HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-03-19•
0
CI
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 1991
r
The
Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday,
March
x=
1991,, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca,
New York,
at 7:30
p.m.
•
0
CI
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 1991
r
The
Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday,
March
19,
1991,, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca,
New York,
at 7:30
p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, William
Lesser, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Judith Aronson, George
Frantz (Acting Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer),
John C. Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Sandy Tallant, Larry Fabbroni, Charles Jankey, Paul
Sarokwash, D.B. Brittain, Bruce Brittain, Albert L.
Wright, Don McPherson,,Geoff Hamburg, Shirley K. Egan,
John Whitcomb, Nancy M. Fuller.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:39
P.M., and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidacit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on March 11, 1991, and March 14, 1991, respectively,
together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
-discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the
applicants and /or agetns, as appropriate, on March 11, 19916
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit .Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM
`PRESENTATION
OF
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY DRAFT SCOPE G /EIS BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE
CORNELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
,Sandy Tallant, of the Cornell Campus Planning Office, approached
the Board and stated that she was serving as Project Manager on the
G /EIS.
At this point, Ms.
the Proposed Draft Scope,
Tallant said that the
rezoning of the area that
Rte. 366, and Game Farm
as Exhibit #1)
Tallant distributed to members of the Board
along with a map showing the area. Mse
action associated with this request is for
is north of Cascadilla Creek, bounded by
Road. (Proposed Draft, Scope attached hereto
Ms. Tallant offered that the Consultants retained by Cornell to
work on the project are: Rist -Frost Associates Consulting Engineers,
the L.A. Group which are Landscape Architects and Engineers, as well
as Travers Associates who are Traffic Planners and Engineers. Ms.
Tallant said that the major Cornell' team is Paul Griffen, Vice
President of Facilities Planning Construction and Statutory
Planning Board (2) March 19, 1991
• Facilities, John Gutenberger, Assistant Director of Community
Relations, Bill Gurowitz, Director'; of Environmental Health and
Safety, Lew Roscoe, Director of CampuspPlanning, Judy Jones, who is
with the College of Agriculture LifeV :,Science in the Research Office,
Bob Bland and Lawrence Fabbroni, with Facilities Engineering,
Ms. Tallant went over the proposedjl'Ischedule for the G /EIS, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.
Board Member Lesser wondered why Cornell was requesting a Special
Land Use District. Acting Town Planner George Frantz responded that
Ir
there were a number of reasons to benefit both Cornell and the Town.
Mr. ;Frantz said that the zoning district, such as the proposed
Special Land Use District, would take into consideration the height
of Cornell buildings which generally rise beyond the 30' limitation,
lay out standards for parking andilthe like more appropriate for a
University, setbacks, and also, of course, the varying uses that a
University has, all of which are ,not really compatible with the
existing R -30.
Town Engineer Dan Walker said thatllthe
rezoning is an action
that
Cornell
project,
order
is requesting, and, basically,
adding that that is the basis, for
to justify and evaluate the effects
that is the center of
preparing the G /EIS
that that action will
the
in
have
on the
environment.
. Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone had any further questions.
Stephen Smith wondered if Special Land Use Districts were still
done, or whether they were on hold. ('Attorney Barney replied that he
thought the reason for the Special Land Use District request is that,
at present, it is all the Town has inithe Zoning Ordinance. Attorney
Barney stated that it might be more appropriate for the University to
consider the creation of a brand new zone, such as: Public
Institution Zone, University Zone, or something of that nature.
Attorney Barney said that would bejsomething to be explored as the
Board goes through the process. Attorney Barney stated that the
University felt they needed some formal request for some kind of
rezoning as the underpinning for goinglinto the environmental impact
materials. Mr. Frantz stated that Stuart Brown Associates, in their
report, recommended that the Town institute some kind of institution
type district -- not just for Cornell but for Ithaca College.
There appearing to be no further questions or comments,
Chairperson Grigorov closed the Cornell University Draft Scope G /EIS
discussion at 7:44 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERAT
FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, LOCATED
TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 67 -1 -2.1
• DISTRICT. CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
ION OF 'PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL
RENOVATION OF HASBROUCK APARTMENTS,
ON PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA
AND 6 =,168 -1 -10.1, MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
OWNER, ALBERT WRIGHT, AGENT.
ir
Planning Board
(3)
March 19, 1991
chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:45;p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Albert Wright approached thenBoard and stated that he was an
Architect and Project Manager for the University in the Architectural
Services Department.
Mr. Wright noted that the proposal is for renovations and
additions to the Hasbrouck Apartments.
Mr. Wright stated that the Architects for the project are
Einhorn, Yaffe, Prescott Associates& from Albany, New York, adding
that Geoff Hamburg would be representing them at tonight's meeting.
Mr. Wright offered that the Landscape Architects are the L.A. Group,
from Saratoga Springs, New York. Mr. Wright said that Don McPherson
is representing the L.A. Group at tonight's meeting.
Maps were appended to the bulletinV�;board.
Mr. McPherson said that the general intent of the project is to
improve the quality of life on the entire parcel, both interior and
exterior. Mr. McPherson said that the project would also entail the
addition of 92 units,'those taking the',form of 3rd floor additions to
the existing buildings. Mr. McPherson noted that the buildings in
the "darker gray" are buildings that would be receiving the 3rd floor
• addition and the "beige" remaining buildings would be remaining two
story, but they would all get a pitched roof as opposed to the
existing flat roof. Mr. McPherson said that the overall project
network would stay very much the same - vehicular access on the main
horseshoe road, but obviously withi "Ithe additional units as per the
Town's code, a lot more parking had toibe added in "these" two areas
as well as on the outside corners. Mr. McPherson said that building
No. 40 would be completely redesigned into a community center;
currently it houses staff offices, and a large laundry facility. Mr.
McPherson said that some of the uses will still stay, but, in
addition, some computer rooms will" be added, plus a large meeting
space.
Mr. McPherson said that the overall site, as one can see on the
map, will be improved substantially. Mr. McPherson mentioned
improvement of the pedestrian network such as adding a lot of
interior walks, and much improved crosswalks at the major crossing
points. Mr. McPherson also mentioned !,improvements to the interior
courtyards. Mr. McPherson said that' there would be renovations and
improvements to the existing play equipment. Mr. McPherson stated
that the overal planting scheme would be much improved than what is
presently there, adding, as many as possible of the existing trees
will be preserved as well as trans planting those which will be
relocated by some of the parking.
Chairperson Grigorov noted, for the record, that Eva Hoffmann,
• Robert Kenerson, Judith Aronson, and herself, visited the site.
Planning Board (4) March 19, 1991
• Geoff Hamburg, of Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott Associates, addressed
the Board and stated that part of their task is to improve the
quality of life, and in terms of family housing, make it look
residential. Mr. Hamburg, indicating on the map, stated that "this"
portion would be a new 3rd floor corridor, and "these" would be new
stair towers that are on the ends of existing buildings. Mr. Hamburg
commented that new roofs would be put on the buildings, adding that
it is a radical transformation of the image of what Hasbrouck is now.
Mr. Hamburg stated that the courtyards are interior yards and would
look more residential with the addition of a trellis and storage
units. Mr. Hamburg said that the pitched roofs have a lot to do with
cluing one into a more residential atmosphere. Mr. Hamburg displayed
elevation drawings.
Mr. Wright spoke from the floor and stated that, in addition to
adding the 3rd floor and roofs, the existing units of the interiors
will be renovated. Mr. Wright said that all of the buildings will be
sprinklered, along with a centralized heating system, and new windows
which will be more energy efficient, adding, this will bring the
existing units up to present day standards.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the, public who had any comments or
questions.
Doug Brittain, of 135 Warren Road,, spoke from the floor and asked
• how tall the proposed building would be. Mr. McPherson answered that
it would be 371. Mr. Brittain commented that Town Law stipulates 30'
height. Acting Town Planner George Frantz responded that the Zoning
Ordinance does stipulate 30' height, and noted that it does require a
variance.
Mr. Brittain commented that it was his understanding that if the
IL
Planning Board makes a recommendation for a variance for the height
limit that it is up to the applicant to prove that there is an
unnecessary hardship, or at least an `unreasonable hardship, which
would be imposed upon them if they were to meet the law as it
stands. Mr. Brittain said that any hardship, a mere hardship, is not
enough; an economic hardship is not enough; it has to be an
unreasonable hardship. Mr. Brittain said that the hardship also has
to be particular and unique to the property involved; it is not, so
the applicant would have to show this piece of land as somehow
different from all the other pieces of land in the Town of Ithaca
that also have a 30' height limit. Mr. Brittain stated that it is
possible to build a three -story building with a flat roof and not
have the roofing problems that Cornell has had. Mr. Brittain said
that there is room to have a pitched roof if Cornell would have a
different drainage program than exists now. Mr. Brittain pointed out
that when Hasbrouck was built one thing that was trendy at the time
was the glazed tile on the outside of the buildings. Mr. Brittain
felt that the only reason Cornell needs a variance is for aesthetic
• purposes; there are no functional purposes.
