg, 22 Cornell over the next 10 years. The Master Plan is really looking at a 30 -60 year time horizon, okay, so, now, having said that, I can tell you that the high growth scenario, so the high population projected as part of the TGEIS, exceeds population growth anticipated as part of the Master Plan. So, the growth anticipated as part of this Generic Environmental Impact Statement should address growth that could occur within the next 10 years as a result of the Master Plan. But we did not examine specific projects. Those, anything that, any specific project that is undertaken will have to come before this Board as a specific site plan application and you'll have to under go your own specific SEQR review of that and then you can use this as a resource to understand it in the big picture and the broad context. Board Member Conneman — I understand that, but it still seems to me that there is a relationship.. 'we 0 re not talking about any specific project, we're talking about a series of projects that are out there in one area. It would seem to have a terrific impact on transportation and everything else. Ms. Wolf — Well certainly when we looked at the growth, the population growth, we had to think about where are those cars headed to and coming from ... where are they going to ... so where is this commuting population going to and from ... and so, we had to speculate, we had to look at the Cornell Campus and we had to speculate where most of these cars likely go to and from over the next 10 years and so, certainly that was in our mind that it's being, that growth is being anticipated at East Hill Plaza, and so there was...l think in terms of thinking about the origin and destination, that was weighted somewhat more heavily to reflect that. Board Member Conneman — Well I am still puzzled but we can pursue that some other night. Ms. Wolf — I guess then, just finally here, the Resource Committee and I think I have already touched on this, we did work, throughout this process, although most intensively on the front end of this process, with this Resource Committee which included representatives from DOT, the ITCTC, City of Ithaca, Village of Lansing, Town of Dryden and other surrounding municipalities and that was a great resource for bringing to us information on projects that are contemplated and issues and concerns of surrounding municipalities and really providing input on what they thought were important components of the study. They brought raw data, they shared information, and so they were sort of sounding board and provided some technical guidance. So that information as well is summarized in Appendix D. So, I think that's really what I had prepared in terms of providing a bit of an over view. I know there's a lot of information here and it's probably a little overwhelming, but again, I would be happy to take questions. Chairperson Howe — Are we, June 17 th, is this tentatively on the agenda? PB 6.3.08 Pg, 23 Mr. Kanter — Tentatively on the Planning Board Agenda I think now until forever..] guess one ,question we do want to talk about we think whether at that point we think it would be valuable to have the transportation consultants come and be available to answer questions. It may be too soon, but.. Chairperson Howe — One of the things that I know I will have to be walked through a little bit more is the levels of service. There's lots of information here and of course, I live in Forest Home so I picked up a couple of things and... I was sort of surprised at some of the levels of service in terms of being better than I experience in Forest Home. Is that really true? So there might be other things like that where we would want to dig in or sort of have a little more complete presentation. So I don't know, if you have some ideas where you feel.... Ms. Wolf — Rod, if I could point out one thing, and just a little reminder too that... obviously you have to be able to understand the information, but we need to remember that at this point, we're not debating the level of service, that's a more substantive... after we've determined adequacy, and the charge at this point is have we done everything that the Scoping Document says we do. Board Member Riha — Right. So for that questions, it doesn't seem like we need the transportation planners. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, I don't, I mean, I'm not feeling that you...because they're from ... You'd have to bring them in from... Ms. Wolf — Norht Carolina. They are going to be up here that week so it's a reasonable thing to do, but again, it's... Board Member Riha — But for the Transportation Planners... we'd be asking them more, I would think, how they approached this. What was their kind of driving principals when they were thinking... Board Member Wilcox — Well we can ask Katherine that too. I'm sure she knows the answers to that as well. Board Member Riha — What do you think they could tell us Katherine, that we might not be able to get from you all? Ms. Wolf — I have to agree in general, I do think for adequacy, it may not be necessary. Again, we're happy to provide that, if you would like that... Board Member Wilcox — If they're in Town, we should have them here ... I'd love to have them here just in case... Chairperson Howe — Sure... PB 6.3.08 Pg. 24 Mr. Kanter — At this point, just as Katherine has been running you through the content and format and how and where to find things in the document, it might be helpful to just hear the transportation consultants' description of what they did and how they did it and if there are questions about methodology, that may have something to do with adequacy because the Scope does talk about how things are supposed to be done. So it might be helpful, if they are going to be here anyway, it might be nice... Chairperson Howe — I agree. If they're going to be here anyway... Board Member Riha — If they were here, could we ask them questions outside of just addressing adequacy? Because I guess one of the things that would interest me, if they're professional transportation planners, how they think our transportation issues compare to maybe, and how we're trying to address them, compare to other similar communities. But that's not really scoping... Mr. Kanter --. No I think we certainly could use their expertise for providing a good framework for what we're looking at, so if things like that sound certainly like a good idea. Ms. Wolf — I think you can ask them anything. I guess I would, you know, obviously you'll want to, there will be other opportunities in the future, so you shouldn't feel that you need to ask them every question, but I would certainly expect that when we get into the substantive review they will definitely be here. Mr. Kanter — Just, again, looking ahead at what we have on June 17th, there are a few other items so I don't think we want to spend more than 40 -45 minutes on the TGEIS at that meeting. So that might help you figure out.... Chairperson Howe — I forget, I think you passed out a timeline at some point... Ms. Wolf — yes, and according to that timeline, I believe we are showing that the next two Planning Board meetings would be working sessions. So June 17th and then I think it's July 1st and then we've suggested on that timeline, that July 15th be that you would determine adequacy. So that would be two working sessions if we follow that timeline. Then...right. Chairperson Howe — and I like the fact that we're breaking it up, because it's a lot to absorb. Board Member Conneman — Want to feel good about yourself Katherine, be sure to look at page 436 which is Chapter 6 which says "there are no unavoidable adverse impacts from the proposed action." That is a perfect world is what that means. And if that's even part of the English language. Not even Alan Greenspan can do that. Chairperson Howe — Any other questions we want to ask at this point... PB 6.3.08 Pg. 25 Board Member Wilcox — I might nitpick around the edges, but I'm impressed with the presentations over the past couple years ... this is not a shot, I have just started looking at it and there is such a wealth of material, and maps, and charts, and I ma truly impressed with the amount of work that went into it. I can understand why it took so long to do it. You have given us your schedule on how you would like us to proceed, but we have a lot of work to do. Ms. Wolf — We understand that. Board Member Riha — In the past, Susan Brock, (inaudible) with the scoping, you know, looking over the scope but this seems huge. Are you going to review all... Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Kanter — And to a large degree Susan and I have been, for the last, almost the last year...this was actually in an earlier draft form which Susan and I and a few other people have been constantly working on. Board Member Riha — So Susan will give us her take on this on maybe the July 17th... Board Member Erb — Actually, if you're talking about when she says did we actually cover this, we need that sooner than the July... Chairperson Howe — And some of that should fall on our shoulders too.. Board Member Erb — Of course... Board Member Riha — But Susan looks at it from a slightly different perspective, more than slightly... Chairperson Howe — So you'll be sure to let us know if there are areas that... Board Member Riha — That we should be looking at. Ms. Brock — Do you have any serious doubts about that? Board Member Riha — I'm just saying it might be good to have some guidance if there are areas that you think we should particularly look at given how huge it is. If you think there are some areas that you think we should focus on. Ms. Brock — Well, the problem is it all builds, every chapter builds on, is built based on the information in the previous chapter. So it's really hard to say, "just focus on this." But, I think if you just sit down and really start looking at it, it won't be as daunting as you think it is. Ask George... Board Member Conneman — It really isn't... PB 6.3.08 Pg. 26 Board Member Riha — I'm having a fun time looking through it, but what I haven't done is go back and look at all the scoping things and Board Member Conneman — If you make your comments on what you think isn't there, or may have been considered in maybe some other place, that's how I did it... Ms. Wolf — You got through the whole thing George? Board Member Conneman — No, no, no, no, I got to page 250. 1 have some questions about elaborating on some of the things you said. For example, one example would be "bicycle education ", I don't know what that means. I have my own view of how impact bicycles are going to have and what education means. Ms. Wolf — Well you might find that when you get to the mitigation section, there's more detail... Board Member Conneman — Well it still didn't tell me what was going to be in the course ... this is how you pedal, instead, this is how you obey the rules of the road, that's a different thing. I've certainly said this many times before. Board Member Riha — I guess my concern, getting back to the adequacy decision, since the scoping document is 17 pages long ... it could take us a lot of time to go through page by page.... Ms. Brock — I'll do that. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't do it, but just so you know, I will be doing that. Mr. Kanter - We all should do it and we will all do it, Staff will do it, Board Members will do it... Chairperson Howe - There, we all have an assignment... Board Member Riha — Maybe we should split up the pages... Ms. Wolf — Okay, so what I understand is that.... Board Member Wilcox — Where's the Cliff Notes.... Chairperson Howe — Hold on, we're almost done and we have to move on to another... Ms. Wolf — So my understanding is that we should have the transportation planners here next time and that they should be prepared to give a brief, maybe 20 minute or so, overview of what they did, and then ... and knowing that they are going to be here, maybe you could focus your questions to that a little bit more. Chairperson Howe — Did everyone follow that? Okay. Thank you very much. PB 6.3.08 Pg. 27 Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. SEAR Determination for the modification of the Final Subdivision Approval of Ithaca Estates Phase II East King Road. The Board moves into executive session to discuss the proposed acquisition of real property where discussions might affect the value of the property. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 050 Move to Executive Session Planning Board June 3, 2008 Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha. Be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board go into Executive Session at 8:20 p.m, to discuss the proposed acquisition of real property where discussions might affect the value of the property. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty The motion passed unanimously. The Board returns to regular session. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 051 Return to Regular Session Planning Board June 3, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. Be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board return to regular session at 8:38 p. M. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty PB 6.3.08 Pg. 28 The motion passed unanimously. Return to: SEQR Determination for the modification of the Final Subdivision Approval of Ithaca Estates Phase II East King Road. Anyone have any questions about this SEQR proposal? There isn't any discussion, would somebody like to move the resolution... moved by Susan, seconded by Hollis. Any discussion? Any changes? Does anyone see any changes that need to happen to the Short Environmental Assessment Form? Board Member Wilcox — I think Jon Kanter knows how to fill one out, ..everyone laughs). Board Member Erb — Well, there is now a functioning hotel and stuff on the corner... Chairperson Howe — Do you want to add commercial... Mr. Kanter — I purposely left it off so you could change it. Board Member Erb — Thank you, I feel so useful now.. . Chairperson Howe — All those in favor, ..it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 - 052 SEQR: Modification of Final Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Estates Subdivision Phase II East King Road (With Particular Reference to Tax Parcel No. 43 =1 -3.21) Planning Board, June 3, 2008 Motion made by Susan Riha, seconded by Hollis Erb, WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Modification of Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates - Phase II Subdivision, approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 1, 1987, located off East King Road, and in particular with respect to Tax Parcel No, 43 =1 -3.21, Low Density Residential Zone, adjacent to the Montessori School. Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 consists of 1.76 +/= acres, and was intended as part of the original subdivision to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as a proposed park. This conveyance has not occurred. The proposed modification is to have the parcel conveyed to the Town as general purpose land, rather than as a park. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner; Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Applicant; and PB 6.3.08 Pg. 29 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to this Modification of Subdivision Approval, and . 3. The Planning Board on June 3, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff and other application materials, and 40 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Modification of Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 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 Part 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 was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — And now we'll move to the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.: Ms. Brock — Rod, I think it would be useful, for the record, just to state what the action is. If you want, you can read the resolution or something like that, but I think we should do that. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, because we just put the agenda out there, it doesn't go into full detail ... So I'll read the first paragraph of the proposed resolution: This action is consideration of Modification of Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates - Phase 11 Subdivision, approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 1, 1987, located off East King Road, and in particular with respect to Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21, Low Density Residential Zone, adjacent to the Montessori School. Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 consists of 1.76 +/- acres, and was intended as part of the original subdivision to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as a proposed park. This conveyance has not occurred. The proposed modification is to have the parcel conveyed to the Town as general purpose land, rather than as a park. PB 6.3.08 Pg, 30 That's the modification that we are voting on. Do we, are there any members of the public who would like to address the Board this evening? Andrea Riddle, Montessorri School What is "general purpose land "? Ms. Brock — It's land that's not park land. Mr. Kanter— It's not restricted, basically. Ms. Brock — Which is a phrase that John Barney, previous Attorney for the Town, 1 had this discussion with Jonathan Kanter also, and apparently, this is a phrase the Planning Board has used in other resolutions over the years to refer to land that's not restricted as park land. Ms. Riddle — What does the Town normally use "general purpose land" for'? Ms. Brock — It can be anything, within its purposes to use the land for. Board Member Wilcox — They could store equipment on it, they could declare it as excess property and sell it possibly... Chairperson Howe — Other questions, comments? Ms. Riddle — I guess that's all I need to know at this point, thank you. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else who would like to address us, ,we'll close the public hearing at 8:24p.m. Any additional discussion? Would somebody like to move... Board Member Wilcox — so moved. Chairperson Howe ....Fred... seconded by Larry. Are there changes? All those in favor... Board Member Wilcox - I'm sorry, when is the Town Board going to take this up? Ms. Brock — Well, it's possible that it will take it up at its meeting Monday, but more likely it will be July. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor .... it's unanimous. P8 6.3.08 Pg, 31 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 053 Modification of Final Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Estates Subdivision — Phase II East King Road (With Particular Reference to Tax Parcel No. 43 =1 -3.21) Planning Board, June 3, 2008 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Modification of Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates - Phase II Subdivision, approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 1, 1987, located off East King Road, and in particular with respect to Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21, Low Density Residential Zone, adjacent to the Montessori School. Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 consists of 1.76 +/= acres, and was intended as part of the original subdivision to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as a proposed park. This conveyance has not occurred. The proposed modification is to have the parcel conveyed to the Town as general purpose land, rather than as a park. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner; Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Applicant; and 2. For various reasons, Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 has not been conveyed to the Town, and the Town of Ithaca has been working with the owner of that parcel to find a better location for a park to serve South Hill residents, and 3. In 1997, both the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Town Board adopted resolutions finding that Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 would be better suited for future uses other than as a Town park, and 4. The owner of Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 has indicated that he is willing to convey that parcel to the Town as general purpose land without restricting it to park purposes, and 5. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Modification of Subdivision Approval, has on June 3, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 6. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 3, 2008, has reviewed materials pertaining to this action, and has discussed the matter, PB 6.3.08 Pg. 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby confirms that Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.21 would be better suited for future uses other than as a Town park, because of its location, limited access and environmental characteristics, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby modifies the Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates — Phase II Subdivision dated December 1, 1987, to require that Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21, consisting of 1.76 +/- acres, be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as general purpose land, rather than as a park, subject to the following conditions: a. Acceptance by the Town Board of the conveyance of Tax Parcel No. 43 -1- 3.21 to the Town of Ithaca as general purpose land rather as a proposed park, and b. Submission to the Attorney for the Town of the deed conveying Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 to the Town of Ithaca along with other necessary documents to complete said conveyance, with such documents subject to review and approval of the Attorney for the Town. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Hoffmann and Talty The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Comprehensive Plan Committee report. Code & Ordinances report. Planning Committee report. Next Agenda Susan Riha and Fred Wilcox will not be at the next meeting. Upon motion, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, June 3, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Pomology Building Addition, 128 Crisp Apple Drive. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Comell University Pomology Cold Storage Building located at the 128 Crisp Apple Drive (Cornell University Orchards off Dryden Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -11, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The project involves constructing a 2,700 +/- square foot addition on the south side of the existing 11,800 +/- square foot Pomology Cold Storage Building to house an enology teaching lab and cider press. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven F. Moolin, R.A., Beardsley Design Associates, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Discussion and orientation regarding the draft Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS). 8:00 P.M. Executive Session to discuss the proposed acquisition of real property. 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Modification of Final Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Estates — Phase II, East King Road. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates - Phase II Subdivision, approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 1, 19872 located off East King Road, and in particular with respect to Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21, Low Density Residential Zone, adjacent to the Montessori School. Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 consists of 1.76 +/- acres, and was intended as part of the original subdivision to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as a proposed park. This conveyance has not occurred. The proposed modification is to have the parcel conveyed to the Town as general purpose land, rather than as a park. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner; Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Applicant, 8. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 2008. 9. Other Business: 10, Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, June 3, 2008 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, June 3, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Cornell University Pomology Cold Storage Building located at the 128 Crisp Apple Drive (Cornell University Orchards off Dryden Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -11, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The project involves constructing a 2,700 +/- square foot addition on the south side of the existing 11,800 +/- square foot Pomology Cold Storage Building to house an enology teaching lab and cider press. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven F. Moolin, R.A., Beardsley Design Associates, Agent. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Modification of Final Subdivision Approval for the Ithaca Estates - Phase H Subdivision, approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on December 1, 1987, located off East King Road, and in particular with respect to Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21, Low Density Residential Zone, adjacent to the Montessori School. Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.21 consists of 1.76 +/- acres, and was intended as part of the original subdivision to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as a proposed park. This conveyance has not occurred. The proposed modification is to have the parcel conveyed to the Town as general purpose land, rather than as a park. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner; Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Friday, May 23, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Wednesday; May 28 „2008 J'THE ITHACA JOURNAL`: ``a 2,700 )ot,addition on' fe; of -'Aie' eAi xeven;.:.r•.dt'MOOItn,. K.A, 3ea�dsleyp:;0esign' 'Associ? . �fes; Agent, 8 15 P:141a.Consiidero ' ion "'6fW6d' ifie&ion`$f ^F Ar Subd'idisipn 'Approval.. ed'bff;`East K ft!ROad,`tiiid', particylar: with res eet' to "Tax Parcel:" Not `1' 342 1.,”' Low Density Rewde'n; tiaL Zone, adjacent to tf�e M8ritessorif,40e ioolc'.1; s;jaz ica':as a "P"ro- Thls conv ni eysyy o* occurrea! nqp w.u'tlu1 R: EVan.JN 4onkemeyer; Own'ei owns•'of Ithaca .P,ladinn l i oa�d;i'Ap'plican tr. Zf i hours:; p'!ior� t05 the tine . of the pµblic healing Jonotbim' kdnter, AICP Director of'Planning I ;2731747, al fnda 8 y; M" Mdy 23; 200 Publish Wednesday, Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street June 3, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name 4�fz�tN114 �1 TLJC�A6tj Ls , �q �J cy X15 CO e, 'Seel Address l Z ue Lt r4 RO c,cl I1L4� .LC 4 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, MATH 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: May 23, 2008 May 28, 2008 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 281h day of May 2008, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 10