•
•
•
\ l
Planning Board
(5)
March 19, 1991
Mr.
Hamburg stated that there is nothing
"trendy"
about a pitched
roof;
it is probably the most original roof
that
one
can
know.
Bruce Brittain, of 135 Warren Rd., appeared before the Board and
read aloud a letter, dated March 19, 1991, from Wm. Goldsmith,
President of the Forest Home Improvement Association. (Letter
attached as Exhibit #3)
Mr. Brittain said that living where he does on Warren Road he is
concerned about the view to the west of West Hill. Mr. Brittain said
that if the height of those buildings doubles it will, essentially,
eliminate his beautiful view of the sunsets on West Hill. Mr.
Brittain stated that he realizes that is a very private concern, but
nevertheless it is a concern of his.
Attorney Barney stated that the application for a variance would
be made through the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Barney noted
that the Planning Board's role is'more in terms of the site plan,
adding that the ZBA has the responsiblility to determine the criteria
for granting a variance. Mr. Frantz wondered about an area variance
as opposed to a use variance. Attorney Barney stated that, generally
speaking, a use variance is more difficult to get, and, in effect,
the proposed is for an area variance. Attorney Barney noted that
there are economic concerns that have to be established. Attorney
Barney stated that one of the elements for an area variance is
whether the injury to the community, is greater than the benefit to
the party requesting the variance.
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter, Chairperson Gri„gorov closed the Public Hearing
at 8:11 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that she felt Hasbrouck could use
some renovation.
Judith Aronson mentioned the feeling of density just as it is
laid out now -- the amount of paved area for parking compared with
the green space seems awfully small; there is a feeling of high
density there. Ms. Aronson commented that the proposed landscaping
looks very attractive and would be an' improvement, but it is cutting
off more of the green space and green areas for children to play in.
Ms. Aronson stated that she is concerned about the density, adding
that she also did an informal "census" in the number of parking
places that were not occupied. This was done in the middle of the
afternoon. Ms. Aronson offered that in the horseshoe area there were
86 empty spaces, and in the existing back areas there were 71. Ms.
Aronson stated that she did not think there was any traffic data on
how many of the students use their automobiles during the day, and
how many use campus transportation. Ms. Aronson stated that she
thought that kind of data would be very helpful.
Mr. Wright talked about parking permits that have been issued.
Mr. Wright offered that there are 149 residents at Hasbrouck that
have parking permits. Mr. Wright said that there are 246 units.
1 1
Planning Board
(6)
I
March 19, 1991
• Attorney Barney wondered, in order to park a car at Hasbrouck, is it
necessary to have a parking permit? Mr. Wright replied, that's
right. Mr. Wright said that there are11293 parking spaces available
-- 246 existing living units, but only 144 residents own cars. Mr.
Wright stated that there are nine other persons, presumably staff
people, that have parking permits for that area. Mr. Wright said
that there are 153 cars that have permits to park at Hasbrouck, which
is 520 of the spaces available. Attorney Barney wondered if it was
the present policy for the University to limit permits to park at
Hasbrouck to only the Hasbrouck residents. Mr. Wright answered,
yes.' Mr. Frantz stated that the Town zoning would prohibit use of
that parking for anything other than Hasbrouck residents. Mr.
Charles Janke, Associate Director of Residence Life at Cornell,
stated that a parking permit sticker is required to park at
Hasbrouck.
Robert Kenerson noted that the Board's notes indicate that if the
same formula is applied to the additions, then there will be more
parking spaces than is needed, therefore, parking should be cut
back. Mr. Wright responded, yes, cutting back would contribute to
more green space. Mr. Wright noted" that the reduced number of
parking spaces will work. Mr. Wright offered that the present
parking does not meet the current Zoning Ordinance; they do not have
1.34 spaces per living unit. Mr. McPherson placed an overlay on the
site plan to illustrate one way in which it might be possible to
reduce the total number of cars by about 60. Mr. Kenerson stated
• that he gathered the present usage was'Ijless than the spaces that are
available. Mr. Wright responded, yes,ll it is only about 50% use. Mr.
McPherson stated that the majority of t'he reduction would be where
Cornell is adding the most new spaces;,, those would be in the northern
periphery -near the areas in "purple ", where there was paving and now
would become green space. Mr. McPherson indicated on the map where
the new parking lot would be. Eva Hoffmann commented that it looks
like a very minimal reduction, and wondered if those areas could
represent all the cars that Mr. McPherson mentioned. Mr. McPherson
answered, yes, he believed the number of spaces was in the 501s,
adding that the "purple" on the map cuts out 60 parking spaces.
Eva Hoffmann wondered about the' walkways. Mr. McPherson
responded that the current walkways;; would remain. Ms. Hoffmann
wondered about the 30% coverage of the lot as noted in the
Environmental Assessment Form, Ms.l Hoffmann wondered what was
included in the 30 %. Mr. McPherson responded that it was building
coverage only. Mr. Wright said that for roads, buildings, and other
paved surfaces, it is about 7.4 acres. Ms. Hoffmann said that it
would be more like 37 %, and the 63% is lawn and trees.
William Lesser wondered if the landscaping plan as shown was the
final plan. Mr. McPherson answered, yes, the proposed plantings are
within the budget realms.
• Eva Hoffmann commented that there was some question about whether
the two extra (study houses) buildings can be built. Mr. McPherson
indicated that the location for those would be "here" and "here ".
,
r
r
1 1
Planning Board
(6)
I
March 19, 1991
• Attorney Barney wondered, in order to park a car at Hasbrouck, is it
necessary to have a parking permit? Mr. Wright replied, that's
right. Mr. Wright said that there are11293 parking spaces available
-- 246 existing living units, but only 144 residents own cars. Mr.
Wright stated that there are nine other persons, presumably staff
people, that have parking permits for that area. Mr. Wright said
that there are 153 cars that have permits to park at Hasbrouck, which
is 520 of the spaces available. Attorney Barney wondered if it was
the present policy for the University to limit permits to park at
Hasbrouck to only the Hasbrouck residents. Mr. Wright answered,
yes.' Mr. Frantz stated that the Town zoning would prohibit use of
that parking for anything other than Hasbrouck residents. Mr.
Charles Janke, Associate Director of Residence Life at Cornell,
stated that a parking permit sticker is required to park at
Hasbrouck.
Robert Kenerson noted that the Board's notes indicate that if the
same formula is applied to the additions, then there will be more
parking spaces than is needed, therefore, parking should be cut
back. Mr. Wright responded, yes, cutting back would contribute to
more green space. Mr. Wright noted" that the reduced number of
parking spaces will work. Mr. Wright offered that the present
parking does not meet the current Zoning Ordinance; they do not have
1.34 spaces per living unit. Mr. McPherson placed an overlay on the
site plan to illustrate one way in which it might be possible to
reduce the total number of cars by about 60. Mr. Kenerson stated
• that he gathered the present usage was'Ijless than the spaces that are
available. Mr. Wright responded, yes,ll it is only about 50% use. Mr.
McPherson stated that the majority of t'he reduction would be where
Cornell is adding the most new spaces;,, those would be in the northern
periphery -near the areas in "purple ", where there was paving and now
would become green space. Mr. McPherson indicated on the map where
the new parking lot would be. Eva Hoffmann commented that it looks
like a very minimal reduction, and wondered if those areas could
represent all the cars that Mr. McPherson mentioned. Mr. McPherson
answered, yes, he believed the number of spaces was in the 501s,
adding that the "purple" on the map cuts out 60 parking spaces.
Eva Hoffmann wondered about the' walkways. Mr. McPherson
responded that the current walkways;; would remain. Ms. Hoffmann
wondered about the 30% coverage of the lot as noted in the
Environmental Assessment Form, Ms.l Hoffmann wondered what was
included in the 30 %. Mr. McPherson responded that it was building
coverage only. Mr. Wright said that for roads, buildings, and other
paved surfaces, it is about 7.4 acres. Ms. Hoffmann said that it
would be more like 37 %, and the 63% is lawn and trees.
William Lesser wondered if the landscaping plan as shown was the
final plan. Mr. McPherson answered, yes, the proposed plantings are
within the budget realms.
• Eva Hoffmann commented that there was some question about whether
the two extra (study houses) buildings can be built. Mr. McPherson
indicated that the location for those would be "here" and "here ".
Planning Board
(7)
March 19, 1991
• Mr. McPherson said that they are not in the base package of the
project; they are something to be considered in the future. Mr.
Kenerson wondered if Cornell was asking that they be a part of the
approval standpoint even if they do not get built. Mr. Wright
answered, yes. Mr. Wright said that if Cornell can afford to build
them that is where they would like to build them, commenting that
they would like the consideration. Mr. Wright said that they are
being designed and will be bid as alternatives. Mr. Kenerson said
that if the Board does not approve the two buildings as part of the
site plan approval, then Cornell has to come back before the Board.
Mr. Frantz stated that it was his understanding that, essentially,
the two buildings are not being considered tonight as they are being
put out to bid as alternatives, and if they do come within budget,
then Cornell can come back for a modification of site plan approval
to include the two buildings. Mr. Wright responded with, okay,
whatever is the proper or easier procedure for the Town. Mr. Frantz
asked about the size of the footprint. Mr. Wright responded that it
is about 251X 351
0
Eva
Hoffmann, pointing
to
the iimap,, asked
about
the little
building
at the lower right.
Mr.
Wright replied
that
that is an
existing
community building
that
will remain at that
location.
William Lesser wondered if the• exterior appearance was fairly
well set if the project is approved, or is it just
conceptualization. Mr. McPherson responded that it is fairly well
• set. Mr. McPherson said that the extra 6' in height is very
important. Eva Hoffmann noted that she thought flat roofs can be
designed to be just as attractive as the proposed roof. Mr.
McPherson responded that he agreed, but they are trying to be a "good
neighbor "; most of the residences in the Town of Ithaca have
relatively steeply pitched roofs, andiCornell is trying to make that
the image rather than making do with something else. Chairperson
Grigorov said that it is a concern ifGit blocks the view, adding, if
it requires a variance and is blocking the view that makes it more
difficult.
Mr. Janke stated that he finds it difficult to believe that it
would block the view because Warren Road in that area seemed to him
to be significantly higher in elevation; the ground from Hasbrouck
back toward Warren Road rises some. Mr. Janke said that the closest
house to this development is probably 301; it is a Greek Revival
house right across the street.
At this point, Chairperson Grigorov, referring to the EAF, Part
I, went through the comments from the Environmental Review
Committee. (ERC comments attached hereto as Exhibit #4).
Responses follow.
A2 - Acting Town Planner George Frantz noted that the additional
• acre can be seen at the top of "the site plan before the
Board. Mr. Frantz said that the additional acre is a
storage building area marked "J ".
•
•
•
Planning Board
(8)
March 19, 1991
A3 - Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that there can be well-
drained material with a shallow water table. Mr. Walker
said that, generally, in a silty clay, he would not consider
them extremely well - drained unless they are on a fairly good
slope. Mr. Walker stated that, currently, as the facility
stands, -there is no major drainage problem on the site. Mr.
Walker said that one has to look at slope, soil cover, and
the use. Board member Eva Hoffmann wondered if there was
enough of a slope on the land for the drainage. Mr. Walker
responded that the interior site area has storm drainage in
it, which provides the adequate drainage. Mr. Walker stated
that the main issue he would be looking at is to make sure
that any building drainage' does not go into the sanitary
sewer system.
B1e- Mr. Wright responded that it is a little addition to
Building #40, the boiler room; and the stair towers which is
the building footprint.
Blg- Mr. Frantz stated that he did',not calculate the number of
trips per hour, but had focused on the impact of the
expansion. Mr. Frantz noted that in his memo to the Board
he had estimated about 400 trips per day as being a
reasonable estimate of what can be expected from the
expansion itself. Mr. Frantz said that based on the
additional 400 trips per day for the additional 92 units the
existing might be producing'in the range of 1000 -1100 trips
per day, adding, it could be 1400 -1600 trips per day upon
completion of the project.
B16- The location of the T.C. landfill is in Spencer.
B18- Mr. Hamburg said that something like "Round -up" would be
used to control weeds in the lawn. Mr. Hamburg, referring
to the interior of the buildings, stated that Cornell does
have a pest control program, adding that the residents are
notified when this will take place. Eva Hoffmann noted that
it was said that there is no weed control program at
Hasbrouck, and wondered if there was a plan in operation for
this. Mr. Hamburg responded that he was not the one to
speak to that, but he would assume that some of the new
plantings might require some ''control. Mr. Hamburg said that
Cornell is very conscious of the children at Hasbrouck.
B19- Mr. Frantz stated that he had'',Mr. Wright change the "no" to
"yes"
21- Mr. Wright stated that the building walls will be
insulated. There will be newt l thermal windows. The roof
will be insulated. Mr. Wright stated that it will all meet
the requirements of the New York State .Energy Code. Mr.
Janke stated that the residents currently pay their own
utilities. Mr. Janke stated that they have not considered
solar panels, adding that everyone must know that there is
Planning Board
(9)
March 19, 1991
only one area in the whole country that is worse than the
Ithaca area for solar energy, and that is Seattle,
Washington. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she understood solar
panels can still be used to heat hot water. Mr. Frantz said
that the buildings are not properly oriented for solar
energy.
If
B23- Mr. Walker said that his estimate would be about 200
gallons.
C3- Mr. Wright said that 30% is what the present zoning would
allow. Mr. Wright said that there will be additional
drainage areas provided.
C12- Mr. Wright stated that they were attempting to be
conservative and err on the side of what would apt to be
less questioned. Mr. Wright said that if they had said no,
he was sure that everyone would think they were trying to
put something over on the'i Board. Mr. Wright stated that
there will be an increase in traffic, but was not sure it
would be significant, commenting, how does one define
significant; that is very difficult to say. Mr. Wright
noted that they did get some traffic information along
Pleasant Grove Road from the County Planning Department, and
they had indicated there has not been any complaints with
the adequacy of the road.
• Eva Hoffmann stated that any traffic going south would most
likely go through Forest Home. Mr. Janke responded that he
was not so sure about that. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she
felt the Forest Home area is very congested and felt it was
important to address the traffic situation. Chairperson
Grigorov, referring to Exhibit #3, paragraph 4, second
sentence, "We hope that Cornell will continue with its plan
to eliminate the access road from this area to Pleasant
Grove Road, routing access instead through the North Campus
area toward Jessup Road ". fMr. Frantz asked Bruce Brittain
to clarify that. Doug Brittain responded that he had
attended the public information meeting. Mr. Brittain
stated that whoever made the presentation said that, yes, it
will not have access to Pleasant Grove Road; it would have
access to campus. Mr. Jenke interjected that he was at that
meeting, and spoke at that meeting, and it was not a promise
what they said was that it would make sense that that road
be routed over to Jessup Road or perhaps down through Sisson
Place, but that needs to be studied, in fact, the Pleasant
Grove project is now on hold, and will probably remain on
hold for at least two to three years. Mr. Walker said that
from the standpoint of Pleasant Grove Road being a County
Road, if a new dormitory complex was developed on the
Pleasant Grove Apartments Pside of the road, it would
• probably mean a new location for a driveway entrance or curb
cut.
„
Planning Board
(10)
March 19, 1991
• Bob Kenerson wondered when Hasbrouck was constructed. Mr. Wright
responded, 1961, adding that it was designed for family housing and
has been used as such for 30 years. Mr. Janke stated that Hasbrouck
will continue to be used as family housing.
Mr. Kenerson stated that he has heard that there were concerns
about the moisture, bugs, and vermin, at Hasbrouck. Mr. Kenerson
wondered if the renovations would take care of the concerns, with Mr.
Janke answering, yes.
Attorney Barney noted that the proposal, under the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, maximizes the numberof units Cornell can have on
the site. Attorney Barney said that there is a limitation of 2500
sq. ft. per dwelling unit, and Cornell'jhas 2565 sq. ft. Mr. Wright
stayed that he was thinking in terms of height rather than the
density. Attorney Barney said that was about 17 units per acre.
ir
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked iflanyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
• Approval for the proposed expansion and renovation of Hasbrouck
Apartments, Cornell University, located on Pleassnt Grove Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels Noy 6- 67 -1 -2.1 and 6 -68 -1 -10.1,
Multiple Residence District, said expansion is proposed to
consist of the addition of 92 living units to the site by the
addition of a third floor to ,several existing buildings,
additional parking spaces, and landscape improvements.
2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review for site plan considerations. The Zoning
Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review 'for any variances which this
action may be contingent upon.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on March 19, 1991, has
reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, an environmental
assessment prepared by the Town Planning Department, the comments
of the Environmental Review Committee of the Town of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council, a site plan entitled "Hasbrouck
Apartments, Cornell University'!, prepared by the LA Group
Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.C. and Einhorn Yaffee
Prescott Architecture and Engineering, P.C., dated February 28,
1991, and other application materials for this submission.
• 4. The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action.
Planning Board
(11)
March 19, 1991
• THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and i,hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion,the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Keneron, Lesser, Smith; Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
At this time, William Lesser asked Mr. Frantz what his
recommendation was on the height variance. Mr. Frantz responded that
it is an area variance and he looked into whether or not the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance serves a public purpose that, in
a sense, outweighs the reference he was using would cause injury to
the property owner. Mr. Frantz said that from a design standpoint
the pitched roofs are more in character with the surrounding
development than the flat roofs. Mr.,,,Frantz noted that the magnitude
of the variance is approximately 6- 1 /21feet. Mr. Frantz said that
another issue he looked at was -- if Cornell were not to build the
additional stories on the 14 buildings; what else could they do
they could build additional buildings and cover more land with
developed properties. Mr. Frantz noted that land surrounding the
University is becoming a premium, and the Town has to ask themselves
if they want to spread out farther and'i; farther or maybe start going
up to three -story buildings -- going an additional 6 -1/2' to allow
the proposed design. Mr. Frantz stated that he felt the height
variance in this case would be an appropriate one.
Eva Hoffmann stated that one of the reasons she is worried about
making a recommendation to the ZBA that they allow this variance is
that the Planning Board, in other cases recently discussed such as
Rogan's Corner and Stellar Stereo, hasl',been looking at such things
more strictly and feeling that that kind of area variance is not
compatible with the general goals of the Town. Mr. Frantz said that
in both the case of Rogan's Corners and Stellar Stereo there was
obvious opportunity for them to redesign the project to meet the
zoning requirements, adding that Cornell is more constrained in the
options that they could excerise in order to bring this project into
conformance with the requirements of the zoning; it may not be as
attractive to the Town in terms of land use.
Ms. Hoffmann said that there also is the question of sewer and
water pressure problems. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if it would be a good
idea to adjourn the matter until more is known about the
water /sewer. Mr. Walker said that, basically, there is a problem
with sewer capacity, but it will be evaluated. Mr. Walker commented
that he has questions as to whether there is adequate water capacity
• and pressure to serve those buildings,! and if they comply with State
Code's for fire control, and for health. Mr. Lesser offered that it
would be 2 -1/2 years before the buildings were fully occupied. Mr.
Planning Board (12) March 19, 1991
• Walker stated that the main concern he has is that this is an
expansion in the use of public utilities, adding, the Town is
responsible to maintain that public utility system, and under the
Site Plan Review one of the things looked at is whether or not the
public utilities are adequate for the proposed plan. Mr. Walker
stated that he has not gotten enough documentation together to
convince him that the Town will not be accepting a liability with the
site plan approval. Mr. Walker stated that he does not want to
recommend to the Planning Board that they accept something that is
going to cost the Town a major liability and put the Town in a
situation whereby they are forced into doing something they cannot
afford to do right now
jV%sey+ poevair6.ph Yo v,ft N-1e
Judith Aronson, directing her question to Mr. Frantz, asked what
the advantage was to having preliminary approval. Mr. Frantz
responded that the whole idea behind any preliminary approval, even
for subdivisions, is that most of ''the project details have been
worked out, and the Board is comfortable enough with the project that
at some point in the future they can grant final site plan approval
contingent upon meeting a specific list of conditions.
•
Lawrence Fabbroni, of Cornell Unive "rsity, spoke from the floor
and stated that there is the capacity to treat sewage at the new
sewer treatment plant. The problem that the Health Department has
cited before has been known to the Town for over four years. Mr.
Fabbroni said that from the standpoint of any applicant, including
Cornell's point of view, they are strictly users out in the Town as a
Townwide Sewer District -- Cornell pays' their fair sewer rate, and
improvements in the system, aside from the Intermunicipal Agreement,
Cornell is just like any other user inithe Town. Mr. Fabbroni stated
that it has been studied, it has been engineered; it needs to be
designed and built. Attorney Barney noted that the problem right now
is that Cornell is throwing 92 more units on what is already an
overburdened system. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Cornell, in good
faith, let 90 units of the Town's come through their system and go to
the plant.
Mr. Walker said that all he is asking for is the numbers and the
design report on flows, peaks and usage; something hard and fast that
he can take to the Health Department.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by William Lesser.
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public
Hearing in the matter of the proposed expansion and renovation of
Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University, located on Pleasant Grove
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 67 -1 -2.1 and 6 -68 -1 -10.1,
Multiple Residence District, be and hereby is adjourned, without
formal date, until such time as the Town Engineer has received an
Engineering Report that includes sanitary sewage flow estimates for
Planning Board
(13)
March 19, 1991
• the completed project, including the impact of phased construction on
sewage generation, and water pressure and flow information for the
proposed water supply.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared
the
matter of
Consideration of
Preliminary Site Plan Approval
for
the proposed
expansion and
renovation of Hasbrouck Apartments
duly'adjourned
A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
AT THE
at 9:52
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE
ZONING
in the
WITH RESPECT TO
A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
APPROVAL FOR
BOARD OF APPEALS
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF
A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
AT THE
SITE OF
THE FORMER OXLEY
ARENA, LOCATED
OFF NYS" RTE. 366 (DRYDEN
ROAD),
TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 6-
63- 1 -8.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R -30.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER: HARRY MACPHERSON, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov
declared
the Public
Hearing
in the
above -noted matter duly
Notice of Public Hearings
opened at
as posted
9.53 p.m. and
and published
read aloud
and as noted
from the
above.
Board Member William Lesser wondered if the Board could agree not
to accept any further requests for consideration for plans that drain
through this system. Town Engineer Dan Walker responded that if
someone comes in with a project proposal the Board should look at it,
adding that infrastructure improvements are very often made a
Mo�� condition of the approval.
40 P 14L appended plans to the wall notin University, approached the Board
Lawrence Fabbroni of Cornell U
and a noting !that Mr. McPherson was unable
p�, to attend.
Mr. Fabbroni, indicating on the appended maps, described the
project.
Mr. Fabbroni noted that the Special Approval request to the
Zoning Board of Appeals basically asks to develop a temporary parking
lot that would strictly be a gravel lot, and it would have
approximately 134 spaces. Mr. Fabbroni, referring to a construction
trailer on the site, stated that Cornell would move the trailer off
the site. Mr. Fabbroni offered that the trailer was originally
placed on the site for the construction of the Theory Center. Mr.
Fabbroni said that the access would be just inside the City. Mr.
Fabbroni said that the border along Cascadilla Creek would be
landscaped and the long -term plan is for Cornell Plantations to
develop more and more native specimens along the Creek and develop
• walking trails and such along the Creek.
Planning Board
• Board Member
retaining wall that
Fabbroni responded
(14)
March 19, 1991
Judith Aronson commented that there is an old
is crumbling on the Dryden Road side. Mr.
that the wall will be left in its same location.
At this time, Eva Hoffmann stated that she was a little confused
about the proposal because in some of the papers it says that this is
a temporary parking lot and a temporary trailer, and, after that the
land will be returned to a more natural state. Ms. Hoffmann
commented that on the Special Approval Appeal it does not say
temporary parking, it says "expand parking lot from 70 to 134
spaces ", then farther down it says "as "part of a stage plan this site
is proposed to be increased from 70 spaces prior to Oxley demolition
to 134 spaces in a gravel parking lot. The proposed construction
trailer and parking will be utilized for construction projects on
campus until 1996. After this time, parking will support area access
along Cascadilla Creek Corridor beautified to fulfill campus planning
of this open space." Ms. Hoffmann stated that it does not say that
the parking would be reduced. Mr. Fabbroni responded that he does
not have a specific number, but the order of magnitude would be
somewhere between 20 and 40 spaces, as opposed to the 134 spaces,
would be needed for that open space "plan. Mr. Fabbroni stated that
it is temporary. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she wants to be sure the
ZBA knows that it is temporary. Sandy Tallant, of Cornell
University, stated that William Wendt "s office does issue parking
permits for construction workers so it !ids controlled.
• Stephen Smith, referring to the parking lot run -off, asked how
the site would be drained. Mr. Fabbroni responded that it has always
been a gravel lot. Town Engineer „Dan Walker said that the lot is
well- drained. Mr. Smith wondered about run -off into the stream. Mr.
Walker replied that there is about ''a 20 -30' wide vegetative buffer
strip around the lot, and that should, be adequate. Ms. Hoffmann
expressed a concern about the filtering out of oil and gasoline. Mr.
Walker noted that there is not going to be any major storage there.
Robert Kenerson asked about the plantings. Mr. Fabbroni said that he
does not have the details on those plans tonight.
Eva Hoffmann commented that it looks like there is a fairly large
area which is covered with gravel -like material that extends east of
where the building is located. Mr. Fabbroni responded that is what
Mr. Kenerson was referring to. Mr. Fabbroni said that after talking
with Nancy Ostman, of Cornell Plantations, he expects that they would
begin to establish plantings along the Creek and not wait six years.
Ms. Hoffmann asked about the rest of the gravel area which is south
toward Rte. 366, Mr. Fabbroni said that there is no intention of
extending the parking beyond the 134 spaces. Mr. Fabbroni made it
clear that an improved parking lot has not been built yet; what one
sees today is the demolition of the Oxley lot. Mr. Fabbroni said
that the finished parking area with the limestone on it has not been
built. Attorney Barney noted that the plan shows a fence; no one
will be able to park there.
• Mr. Walker asked about reclamation plans for 1996. Mr. Fabbroni
suggested putting something in the, resolution to that effect.
Planning Board
(15)
March 19, 1991
Attorney Barney said that it cuts off December 31, 1996 and at that
• point Cornell blockades it and landscapes the area to prevent any
parking at all, unless Cornell comes "back with a plan that has been
approved through the process. Mr. Fabbroni offered that there is an
existing shed on the site that is used for storage.
•
u
Chairperson Grigorov noted, for the record, that Eva Hoffmann,
Bob Kenerson, Stephen Smith, and herself, viewed the site.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of' a Report to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval,
pursuant to Article V. Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of a
temporary parking lot at the site o,f the former Oxley Arena, to
be located off NYS Rte. 366 (Dryden Road), Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 63- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30, said project to
consist of the reconfiguration „and expansion of an existing
parking lot from 70 spaces to 134 spaces until December 31, 1996,
at which time the space would revert to only open space unless a
different or new plan is then approved.
2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an
involved agency in coordinated review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on March 19, 1991, has
reviewed the proposed site plan and other drawings submitted by
Cornell University, Parts 1 and 2 of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form, and other submissions related to this proposal.
4. The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made;for this action.
2. That the Planning Board, in making'recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, determine and hereby does determine the
following:
r
Planning Board (16) March 19, 1991
• a. There is a need for
location.
b. The existing and
neighborhood will not
c. The proposed change is
plan of development of
the proposed use in the proposed
probable future character of the
be adversely affected,
in accordance with a comprehensive
the Town.
3. That the Planning Board report !and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval for the proposed construction of a temporary
parking lot at the site of the former Oxley Arena, to be located
off NYS Rte. 366 (Dryden Road)., Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6- 63- 1 -8.2, be approved, subject to the following conditions.
a. The parking area and temporary placing of a construction
trailer shall cease on January 1, 1997 unless a new plan and
new special approval of such new plan has been approved by
the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals by such
date. Upon such termination the land area shall no longer
be used for parking or construction trailer siting but shall
be landscaped and blockaded, by Cornell University in a
manner satisfactory to the Town of Ithaca Engineer so as to
create open space not available for parking.
• b. Aside from one construction trailer, the area during the
period of this special approval shall be used only for
parking vehicles (cars and possibly light trucks) used by
construction workers commuting to construction projects on
the Cornell campus.
c. Except as set forth below, the parking area shall be
constructed as shown on the "plan entitled "Oxley Arena Site
Improvements and Temporary Parking ", dated September 24,
1990, including five drawings.
d. The landscape plan shall be modified in a manner acceptable
to the Town Engineer and Town Planner to permit adequate
sight distances for exiting the parking area.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Oxley Arena
Temporary Parking Lot -- Cornell University duly closed at 10:30 p.m.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES was August 7, 1990
The vote for approval of the Minutes was as follows.
•
•
•
Planning Board
(17)
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Hoffmann, Aronson.
The requirement is that any action
municipal board, requires a vote of five
Chairperson Grigorov stated that
be brought up again at the next Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 2, 1990
March 19, 1991
by this Board, or by any
to approve the minutes.
the matter is tabled and would
Board meeting.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser:
RESOLVED, that
the
Minutes
of
the Town
of
Ithaca
Planning Board
Meeting of October
2,
1990, be
and
hereby
are
approved
as presented.
Eva Hoffmann stated that as she read the Minutes she noted there
was a problem that she had noticed before. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
the Minutes do not include all the discussion, adding, a lot of the
discussion is not necessary, but it seemed to her that more of it
would be desirable. Ms. Hoffmann' proposed that either the Board
makes certain the tapes that are made are part of the record or if
that is not possible or legal, then the Minutes be more expanded.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the reason it came up was because when she
looked at the discussion concerning Ithaca College Road Relocation
and Science Building she saw there was 'mention of the presentation,
there was mention of the comments by Town Planner Susan Beeners, Town
Engineer Dan Walker, and the only other mention of anything that
anybody said was her (Eva's) comment that she thought the
presentation was well done and that was absolutely the last thing she
expected to be quoted as relevant to the discussion. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that it disturbs her because she knows that there was
discussion by board members on the matter. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
she is really bothered that the record`does not show what was said
because, if somebody comes 20 years from now to look at what happened
at the meeting, it looks as if the Board just sat and did not say
anything -- we listened to what the staff said and then just voted -
that bothered her. Ms. Hoffmann stated she thought the discussion
should be there -- the important parts of the discussion should be
there for the record, and very often she knows that she asks
questions about things of the applicant, for instance, and the answer
is very important, and she wants that to be part of the record
because very often the applicant says something that is not there in
the drawings or in the applications, etc., but she would like to have
as part of the record because if he does not live up to it the Board
at least has the Minutes that say that he said he was going to do
something or other.
Attorney
the Minutes ar
usually shows
questions and
call; we are
Barney stated that he thought that the
e fairly sophisticated to that type of
up in the Minutes e.g. the Ivar Jonson
answers
not
IF
did show up in the Minutes; it is
providing verbatim transcripts
people that do
issue and it
matter - the
a judgement
here. Chairperson
is
•
Planning Board (18) March 19, 1991
Grigorov stated that it should indicate that there was discussion.
Attorney Barney agreed with Chairperson Grigorov. Attorney Barney
stated that he has not read the Minutes so he does not know in this
particular circumstance whether there may have been something less
than is normally provided, but on the other hand some board's minutes
are. so and so presented an application; application was approved;
then on to the next matter for a five hour meeting which is confined
to two paragraphs on one sheet of'' paper; we do not want it that
limited of course, but on the other hand where does one draw the line
the other way; if one tries to put everybody's comment in every time
they speak.. Ms. Hoffmann responded that she was not asking for that;
that would be unnecessary, obviously, but it seemed to her that
Ithaca College was a big project; it was a major thing -- the big
Science Building and the big Road Relocation and all the parking, and
there were a number of questions that were made and she thought it
looked bad if it doesn't appear that the Board members made comments
and asked questions. Chairperson Grigo,rov noted that it was pretty
full on the end. Attorney Barney stated that he thought the answer
to that is when the Board members receive the minutes and feel there
has been a significant omission, then listen to the tapes and make
suggestions as to what should have been included. Attorney Barney
stated that he agreed that Nancy and Mary are pretty competent in
what they do and how they handle these things. Ms. Hoffmann said,
yes, she knows they are. Attorney Barney stated that Nancy and Mary
do make judgement calls and it may have been there was not all that
much discussion from the Board -- he really does not remember. Ms.
Hoffmann said it is five months and it is hard to remember, but she
knows there was some discussion. Attorney Barney stated that the
second possibility is that maybe the tape machine goes up in smoke
and a gap is missing, then it has to be reconstructed from memory and
notes, which may or may not be as complete as the tape would be.
Again, Attorney Barney commented that if anyone feels there were
significant omissions then the thing to do, probably, is to take a
few minutes and stop at Town Hall, listen to the tape and point out
what is omitted. Attorney Barney stated that he has listened to the
tapes a couple of times, for example when there is a litigation
matter such as McDonald's and he reviews the minutes pretty
intensively before the Board even gets them to make sure that
everything is in there that he thinks needs to be there to protect
the Town from a lawsuit. Attorney Barney stated that other matters
he, obviously, does not take the time at the Town's expense to review
because he does not think it is his role to do that. Attorney Barney
stated that the tapes are kept forever. Eva Hoffmann stated that if
she felt the tapes are kept and part of the record, then she has no
problem. Attorney Barney stated that he does not want to guarantee
that 20 years from now tapes are going to be kept from 1990, adding
that a storage capacity is reached and there are some other
limitations and it may be that some things may be discarded that are
more than five years old. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in the heat of
discussion she does not always take notes on what she says. Attorney
Barney responded that he does not think one needs to take notes
because of the tape situation. Attorney Barney stated that, just by
looking at the minutes and one feels there was a lot of discussion
that simply just is not reflected at all in the minutes, then it is
Planning Board
(19)
March 19, 1991
. just as easy to come in the office and listen to the tape and say to
Mary we really ought to put in A,B,C, or F, comments. Attorney
Barney stated that even after the minutes are approved, one can go in
and amend the minutes.
George Frantz noted that he had one comment because he was not at
the meeting. Mr. Frantz stated that he,was not involved with the IC
Science Building or Loop Road. Mr. Frantz stated that he does
understand that the written Environmental Assessment for the meeting
was not complete in that Susan Beeners had given an oral assessment
for that project. Ms. Hoffmann responded that that sounds very
complete to her.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Aronson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
At this point, Nancy Fuller asked about the format of future
minutes. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the idea is that if
someone has a concern they will come and listen to the tape and see
if there is anything they want added. 1, Chairperson Grigorov stated
• that if someone has a problem after reading the minutes then listen
to the tapes.
OTHER BUSINESS:
At this time, Chairperson Grigorov 'referred to a resolution from
the Town Board concerning individual notification of landowners.
(Resolution attached as Exhibit #5.)
Nancy Fuller, Secretary to the Planning Board, stated that this
has been a longstanding hope by staff that has particularly been
moved along by the cost of stamps, paper, etc. Mr. Frantz stated
that Town Board member Karl Niklas presented this at the Town Board
meeting. Attorney Barney said that the sense now is that staff
notifies three adjacent neighbors to the site being developed.
Attorney Barney stated that the Codes and Ordinance Committee is
looking at requiring posting of a sign on property where a variance
or development proposal is in process. Attorney Barney stated that
there is an application fee that is supposed to cover the cost of
publication of the notice and a little bit toward the rest; whether,
in fact, it does, depends a little bit on the length of the notice
and what the Ithaca Journal rates are. Attorney Barney noted that,
originally, it was thought that the developer could send the material
out instead of the Town but, after further discussion it was
determined that the Town would have to check to make sure it went out
• to the right people anyway. Nancy Fuller stated that a policy would
be nice.
,
m
Planning Board
(19)
March 19, 1991
. just as easy to come in the office and listen to the tape and say to
Mary we really ought to put in A,B,C, or F, comments. Attorney
Barney stated that even after the minutes are approved, one can go in
and amend the minutes.
George Frantz noted that he had one comment because he was not at
the meeting. Mr. Frantz stated that he,was not involved with the IC
Science Building or Loop Road. Mr. Frantz stated that he does
understand that the written Environmental Assessment for the meeting
was not complete in that Susan Beeners had given an oral assessment
for that project. Ms. Hoffmann responded that that sounds very
complete to her.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Aronson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
At this point, Nancy Fuller asked about the format of future
minutes. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the idea is that if
someone has a concern they will come and listen to the tape and see
if there is anything they want added. 1, Chairperson Grigorov stated
• that if someone has a problem after reading the minutes then listen
to the tapes.
OTHER BUSINESS:
At this time, Chairperson Grigorov 'referred to a resolution from
the Town Board concerning individual notification of landowners.
(Resolution attached as Exhibit #5.)
Nancy Fuller, Secretary to the Planning Board, stated that this
has been a longstanding hope by staff that has particularly been
moved along by the cost of stamps, paper, etc. Mr. Frantz stated
that Town Board member Karl Niklas presented this at the Town Board
meeting. Attorney Barney said that the sense now is that staff
notifies three adjacent neighbors to the site being developed.
Attorney Barney stated that the Codes and Ordinance Committee is
looking at requiring posting of a sign on property where a variance
or development proposal is in process. Attorney Barney stated that
there is an application fee that is supposed to cover the cost of
publication of the notice and a little bit toward the rest; whether,
in fact, it does, depends a little bit on the length of the notice
and what the Ithaca Journal rates are. Attorney Barney noted that,
originally, it was thought that the developer could send the material
out instead of the Town but, after further discussion it was
determined that the Town would have to check to make sure it went out
• to the right people anyway. Nancy Fuller stated that a policy would
be nice.
Planning Board (20) March 19, 1991
• Eva Hoffmann wondered why there was no mention about the fact
that, in addition to writing to the adjacent landowners, the
applicant be required to post a sign. Attorney Barney responded that
that is a separate issue and that is coming up; the COC is going to
do that. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thought they go together; when
the numbers of letters sent out are decreased or the number of
adjacent property owners notified is less, and unless there is extra
notification via a sign, then it is really going back. Attorney
Barney, commenting on the sign, stated that it might be better to
wait and see what the COC comes back with as a recommendation. Ms.
Fuller stated that this should be a policy for staff, the other is
legislation requiring a developer's affidavit. William Lesser
wondered if there was the same problem there with insuring that,
indeed, it has been carried out. Attorney Barney mentioned requiring
an affidavit from the developer. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if it
would be best to discuss the matter at 'a later date. Attorney Barney
agreed with Chairperson Grigorov. 'William Lesser stated that it
would be useful to see what has been proposed concerning posting.
George Frantz, referring to pending reviews, stated that he
started to post it last week. Mr. Frantz explained that the pending
reviews is a list of proposals for which the Town has received
applications. Ms. Fuller offered that the pending reviews is in
response to a request from the Conservation Advisory Council, adding
that the list will be hung on the downstairs bulletin board at Town
• Hall.
Chairperson Grigorov announced that there will be a meeting
tomorrow night, March 20, 1991, at'7:00 p.m. Chairperson Grigorov
said that the "HOST" meeting for elderly housing will be held at the
Co -op Ext. building. Chairperson Grigorov said that it has to do
with the temporary installation of a cottage for an elderly parent.
The cottage shares utilities with a house and the cottage does not
stay there unless there is a family member there. Chairperson
Grigorov stated that she happens to be on the panel commenting or
asking questions so if anyone has any questions she would appreciate
its George Frantz pointed out that the Town of Ithaca, unlike many
municipalities, already allows that second unit as part of a main
house. Attorney Barney interjected, unless one already has a
two - family house.
Chairperson Grigorov asked for comments from individuals for the
Goals and Objectives Subcommittee to review. Eva Hoffmann stated
that she thought it was the whole Ccommittee that was asking for
comments. Mr. Frantz stated that it was his understanding that the
whole Comprehensive Planning committee "also decided that the Goals
and Objectives Subcommittee would review.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the March 19, 1991,
• meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planningi,Board duly adjourned at 11:00
p.m.
Planning Board
•
•
•
(21) March 19, 1991
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
•
•
a
Proposed Scope of Issues and
Outline for the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
The purpose of this proposed Scope is to provide a guide to the information and
level of detail to be included in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement ( DGEIS) for certain lands of Cornell University. These lands are the
area known as The Orchards bounded by Route 366, Game Farm Road and Cascadilla
Creek, and other University owned lands to the south bounded by Cascadilla Creek,
the Town of Dryden Town Line, Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree Road, Slaterville Road,
The City of Ithaca line, Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road as illustrated on
the attached figure. The purpose of the DGEIS is to present a plan for the
development of The Orchards over a 20 year time frame and, to the extent
possible, provide information on proposed development for the lands south of The
Orchards. Portions of these lands are subject to use by New York State.
Planning and development of statutory facilities is governed in part by the State
of New York. As part of this process, Cornell will supply to the best of its
ability, available information on state projects that fall within the area
covered by the GEIS.
The level of detail of analysis will be greater on The Orchards parcel, about
which more specific plans are known, than on the lands to the south which will
be used by New York State.
The following information shall be included in the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement.
I. COVER SHEET
The cover sheet shall include:
0
1
A statement that
Statement.
it is a Draft Generic Environmental Impact
The name of the project.
-1-
4Y/ /- 7; t
March 19, 1991
•
is
Co The location of the project.
D. The name and address of the lead agency and the name and telephone
number of a contact person at the lead agency.
E. The name and address of the preparers of the document and the name
and telephone number of a contact.
F. The date of acceptance of the DGEIS.
G. The deadline date by which comments are due.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
The cover sheet shall be followed by an Executive Summary providing the
following:
A. A brief description of the action.
B. A listing of significant beneficial and adverse impacts and
specification of controversial issues.
Co A listing of proposed mitigation measures.
D. A discussion of the alternatives'!considered.
E. A listing of the matters to be decided including required permits
and approvals and funding.
The Table of Contents shall follow the Executive Summary.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section of the DGEIS will provide a generic description of the development
program planned for The Orchards. It will be as specific as possible given that
-2-
)e�yy v4� /
• the building mix will evolve within the development program. A description will
also be provided of known or anticipated development plans for lands within the
project boundaries south of The Orchards.
Specifically provided will be:
A. Project Purpose, Need and Benefits
10 Background and historical growth trends at Cornell will be
discussed.
2. The need for The Orchards project within the context of
historic trends will be' presented. The need for other
projects south of The Orchards will be discussed as appropri-
ate.
3. The objectives of The Orchards development will be discussed.
• The objectives of other development south of The Orchards will
be discussed as appropriate.
4. The social
economic,
educational
and
other benefits of the
proposed
action will
be presented
as
appropriate.
Be Location
1. The geographic boundaries of the project utilizing appropriate
maps will be presented. More detailed mapping may be avail-
able for The Orchards than for areas to the south.
2. A description
of existing access to various parts of the
project
will
be
provided.'
3. A description of existing zoning of the project will be
provided.
•
-3-
JE� #
•
•
C. Design and Layout
The final design and layout of The Orchards area may not be
available for many years. The GEIS will present square footage,
types of use and will describe development program guidelines or
criteria for design and layout of ,the Orchards. Information for the
area south of The Orchards will be provided to the extent that it is
available.
10 Total Site Area
a. A general estimate of proposed impervious area will be
provided.
b. An estimate of the amount of land to be cleared will be
provided.
c. An estimate of the amount of open space will be
provided.
2. Structures
a. Gross floor area and type of use of structures will be
provided, for projects that have been developed to this
level of detail such as the proposed tennis facility.
b. Schematic layout and massing of buildings will be
provided, for projects that have been developed.to this
level of detail such as the proposed tennis facility.
c. Conceptual utility plans will be provided.
3. Parking
a. Conceptual relationship
building uses and areas.
-4-
�EXy #f
of parking requirements to
•
•
•
D. Construction and Operation
10 Construction
a. An estimate of the total construction period will be
given and an estimate of construction phasing provided.
b. Potential development on adjoining properties will be
discussed.
2. Operation
a. A general discussion of the operation of each type of
facility under consideration will be provided.
E. Approvals
16 A discussion
of zoning and
other regulatory
approvals required
to
construct
the various
project elements
will be provided.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the DGEIS will provide a baseline description of the environment
in order that an assessment of potential project impacts can be made.
A. Geology, Soils and Topography
1. Based on published surveys and reports, this section will
discuss the depth to and type of bedrock material. Any
limitations to development or opportunities for use will be
noted.
2. Based on published surveys and reports, a discussion of soil
types, physical properties, engineering properties and
agricultural properties will be presented. A map of soil
-5-
•
•
•
types will be prepared. Suitability for use and potential
limitations to development will be discussed.
39 Impact on soil from past agricultural management practices,
including pesticide application, will be investigated and
analyzed. Suitability for proposed uses and potential
limitations to development will be discussed.
4. A description of topography will be provided. Detailed
topography at 2' contour intervals will be presented for The
Orchards. USGS topography will be presented for the remainder
of the project. A slope map will be made for The Orchards.
Significant topographic features will be described. Potential
limits to development will be noted. The topography of the
surrounding area will be described.
B. Water Resources
1. Groundwater
a. The location and description of any aquifers or recharge
areas under or nearby the project area will be noted.
Depth to water tables and limitations as it may impact
retention ponds will be discussed from published
sources.
29 Surface Water
a. Users and levels of use of relevant surface waters will
be provided utilizing published data.
b. Drainage characteristics of the project area watershed
will be modelled using the US Soil Conservation Service
TR -20 model. 5, 109 25, 50 and 100 -year return storms
-6-
51\1Y '# /
• will be modelled to provide baseline information for
management of storm water runoff. Drainage patterns and
channels will be described.
C* Water quality issues'of the poultry wastewater disposal
lagoon will be discussed and analyzed. Sediment at the
bottom of this lagoon will also be analyzed.
Limitations to development and alternatives will be
discussed.
d. Floodplains
and floodways
will
be illustrated
utilizing
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
Mapping.
Co Air Resources
1. Climate
a. A discussion of climatic factors including wind,
temperature, precipitation and humidity will be
provided.
2. Air Quality
a. National and state air quality standards for the project
area will be listed' and the existing levels, based on
available data, and compliance status for each pollutant
noted. Existing pollutant sources and sensitive
receptors will be noted.
D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
10 Vegetation
a. Vegetation types in the project area will be listed by
• species and mapped 'based on field investigation. Site
-7-
e
•
•
vegetation will be characterized by species presence and
abundance, age, size, "distribution, dominance, community
types, value as wild life habitat and productivity. Any
unique, rare, threatened or endangered species will be
noted.
20 Fish and Wildlife
a. Fish and wildlife species in the project area will be
listed based on field investigation. Species presence
and abundance, distribution, dominance and productivity
will be discussed. Any unique, rare, threatened or
endangered species will be noted.
39 Wetlands
a. Wetland areas will be delineated and mapped utilizing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria. Wetlands meeting
criteria for regulation by the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation will also be delineated and
mapped. Wetland characteristics including acreage,
vegetative cover, classification and benefits will be
discussed.
E. Agricultural Resources
1.
2.
Soils
a.
Soils will be listed by .name, slope and soil group
ranking within the N.YS Land Classification System. The
number of acres within each group and the location on a
map will be provided.
Agricultural Land Management System
-8-
)Evy� # /
LJ
a. An inventory of existing erosion control and drainage
systems will be provided and any existing soil and water
conservation plans will be discussed.
30 Operations
a. The
number and
types of
farm
and
associated
operations
on
and adjacent
to the site
will
be listed.
b. Research and educational programs will be listed.
c. The type and proximity of agricultural facilities such
as storage sheds, barns, sorting and packing houses will
be listed.
F. Transportation
10 Transportation Services
a. A complete description of existing facilities will be
provided. The description will include size, capacity
and condition of the facility. Descriptions of road-
ways, highways, traffic controls, site ingress and
egress and parking will be included.
b. The current level of facility use will be fully de-
scribed. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes will be counted at key intersections, the
vehicle mix will be reported and current problems
identified and described. The following intersections
will be included.
• Caldwell Road ,and NYS Route 366
• Tower Road and NYS Route 366
• Tower Road and Judd Falls Road
-9-
WF�Y^ # 4t /
! 1
U
is
• Judd
Falls
Road (north)
and NYS
Route 366
• Judd
Falls
Road (south)
and NYS
Route 366
• Judd
Falls
Road and Ellis
Hollow
Road
• Ellis
Hollow
Road and Pine
Tree
Road
• Dryden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Ithaca Road and Oak
Avenue (Six Corners)
c. The trip generat ion „of the proposed project will be
determined and added to the projection of future
background traffic. The future traffic conditions with
and without the project will be examined to determine
the traffic impacts associated with the proposed
project.
29 Public Transportation
a. The existing
components of
the public transportation
system
will
be fully described.
b. Services currently available within the study area will
be defined and measures of current usage will be
reported.
30 Pedestrian Environment
a. Existing pedestrian activities will be described in the
context of overall transportation.
b. Future pedestrian activities generated by the proposed
development will bei described in the context of the
overall transportation system.
4. Bicycle Facilities
a. Existing bicycle facilities will be described.
10 -
Y171 z
•
b. Future bicycle facilities will be discussed.
G. Land Use and Zoning
1. Existing Land Use
a. A description and map of existing land uses on and
within 1/2 mile of the project area will be provided.
b. A description of existing zoning n and within 1 2 mile
ii
9 /
of the project area will be provided.
c. The existing Town of Ithaca land use plan will be
discussed. The on- goling plan update will be discussed
as it affects the project.
d. Past waste disposal practices on the site by Cornell
will be investigatedll, and discussed. Limitations to
development and alternatives will be discussed.
H. Communit y Services
This section will present a discussion of existing levels of usage
and projected future needs.
1. Police and security services as provided by the Town, State,
County and Cornell University will be discussed. Manpower and
equipment levels and adequacy will be discussed.
20 Fire protection manpower and, equipment levels will be invento-
ried. The existing and future adequacy of fire protection
services will be discussed..
3. Health care manpower and facilities provided by the Town and
Cornell University will be inventoried and assessed.
Me 11 -
i
•
�J
4. Recreational facilities provided by the Town and Cornell will
be inventoried and assessed.
5. Social Services provided by the Town will be inventories and
assessed.
69 Primary and secondary schools serving the area will be
inventoried and assessed.'
7. Utility services provided by Cornell and regulated public
utility companies including electric power, natural gas and
telephone service will be inventoried and assessed.
80 Potable and fire protection water supply provided by municipal
systems and private (Cornell University) system will be
inventoried and assessed.
90 Sewage disposal options including privately owned "on- site"
systems will be inventoried and assessed.
10. Sol id waste disposal facil ities provided by the County will be
discussed. Collection and recycling programs by Cornell will
be discussed.
I. Demography
10 Population characteristics ' including household size composi-
tion and age will be discussed using the most recent available
census data.
2. Population projections will be presented using published data.
J. Cultural Resources
19 Visual Character
12 -
1 • 1
IY!
a. The visual character of the project area including
Cascadilla Creek wil'll be discussed and illustrated with
photographs. Surrounding roads from within the project
area which are visible will be noted. A zone of
visibility map will1'be prepared.
2. Historic and Archaeological Resources
a. Historic areas and (structures listed on the State or
National Register and those structures with the poten-
tial for such el igiblil ity will be located and described.
Local registers of historic places and structures will
be consulted.
VII
b. A Phase lA Cultural iIResources Survey will be conducted
to determine the potential for presence of archaeologi-
cal resources and th,e_ need to conduct field surveys as
construction progresses.
3. Noise
a. Existing noise sources in and nearby the project.area
will be described and subjectively evaluated. Any
nearby sensitive receptors will be located and
described.
V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND�MITIGATING MEASURES
This section will describe the potential impacts of the project as described in
Section III and on the environment as described in Section IV. Impacts and
mitigating measures will be discussed for both construction and operation phases.
Mitigating measures will be presented for ea ?ch significant impact identified.
The DGEIS will take a threshold approach' to many potential impacts. For
- 13 _
MAE
0 11
example, traffic impacts will be spaced out over
occurs. The DGEIS will recommend the specific ti
mitigate impacts as certain thresholds are
particularly those related to construction,
applicable throughout the life of the project w
VI. ALTERNATIVES
a number of years as development
naffic improvements necessary to
reached. For other impacts,
generic mitigation measures
ill be proposed.
This section of the DGEIS will present alternatives at a level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessmentlof costs, benefits and environmen-
tal risks for each alternative. The level of detail of the discussion will be
greater for The Orchards. The following alternatives will be considered:
A. Alternative Design and _Technologies
10 Land Use Plan and Development Program
• Potential alternative land' use plans and development programs
will be examined.
Be Alternative Sites
1 9 Alternative sites which could meet the project objectives w i l l
be discussed. Factors considered will include the availabili-
ty of land, suitability of; alternative site(s) to accommodate
design requirements, availability of utilities, compatibility
with zoning and land use „plans, compatibility with natural
resource considerations and accessibility.
Co Alternative Size
1. An increase or decrease in project size will be considered and
discussed.
• D. Alternate Scheduling
14 -
�ExN 4 i
•
•
1. Alternate construction and operations phasing will be dis-
cussed.
E. Alternate Land Use
19 Use of the project area for other uses will be considered.
F. No Action
1. The no- action alternative will be considered, including its
effect on Cornell University's needs and possible displacement
of impacts.
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
This section will identify those natural resources identified in Section IV that
will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use.
This section will also present a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts.
VIII. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
This section will describe potential growth inducing aspects, including potential
increases in development pressure on other lands and various secondary impacts.
Specifically considered will be the following.
A. Population
1. Potential increases in population due to job creation and
consequent need for housing, education, commercial and other
support facilities.
B. Development Potential
19 Potential new development caused by expanded infrastructure
- 15 -
F_vy 4 /
•
•
such as road improvements or utilities.
IX. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES
A. Use
1. This section will
estimate
will
the direct and indirect use of
energy attributable
to
the
proposed development.
B. Conservation
19 This
section
will
describe
the energy
conservation opportuni-
ties
available
for the
proposed development.
X. APPENDICES
The following technical appendices will be included. Additional appendices may
be prepared as necessary.
A. References, Including Published Materials and Person Consulted
B. Relevant Correspondence
Co Traffic Study
D. Storm Water Management Calculations
E. Util ities
F. Wetlands Reports
G. Cultural Resources Report
- 16 -
I
u
L�
Proposed Schedule
for
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
Cornell University Campus - Southeast Sector,
Located in the Town of Ithaca
March 19, 1991
Feb. 28: Suggested Draft Scope for GEIS delivered to the Town Staff
•The suggested scope will be reviewed by the Town planning
staff with comments made to the Campus Planning Office.
March 6. Re- zoning Application submitted to the Town
EAF for Precinct 7 submitted to the Town
March 19: Distribution of Suggested Draft Scope to Town Planning Board.
• Presentation by Cornell
• No more than 5 minute presentation
April 16: Formal Presentation to Planning Board of Revised Draft Scope
and working session.
• Consultants will be in town
April 17: Public Information Meeting
• Consultants will be in town
April 18: Public Information Meeting
• Consultants will be in town
• Public information meetings will be held to inform the public
of the GEIS. These meetings are an opportunity to understand
the concerns of the community and prepare in advance of the
public scoping session. Following is a list of the communities
that will be presented to:
Forest Home Ellis Hollow
Cornell Heights Pine Tree
Cayuga Heights Belle Sherman -
Bryant Park
•
Ll
May 7:
May 21:
May thru
August:
Formal Scoping Session
• Consultants will be in town
Anticipated Formal Acceptance of GEIS Scope
Preparation of Draft GEIS
September: Submission of Draft GEIS to the Town:
October:
• 30 day review period after submission
• Notice of completion issued by the Town
e Consultants will be in town
Public Hearing:
• 45 Day review period includes 10 days of public comment
• Consultants will be in town
November: Cornell Completes Final GEIS
December:
Submit Submission of Final GEIS to.the Town:
*Notice of completion issued by Town
I
�XH��
•
r]
n
FHUForest Home Improvement Association
19 March 1991
Statement on the Cornell University
Proposal to Expand and Renovate Hasbrouck Apartments
for the
Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
The Forest Home Improvement Association wishes to express its concern
that this project may increase traffic on Forest Home Drive, Judd Falls Road
and other streets in Forest Home. In the Full Environmental Assessment
(FEA), Cornell answers , "Yes," to the question, "Will the proposed action result
in traffic significantly above present levels." The FEA asserts that road
capacity is sufficient to handle the increase. The FEA does not indicate where
the increase in traffic will occur. Unfortunately, none of this information was
available at earlier meetings, when we might have raised our concerns.
We wish to point out that Forest Home streets do not have unused capacity.
Indeed, because the streets are now overused in ways that are dangerous and
damaging, it is our goal to reduce traffic in Forest Home, not simply to prevent
its increase.
We understand, from an informal meeting held at Cornell's North
Campus some weeks ago, that the Hasbrouck modifications are part of a larger
project, involving the elimination of married- student housing at Pleasant
Grove and its replacement by a large number of undergraduate dormitory
rooms. This will result in a sizeable increase of residents in the area, which
will in turn increase traffic.
Therefore, questions about the appropriateness, conception and design of
the dormitory project (at Pleasant Grove) ''are also of great concern to us. We
hope that Cornell will continue with its plan to eliminate the access road from
this area to Pleasant Grove Road, routing access instead through the North
Campus area toward Jessup Road. Additional steps to limit traffic will be
necessary.
We have been very pleased at the information and cooperation offered by
Cornell as these projects have been thought through. We hope we can continue
in this spirit and meet our mutual goals.
•
(P Cr, 6%A� Copohee 4.,e ?I.
5 March 1991
To: George Frantz
From: Dooley Kiefer
3/,q1it
Subject: ER Committee comments on development applications
from our 3/4 meeting — "i s Lvv. "( std 5, 404-sae4
Cornell's Hasbrouck apts. -- long EAF, Part I
A:. Site description
20 "Presently" adds up to 19.0 A B.l.b. says "19 A" and "20 A"
"After construction" = 20.0 A
Where does the extra 1 A come from?
3. Is silty clay well drained? How does this fit in with the
answer to Be, water table: 0 -517. (doesn't sound welldrained
to us)
Be Project description
1. e. 50 of what? no. of people? sq. ft.? acreage?
g. What is the present no. of trips /hr? % increase? (54.C,4UV CXL
16. c. -- Is T.C, landfill in Spencer?
18. Pesticide usage: details? runoff to Fall Creek?
Notification to residents?
19. Odors: change "no' to "yes" -- there are routine noticeable
cooking odors now'.
21. Energy use -- Although this project will increase energy use
by Cornell and hence in the Town, it will be balanced by
a decrease in the City (Collegetown), etc., if students
choose to relocate onto campus, and thus there will probably
be no change in TC as a whole.
What energy conservation does CU plan?
Will the-new/rebuilt roofs utilize solar panels? (This location
has excellent solar access!) If not, why not?
(Isn't it likely the new comp. plan will move in this direction?
23. Water use -- How does this amount .compare with present usage?
How does it compare with the T. Engineer's rule of thumb
of average water use per unit?
C. zoning and Planning information
3. 30% of what? buildings? paved areas?
Do all Hasbrouck families have cars? (esp. foreign students ?)
.Do cars simply need to be stored?
Must parking ares be paved with impervious asphalt?
What about drainage?
12. Traffic - What is the basis for saying the road network
is "adequate "? Does the Forest Home community concur?
How will CU ensure that the additional traffic will not
worsen the situation in Forest Home?
cX1/#y
� � r
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, the CAC has recommended that the COC consider a means
whereby neighboring landowners may be individually notified of
impending development projects on adjacent lands, and
WHEREAS, there is no official written policy concerning said
notification, and
WHEREAS, the COC has communicated to the Town Board its feeling
that the Town of Ithaca should provide said individual notification
along the same lines as it has albeit 'unofficially, in the past,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of Ithaca finds it desirable to have an
official written policy concerning individual notification
procedures,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of Ithaca
requests that the Town Planning Board and the Zoning Board of
Appeals consider adopting an official written policy concerning the
individual notification of landowners.. It is suggested that said
notification shall include as a minimum notice to those owners of
properties whose property lines are immediately adjacent to and
• immediately across any private or public thoroughfare from a
prospective development -site.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA
I, Jean H. Swartwood, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the u,
of said Town of Ithaca at a
�tt....� «� meeting held on the // � day of
resolution.
< < /" L 19'71, and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New
York this / day of)�t 19
WILLIAMSON LAW BOOK CO., ROCHESTER, NY 14609
Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca