No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-09-17TOWN OF ITHACA - TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk I SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at.7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, William Lesser, John C. Barney (Town Attorney), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner),IFloyd Forman (Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer):" ALSO PRESENT: Brad,Lane, Theo Jenks, William Jenks, Tim Whitney, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson, Monica Barrett, Bill Szabo, Laing Kennedy, Sandy Tallant, Larry Fabbroni, Natalie Emlen, y David Axenfeld, John C. Gutenberger, Mario Giannella. Vice Chairman Kenerson'declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :30 P.M. and accepted�for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of thei!Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 9, 1991, and September 12, 1991, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Resident Engineer of the NYS Department of Transportation, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 12, 1991. Vice Chairman Kenersonlread the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, if Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: There Kenerson PERSONS TO BE ll , were no;,, persons closed this segment PUBLIC HEARING: TWON OF ITHACA TAX ,P AND 655 FIVE MILE DEPTH OF 655 FIVE MI AND THEO H. JENKS,,;O present to be heard. Vice Chairman of the meeting. NSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF LOT LINES FOR CELS'NO. 6- 31 -2 -24 AND -25.2, LOCATED AT 651 DRIVE (NYS RTE. 13A), TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD DRIVE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. WILLIAM C. ERS /APPLICANTS. Vice Chairman ,Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duiy opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as "posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Jenks addressed the Board and stated that he owns 655 and 651 Five Mile Drive, his residence being 655 Five Mile Drive. Mr. Jenks said that his housel�is practically on the property line, adding that " 14 .. Planning Board -2- September 17, 1991 he would like to take ,I30 feet off 651 Five Mile Drive Five Mile Drive a viable side lot and to straighten the p iI Vice Chairman liKe asked if anyone presen Chairman Kenerson cl back to the Board for Attorney Barney as line of the house c line of the lot. Mr. Barney noted that t this matter. to give 655 lot lines. erson noted that this was a Public Hearing and wished to speak. No one spoke. Vice sed '!the Public Hearing and brought the matter iscussion. ed Mr. Jenks the distance between the south 6516Five Mile Drive and the new proposed south enks answered, it is a good 30 feet. Attorney e Zoning Board of Appeals will have to review There appearing to be no further discussion, Vice Chairman Kenerson asked if apyo1ne were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by James Baker. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Modification of Lot Lines for Town of Ithaca Vax Parcels No. 6- 31 -2 -24 and -25.2, located at 655 and 651 Fiv�e Mile Drive (NYS Rte. 13A), respectively, Residence District R -30, to increase the side yard depth of Tax Parcel No. 6- 31- 142 -24,'' 655 Five Mile Drive, by 30 feet by adding 2. 3. to approximately .;25 acres` to said tax parcel. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Board has been iegisl,atively determined to act as Lead environmental review. The Planning Boar reviewed the Sho applicants, and action prepared entitled "Survey Mile Drive, Tow April 23, 1991, p other application The Assistant determination of THEREFORE, IT IS RESO That the determination proposed. Planning of e There being vote. Planning Agency in atlPublic Hearing on September 17, 1991, has t Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the an environmental assessment of the proposed by the Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plat ap Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five of" Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York ", dated epared by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and materials. Townill Planner has recommended a negative nvironmental significance. VED : '1 Board make and hereby does make a negative vironmental significance for this action as no further l'� (discussion, the Vice Chair called for a Aye - Kenerson, Baker; Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Planning Board -3- September 17, 1991 Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Stephen Smith; seconded by Eva Hoffmann. !I WHEREAS: 19 This action is!!th�e Consideration of Modification of Lot Lines for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 31 -2 -24 and -25.2, located at 655 and 651 Five Mile Drive (NYS Rte. 13A), respectively, Residence District R -30 to increase the side yard depth of Tax Parcel No. 6- 31 -2 -24, 655 Five Mile Drive, by 30 feet by adding approximately .25 'acres,to said tax parcel. 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on September 177 11991, made a negative determination of environmental s gn!;ificance. 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on September 17, 1991, has reviewed the Shorti'Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicants, and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepare d''by the Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plat entitled "Survey Map ,Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town o!f Ith'aca, Tompkins County, New York ", dated • April 23, 19911,+prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and other application lmater ials. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements fora Prel "iminary and Final Subdivision Approval, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither 'a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Pl.annin,'g Board grant and hereby does grant Approval to the proposed Modification of Lot lines for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 3112 -24 and -25.2, located at 655 and 651 Five Mile Drive (NYS Rte. 13A), respectively, Residence District R -30, to increase the side yard depth of Tax Parcel No. 6- 31 -2 -24, 655 Five Mile Drive, by 30 feet by adding approximately .25 acres to said tax parcel ,'I as shown on the plat entitled "Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York ", dated April 23, 1991, prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E., L.S., subject to the following conditions* a. Approval of any required variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board!Iof Appeals. .i • • Planning Board -4- September 17, 1991 b. Submission.ofj a final site plan showing the dimensions between the proposed new property line and each house. c. Consolidation;, of the subdivided parcel (denominated "Part of Lands of Hazed and "Earl Baker Containing 0.25 Acres ") with the lot on 'I,which the building known as 655 Five Mile Drive is located. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared;to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Ken' 11erson' declared the matter of the Modification of C Lot Lines for William . and Theo H. Jenks duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT i TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION `18,,PARAGRAPH 31 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED CORNELL UNIVERSITY TENNIS CENTER, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATEDi OFF PINE TREE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF ELLIS° HOILLOW ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0. 6- 60- 1 -8.2, -6, AND{ -9.1, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; PRI?`SCILLA NOETZEL- WILSON, AGENT. Vice Chairman' Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter�dulIy opened and read alound from the Notice of Public Hearings as 'posted and published and as noted above. At this time, Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the Board on a couple of points. Mr. Forman report members of the Corn Priscilla Noetzel -Wil Szabo of the Cornell Mr. Forman state' included the additio discussing at the tl what Cornell called'i parking conflicts will facility. Mr. Formanll Cornell. Mr. Forma with Priscilla, he men the Planning Board t" 9 the lot and asked Pris that, apparently, sY locations on the site.;, d that a meeting was recently held with some 11 community on the Tennis Facility, among them. on, Athletic Director Laing Kennedy, and Bill thlet'ic Department. d th?at some of the focuses of that meeting nal "outdoor tennis courts that they were ime, over and above what the Board will see -- add- 'alternates. Mr. Forman mentioned some th Equitation, along with the height of the said ,that the discussion was with people from n stated that later, in a telephone conversation tione''d that he thought it would be helpful to take; a look at how best to site the facility on cilla to bring in some additional sketches e had already done, about different possible Planning Board Mr. Forman stated t \ stated two things. 1) would not come back,,on' with additional courts, no conflicts with Ec schedule is already set stated that what he he to site the facility facility, and agan,I have come up with some 'iI parking. Mr. Forman, refe recommend a Positive o would like the Planni what their thoughts "ar opposed to sort of another in terms of'ISE Priscilla Noetzel - is a Project Manager/ Cornell University. M evening with Tim Wh Ms. Noetzel - Wilson not the project. • Ms. Noetzel -Wills Cornell is here to to project being spo s and it is meant to re it is built. Th''e Tree Road, just north hedgerow, and up i Mitchell Street. -5- September 17, 1991 hat hie received a letter from Mr. Kennedy that that Cornell would make a commitment that they the Tennis Facility for a minimum of five years and,' 2) after this year (1991) there would be uitation. Mr. Forman said that this year's up so that is understandable. Mr. Forman pes the Board will focus on is, again, how best. on the particular lot, the height of the the idea of parking. Mr. Forman said that they ideas for how best to deal with the issue of ring, to the SEQR, stated that staff did not Negative Determination at. this times they g Board to take a look at the presentation, see and make a determination at that time, as nudging the Planning Board in one direction or ilson approached the Board and stated that she rchitect, working for Architectural Services at . Noetzel- Wilson offered that she is here this tney'; Project Architect from Sasaki Associates. d that Sasaki Associates are consultants on nstated that, as Mr. Forman had mentioned, k about the Cornell Tennis Center. This is a ,red by Cornell Athletics and Physical Education, lace the existing Kite Hill Tennis Bubble when project is to be located on the west side of Pine of the Equestrian Center, just south of the the north it runs along Ellis Hollow Road and At this point, Vic le Chairman Robert Kenerson announced for the record, that Virg1nifa Langhans, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, William L„essI er, and he, had viewed the site. Ms. Noetzel -Wilso acres in size, cur agricultural land and Town of Ithaca and institutional use its is granted from th stated that, of cours to ask for posit,iv ZBA. Ms. Noetzel -Wil they will be askin for the height of the stayed that the site itself is about sixteen ently,Agricultural use, with about five acres of existing horse pasture, adding, it is in the in an area that is zoned R -30. An educational !ermitted in zoning R -30, if a Special Approval Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson the thrust of their presentation tonight is recommendation for the project to go on to the on noted that when Cornell goes on to the ZBA for the Special Approval as well as a variance facility. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if a sketch plan had been before . the Board. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz answered, yes. Ms. Planning Board -6- September 17, 1991 Noetzel- Wilson offered''that; the sketch plan was presented in June i� 1991. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that, in broad terms, the facility building program is first of all, an indoor tennis facility with six courts; there are' 180 fixed seats for spectators, with associated spaces such as a lobby[area' offices, shower rooms, mechanical rooms, etc. It also consists of an outdoor tennis complex with six courts, adding that there is also parking and associated access ways, the parking should accommodate, for daily use, 46 cars, including four handicapped spaces. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that, of course, they have associated landscaping treatment as part of their facility program. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the use of the facility is by and large, educational, athletic, and it is meant to serve physical education classes from Cornell, as well as the Cornell tennis teams for their practice sessions, and also members of the facility. Ms. NoetzelLWilson offered that the hours of use are the following: ii 9:00 a.m. noon - it will be P.E. classes 4 :00 p.m. - 9:00 pm. - Cornell Tennis Team practice Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that the other hours in the facility, and that is broadly from when it opens from 7:00 a.m. to around midnight during the academic year; will be open for members to play. In the summertime, when the outdoor courts are in use there will be tennis • clinics scheduled during the week on the outdoor courts, and, as of around noontime on Friday through the weekend, those outdoor courts would be open for community use. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if that would be for non- members, with Ms. Noetzel - Wilson replying, yes, that was her understanding. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that there will be Ivy League play that will be going on during the academic year, which is mostly in lithe months March through May -- she thinks the first weekend in March until the first weekend in May, then once the facility is up and running Cornell Athletics plans to have possibly three tournaments a year; they are thinking of two in the Autumn and one in the Spring; !1of course those will be scheduled once the facility is in use. At this point, Ms.,Noetzel- Wilson turned the presentation over to Tim Whitney, from Sasaki!' Associates, who will talk about the site plan proposal and building .design. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, directing his question to Ms. Noetzel - Wilson,, laskedi Ms. Noetzel - Wilson to define what members of the facility would be. Laing Kennedy responded that members of the club are peopled associated with Cornell University such as employees, students!', faculty and their families. Mr. Frantz noted that it is limited t�'o the Cornell community. Mr. Kennedy responded, as a member, right now. Board member Virginia Langhans wondered if there were a fee for membership. Mr. Kennedy answered that there will be, and there is now at the existing facility. it Maps were appended', the bulletin board. Planning Board -7- September 17, 1991 Mr. Whitney desc !I ribedlithe building and the site to those present. Mr. Whitney stated that the building consists of six indoor courts and six outdoor, courts. The building is, essentially, in the middle of the site. �Mr. Whitney, commenting on how the building was sited, stated that they,' as designers, tried to preserve the qualities of the meadow site as much as possible, given the fact that a building was being ,placed on it, adding that their overriding concern was to keep the landscaping, siting of the building, and the siting of the tennis c'ourts,in such a way that there is a minimal amount of intrusion, given the program they are dealing with. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornelliialso saw maintaining westerly views as an important issue, commenting that they do not see wetland and some existing meadow being developed at any point in the future. Mr. Whitney, indicating on the map, said that the site plan is oriented north /south, "this ," being Mitchell Street, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road; Equitations is the "orange" block down at the bottom of the plan. Mr. Whitney stated that, essentially, they are sort of confined by a series' of issues in terms of location of the building. Mr. Whitney said that,'` number 1, Equitations has, as one may know, quite an active schedule in the existing gravel parking lot, with some large scale trail {tiers that need the turning radii; Cornell needed to functionally keep a distance off the Equitations parking lot to preserve that turning radii so they can function on their own independent of the Te1nnis Center. Mr. Whitney said that Cornell also felt the need to pull the building back as far as possible on the site, given the °conItours':'i of the site, and, if one is familiar with the site, it is fairly level "here" and it starts to drop; there is a slope right at "this" point which slopes "this" way and off in "this" direction. Mr. Whitney pointed out that the drainage pattern drains "this" swale "here " and to this wetland "here ". Mr. Whitney stated that the building Was pushed as far as possible to the back while still trying to reain a flat place to build this quite large footprint. Mr. Whitney off „ered that ��the Tennis Center is also bounded on the �� south by a wetland) here , and, there is a wetland boundary right below "this" dark green hedge, which they did not want to intrude on, so they jockeyed just the footprint of the building around the site, knowing that they Yad an extensive outdoor court complex to accommodate, plus ;parking.! Mr. Whitney said that moving the building away from the Equestrian Center also allowed Cornell to have pretty significant views retained through "this" zone "here ", and, as one drives up Pine Tree Road ;there is an existing berm "here" that Cornell plans on; retaining. Mr. Whitney said that once one gets to "this" point that is where the view becomes open as one drives south on Pine Tree Road. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell felt the need for keeping the building away from Equitations was a positive move from the westerly view point.: Mr. Whitney appended another map to the bulletin board and,icommente;d that "this" was the drawing that Cornell . had presented the last time and noted that the building design has not changed much at ail. Mr. Whitney said this is an actual scaled elevation drawing so it ' gives a true comparison of the Equitation Planning Board -8- September 17, 1991 Equestrian Center with;the Tennis Center. Mr. Whitney, pointing to the map, said that "this" is standing on Pine Tree Road looking westerly, adding, the section is cut right off the road in front of Equitations. Mr. Whitney stated that one of the advantages of moving the building away ftomlPine Tree Road is that there is a slight grade change down to where the building is going to be located and that allows Cornell to droplthe floor of the Tennis Court building about four feet lower than the Equitations. Indicating on the map, Mr. Whitney pointed out „the existing fence which will be retained, and "this” is the existing Equitations parking. Mr. Whitney said that as one approaches the site from the east one can see between the two forms of the building, and that is the second primary move Cornell made on the building; they had the option of either building a big single shed, quite long building, or chopping it into two pieces, adding that they opted immediately for creating two sheds. Mr. Whitney stated that there is a question of whether the sheds can be turned "this" way or the other way, and, again "this" reduces the mass of the building from Pine Tree Road the best from that viewpoint, so the basic decision was to go from one shed to two; then, once the building is put on the site, to locate the ridgeline in an east /west direction. Mr. Whitney offered that the architectural quality' Cornell sees, again, is trying to retain the rural character of the site, as they think it is quite a nice site in terms of the openness and they see treating the fields around the building as meadow coming right up to the building, and trying to minimize the impact of the new planting and the grades to keep that • rolling gentle quality to the grading and to the new planting so it does not look like something that has been forced on it, on the traditional field, in that sense. Mr. Whitney offered that the materials are similar to Equitations, in terms of colors and materials, adding that it is, basically, a pre- en'gin,ieered steel building with a metal roof, metal panel, which is likee the Equitations building. Again, pointing to the map, Mr. Whitney said that "this" is looking from Ellis Hollow.... Ms. Hoffmann interjected that she would like to comment on the drawing that Mr''. Whitney had talked about just prior. Ms. Hoffmann noted that Mr. Whitney was talking about that view between the two buildings, `andlIMs. Hoffmann wondered what will happen to that view when those evergreens that are planted there grow up and get bigger; there are f`irsl or spruce that are planted there now, they were planted when theNEquitation Center was built. Mr. Whitney said, yes, they are existlling�, but he does not really know the history of the trees, but thought they were placed there, probably, to help screen the cars and the fence in that location. Mr. Whitney felt that that is a walli�id concern, and, technically, it is not part of this project, howeer,, Cornell views "this" openness in terms of long -term importance,v llI so it is a reasonable question as to whether in the long -term the eve �greens should be "here ", or, possibly other plantings that keep the low profile could be more appropriate. Mr. Whitney pointed to the map and stated that "this" is the side • view, and noted that "this" is the length of the building cut in half; if they had put it as one big block of a building it would be Planning Board double the length, sc proportioned building, barn imagery, fairly sil nothing unusual on' t] proposing, possibly, a under review with ;Co Cornell wants the pr Equitations Center.' M roof, and metal red roo Cornell is a little con Mr. Whitney state it was shown on the sit to earlier in the m possibility of ten futu an add - alternate p,rov courts -- that is not X Mr. Whitney said that future courts, and assc split "here" and "hE which would, essential] for clarification in courts total or an additional ten. Ms courts. Mr. Whitney rE courts, then six indoor Mr. Whitney stag ir site in terms of the 1: mentioned the Natura: Mr. Whitney said that area as an existing there is, basically; a wetlands and parking wanting to retain "thi northern movement, t limiting the amountjjCo economical in trying as far away from the wondered about the destroyed. Mr. Whitne trees that are in "t as they can as there a going to respect tha "there ". Mr. Whitney retained. Mr. Whit realignment of Pine' Ti was presented last County. Mr. Whitney r. slightly -- he is tomorrow, possiblyflwee wanted to keep all alignment, which 'is location. Mr. Whit _g_ September 171 1991 one can see it seems like a properly and Cornell is trying to work with aesthetic ple colors, simple materials and forms, and e site. Mr. Whitney offered that Cornell is ight steel blue -gray roof, but it is still nell as to the final color, commenting that posed building to be compatible with the Whitney mentioned that Equitations has a red s tend to fade and turn a little bit pink so erned about thate that there is expansion, and was not sure if a plan before the Board, but it was referred aeting. Mr. Whitney stated that there is the re courts, adding that at one time there was Lding eight courts rather than six; two extra art of the project at this point. However, lotted in on the site plan are the possible ten dated parking of 36 spots, which would be re", north and south of the existing parking y, fully develop the site. Ms. Hoffmann asked that does Cornell mean a future set of ten additional ten? Mr. Whitney answered, an Hoffmann stated that would mean a total of 16 plied, that is correct, a total of 16 outdoor courts. A that he would -make two other points about the .mitations, noting that Ms. Noetzel- Wilson had Areas Committee of the Cornell Plantations. :he Committee was, essentially, defining "this" meadow, so, again, in terms of the development zone "here" that Cornell is dealing with of "here ", limiting the southerly movement, and, ;" meadow and wetlands "here ", is limiting the ien "this" hill dropping off in the back is :nell could pull the building back and still be :o build on a flat plate, and keep that building :oad as they can. Vice Chairman Kenerson sxisting trees in that would. any of them be I responded that they would lose about three Zat" corner; Cornell is trying to retain as many re some significant ones out there and they are t, but they are losing that corner cluster right said that "this" hedgerow Cornell sees as being aey stated that.the other issue is the potential ee Road which the County is pursuing, and, as time, Cornell had an approved layout from the oted that the County is thinking of adjusting not sure which way, Cornell is meeting with them terly in "this" location, but again, Cornell present and future development west of that dotted on "this" drawing right in "that" ney said that that was something Cornell agreed Planning Board I -10- September 17, 1991 • with the County Engineer, and Cornell is not quite sure what stage they are at, but they are looking at a slight adjustment from what has been shown; Co'rne;ll has been told it is not a significant adjustment. Vice: chairman Kenerson wondered if there is any change in the access. Mr. "Whitney replied, no, but that is another point which he had not brought up. Mr. Whitney commented that they want to keep a single point, ofd access and, looking at the volume of traffic, which is not heavy, i't seemed to be best not to have another curb cut closer to that intersei�ction; the Tennis Facility would be sharing the Equitations parking, „ including in terms of grading it, and adding "this" planting area "?here ". Mr. Whitney offered that, essentially, "these" trees "her,e"�are new; they are seen as trees in a meadow, not a significant amount' of trees, over the long -term, but large deciduous in a field. Mr. Whitney, referring to the parking, stated that there is a feniceilaround that area similar in construction to the Equitation parking, which is a very simple wood batten hortizonal screen for parking,, and again, to try to keep all the landscape stuff similar so that itl'l does not look like two different developments; Cornell would like to!,Lkeep the integrity of the design. Vice Chairman Kenerson mentioned the lighting in that, with so much night play „lights are very important for visibility. Mr. Whitney stated that the total lighting Cornell is proposing is a couple of 20' standard fixtures on the road and four poles on the parking; Cornell is providing the minimum level of safety, but Cornell is not really brightening up the parking lot; they are providing about theIi same amount as Equitations currently has. Cornell is providing a couple of fixtures on the wall "here" for night movement down to the outdoor courts, adding, again, what one sees from Pine Tree Road is a minimal amount of outdoor lighting. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if there would be any lights shining on the building. Mr. Whitney said, no, they were not going to shine lights on the building. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if the upper parts were glass; with Mr. Whitney replying, no, that is opaque, and the monitors are essentially exhaust areas for exhaust fans and air supply. Mr. Whitney said that the major outdoor lighting Cornell is proposing is on the outdoor courts as a maximum of two shifts, but the maximum is 100 foot candles which is for tournment play that can be videotaped. Continuing, Mr.1 Whitney pointed to another drawing, which is sort of a modified drawing reflecting the six outdoor courts. Mr. Whitney pointed out that "this" is a nighttime scene which is cut through the: building looking `south; in other words, if one is standing on Ellis Hollow Road looking at the site "this" is a piece of Equitations over "here ", and Pine!; Tree Road is about "here "; "this" is the height of the building "here'!; there are three courts "here" which will be lighted with 50 -foot poles, basically four poles, and noted that the option is. some of the poles can be brought down but the problem is that one has to throw more horitzonally to get to that center court so Cornell is recommending working with a lighting manufacturer to raise them a little bit and get them focused down to minimize �. spillage. Mr. Whitney said that there are wind screens on the outdoor courts, plus Cornell is putting heavy planting vegetation Planning Board -11- September 17, 1991 "here" around the three sides so, basically, one will see a thick evergreen hedge around the exterior courts. Mr. Whitney said that what one would see from a distance during the day is a thick evergreen hedge, and one would not necessarily know they were tennis courts, and, at night, under the worst case, which would be a very humid summer night, ,there would be a glow up to a 50 -foot range, as one knows the moisture in the air would be picking up that light and reflecting off the court. Mr. Whitney said that on a clear night these high power fixtures would be focusing upon the court. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if light would be reflecting in one's eyes on Pine Tree Road. Mr. Whitney responded that all the fixtures Cornell is proposing are going to be high cutoff fixtures which will focus the light to pre,Ivent any spillage at all, so there will be no direct glare from';, anywhere off the tennis courts, even if one is within 30 feet, adding that the spillage would be from the moisture. Mr. Frantz asked if Mr. Whitney was talking about a total of eight poles. Mr. Whitney?repponded, that is correct. Mr. Whitney noted that from Pine T "ree1,` Road one can see that the building is a little bit higher than the poles, adding that the total height of the building is 53 feet, which, again, is 19 feet over the 34 -foot height from.the lowest interior grade. Mr. Whitney said that the variance they would be looki1ng for is a 19 -foot height variance over the 34 feet from the inter,ior� grade up, commenting that the poles are a little bit lower than that. A voice from the back of the room stated that she could not orient herself; it "seemed to her that the courts are supposed to be on the other side. Mr. Whitney noted on -the map that this is looking from the north to the south; if one is standing on Mitchell Street looking south, Equitaatons, from a distance, is right "here ". Mr. Frantz wondered if ,anybody from Cornell knew how the proposed lights compare to the lights at the Athletic Field off Jessup Road, both in terms of how high the poles are at the Athletic Field, and also, how many foot candles, are being talked about. Laing Kennedy responded that he did not know exactly, but thought the poles at Jessup Field are about 45 feet in height, and his guess would be 80 foot candles; they are pretty old fixtures and they are the same as the fixtures on the Alumni Field. Ms. Langhans wondered about the lights in the football stadium. Mr.� Kennedy responded that those fixtures are about 125 foot candles. Ms. Langhans commented that those one can see for miles. Mr. lKennedy commented that he gets calls every evening informing himpthat the lights are on. William Lesser wondered how visible the proposed lights would be from the surrounding community. Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson passed out photographs of the proposed building site to members of the Board. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson 'pointed to the Equitations facility, the P &C, etc., and the corner of Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson commented that what she found interesting in "this" aerial photograph was that one can see clearly the hedgerow "here" along Ellis Hollow Road /Mitchell Street, and one can also see the very thick forested' area at the rear of the site, adding, the proposed facility would be in this middle zone "here ", with the lighted courts backli in "this" area. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted that ` Planning Board there are no residence: . up in "this" corner; sY Noetzel- Wilson stated) "here ", and the condom; around. Ms. Noetze1-1` the summer when the` lii that it is her und11 p.m. in the summer, ad�( when the lights ' ouw Mr. Lesser commented tl midnight. Ms. Noet1 would, as soon as the li aerial photograph, MI; from the other directli forested area is ani Whitney offered that tl Ir Street, which is all` all the time the outdo� foliated. Mr. Whditn1i a balloon "here ", and tops of the trees, so1� the trees in "this" ar`� would be able to sl Whitney said that this "here ", and this is talked about that has At this point,Ms started to say. °Ms is screened from the south and east it Lane might see this. about the people' w' Hill, because if one obviously, the peop site; in fact, if Equitation Center, v South Hill and he can that the impact of from those areas. Mr an attempt to match in relation to the'ex the siting view wou road is completed, wh wondered if Mr. 'Le Lesser replied, yes, the relocation of drives out there "thi Mr. Lesser wondered Mr. Whitney stated th road was not reloc • with the road relocat same westerly view. but it seems to him -12- September 17, 1991 "here ", but one that she thought was rental is e was not sure it was still residential. Mse that the residential area is, of course, back niums are "here', but there is really not much ilson said that the area is thickly foliated in hts will be on. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated rstanding that the facility will close at 11:00 ing that one is looking at about three hours d be on; possibly from 8 :00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.me at this time of year they would be on until el- Wilson responded that, yes, she supposed it cademic year would start. Indicating on an Noetzel- Wilson stated that "this" is taken on, again, to show how very thick "this" how thick the hedgerow is in that area. Mr. e hedgerow is an area that parallels Mitchell deciduous, with some evergreen, and just about r courts are going to be in use they will be y, indicating on the map, stated that there was he top of the balloons are matched with the the poles would be slightly below the height of a, so in the summertime, from "this" view, one e through, possibly, to some bulb lights. Mr. residential development is somewhere down he wooded area "here "; "this" is the area being 50 -foot zone of light focused on that spot. Hoffmann commented on what Ms. Langhans had Hoffmann stated that she thought maybe the view north and west, but thought perhaps from the lis not so well screened so the people on Honness IMs. Hoffmann stated that she is also concerned io will see "this" area from South Hill and West �.tands on this site one can see those hills, so, ale who live on those hills can see back to the %ne drives on South Hill they can see the .ry well. Mr. Lesser commented that he lives on see it out his window. Ms. Hoffmann thinks those lights could very well be quite noticeable Lesser mentioned the fact that the siting was the view, however, he thought that appears to be sting Pine Tree Road. Mr. Lesser wondered how fd be affected if, and once, the rerouting of the 1�ch appears to be proceeding. Mr. Whitney sser was talking about the westerly views. Mr. IMr. Whitney, indicating on the map, said that {he road starts about "here ", commenting, if one >" is an existing berm which will be retained. if the berm would go when the road was rerouted. it in terms of the westerly view, even if the ited, Cornell is preserving that strip, and even ;ing starting at that zone there is still that Mr. Lesser responded that he understood that, what for a long portion, once the road is Planning Board -13- September 17, 1991 relocated, basically,' the facility will be seen south and to the • west. Mr. Whitney stated that, in terms of seeing the building, and losing the screen of, the berm, unless Cornell and the County regrade the berm then, yes, it would become more visible. Mr. Lesser asked, if the road now we're as it is planned to be in the future would Cornell have located the building any differently? Mr. Whitney answered, no, because Cornell assumed that that was going to be happening, Cornell took that as a probable result. Mr. Whitney noted that, given the growth that Cornell wanted to achieve, and given the fact that the grades start to drop off, that is about as far back as Cornell wants to push the building on that location. Ms. Hoffmann, referring to the view that was indicated prior, stated that it looks like, on the drawing before her, Cornell plans to plant more trees along the driveway to!block the view from the road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that that is where Mr. Whitney indicated the view is, and that is where he had indicated the trees being planted. Mr. Whitney agreed with Ms. Hoffmann. Mr. Whitney stated that the nature of the trees Cornell sees as long -term, one can see under them that they are pruned; they are large trees, and looking westerly he does not disagree with Ms. Hoffmann in that there is some view blockage there. Mr. WhitneyFstated that Cornell wanted to give some planting to that sort of vague 'entrance area. Ms. Hoffmann commented that she did not think it made any sense to emphasize that that is where the beautiful view is if the view is going to disappear. Mr. Frantz noted that according to the drawings the outdoor • tennis courts are 92115' in elevation, and adding 50' light standards, the tops of the lights';will be about 9751. Mr. Frantz stated that the elevation of Pill I he Tree Road in front of the building is about 9371. Mr. Frantz wondered if the four rear lights were going to be visible from Pine Tlree Road, Mr. Whitney responded that he did not know if the building blocks it or not, but he was sure, as one looks at the building from an angle, one can see the light poles, if one views the building directly, and since the peak of the building is higher than where the poles are, he doubts if one could see the tops of the poles. Mr. Frantz said that the roof slopes down. Indicating on the map, Mr. Wh�1itney stated that, certainly, if one views the building from "this" angle, assuming no vegetation, or from "this" angle, one would probably see those two poles peeking up over the roof. Mr. Whitney offered that Pine Tree Road varies in elevation "here". Mr. Whitney stated that, as one views the site from a diagonal point, they would not be visible from Pine Tree Road. At this point, Mr. Whitney stated that he would discuss the height of the building,l. Mr. Whitney, referring to the variance on the height, stated that the little entrance tower can be taken as being about the limitation, so they are dealing with that portion of the mass of the building that monitor, plus a little piece of roof is one aspect that is in violation of the ordinance. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered at what • point it begins to violate. Mr. Whitney indicated on the map that it is "this" top piece;, plus a little bit of the pitched roof. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned that the lights are not drawn in on "this" Planning Board -14- September 17, 1991 drawing, but one can easily imagine that the lights would stick out •, at the corners of the building. Mr. Whitney responded that they would be sticking up right about "there "; if one is way back they could see them over the hill. Mr. Lesser wondered what the building .would look like ifF the waiver were not granted, or he thought it would have to be minimized, because he understood from the sketch plan review that the interior dimension is required to be 401. Mr. Whitney said that it is recommended NCAA planning; it is not an absolute requirement, but it is a sacrifice if it starts to drop, adding that, basically, there is a 40' clear requirement, plus a certain amount of, structure, depending on the pre- engineered manufacturer for fivei�feet; either way they are dealing with a peak, and if they took that off they would lose that aspect of the building, which they are using as ventilation for the building, adding that they, would have to introduce big roof mounted fan units which Cornell thought would be a detriment to the appearance of the building. Mr. Whitney said that it is a mechanical issue plus an issue of what is going to be the best looking building for the site. Mr. Whitney stated that even though those were taken off they would still be in violati,on,by about eight to nine feet. Virginia Langhans'Iwondered how high the Equestrian Building is. Mr. Whitney responded that it is 381; it is up four feet because it is closer to the -road; when one looks at the building in terms of the size of it it almost looks like the proposed building. Ms. Langhans commented that the °Equestrian Building must have exhaust fans in the building, and wondered where they were placed. Mr. Whitney, indicating on the map,j said they are "here", "here" at the ends, and it is not fully properly exhausted in "there ". Ms. Hoffmann Ista'ted that the Equestrian Building looks as if it is set down into the ground a little bit, compared to what the ground level was before it was built. Mr. Whitney responded that he did not want to say for sure if that is the case, but looking at the site plan that Cornell used as part of their analysis it did not look like there was significant entrenching, there might have been some cutting out on "this" front side, but he was not sure. Ms. Hoffmann said that she was sure there was cutting out "there" on the front side, but she was not sure if it was actually the way the building sits, but it looks to her like it might have been -- compared to what it was before. Mr. Whitney said that it is certainly lower than Pine Tree Road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that when the proposal was presented at the Ellis Hollow Apartments several weeks ago she (Ms. Hoffmann) had proposed that Cornell Glook into switching the site of the building with the site of the court so that the courts would be toward Pine Tree Road and the building would be set back; by that Cornell could get the building down on that area where it begins to slope off, then if it was dug in the gground a little bit the height impact from the road would not be so great; also it would be farther from the road. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if Cornell had looked into that. Mr. Whitney responded that they ';!,had; they moved the building around the site, probably in every way that is imaginable. Mr. Whitney stated that Planning Board the reason, number • building that, basical this slope and terra averaged out areas, ad issue. Ms. Hoffman courts flat anyway.N M right on the road. strong the lights are the lights are there P &C parking lot. Ms. not anything likelwha Frantz stated that the more lights on 1°owe is an option. Ms. Lan outdoor tennis court like day. Ms. Lang television cameras c somehow thinks that' it toward the road rat Hoffmann stated that s brought this up at', th the people at the Corn building back there disturbing to their wi that their meadow'lis building, but it is an • since she was at t who is an Emeritus Prc and she asked him just a building sit'tin outdoor tennis courts balls bouncing around, building would be Noetzel- Wilson wondex flora /fauna, adding, classes through and affects the fields, think that really b'eax tennis courts or 'not ever discussed that1 wi Professor Fischer is area; he has birds "nec species that are "qui and other wildlife," et lives on Pine Tree Roe Mr. Frantz stat building with the ten disturbance, the he approximately seven ,f where the tennis ^c flipping the building another issue with courts to the road, i -15- September 17, 1991 one, was the grade, trying to accommodate the ly, wants to sit on more of a flat site, with in in this area, versus the relatively more flat ding, that was one sort of construction cost n commented that Cornell had to make the tennis s. Lang hans stated, then the lights would be Ms. Hoffmann said that now that she sees how she thought she would hesitate about that, but in the parking lot; the lights are there in the Langhans commented that she knew, but they are t the proposed lights are going to be like. Mr. re is also the option of having, perhaps, a few r standards, with Mr. Whitney agreeing that that ghans wondered if anyone had ever seen an at night. James Baker noted that it is just hans stated it is like that so video and an function. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she might be less disturbing to have the courts her than toward the woods in the back. Ms. he remembers one of the reasons, when she �e apartment building, that it was mentioned that fell Plantations did not really care to have the before, because they thought it would be Eldlife area up there. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted kactually used for teaching purposes; it is not a 9, educational area. Ms. Hoffmann stated that That meeting she has spoken to Professor Fischer, *essor in Environmental Education at Cornell, Nether he thought the building, with no windows, .!g there, would be more or less disturbing than that are lit up with people bouncing around and to the wildlife, and he said -- definitely the less disturbing to the wildlife. Ms. Ted if Professor Fischer was talking about as she understood it, Professor Marks takes his the looks at succession and how overgrazing etc. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that she did not s on whether or not people are playing on the adding that, as far as wildlife, they have not �th Plantations group. Ms. Hoffmann stated that 1 somebody who has put out the birdhouses in that 1�ting there, including Bluebirds, and some other to interesting birds; there are pheasants, deer, �c., so he is quite familiar with that land; he that even if Cornell were to exchange the s courts and not even extend the area of ht of the building can still be reduced by t. Ms. Hoffmann questioned: by,, moving it its are? Mr. Frantz replied, yes, essentially nd tennis courts. Mr. Whitney said that he tennis courts is with the adjacency of the terms of noise and dirt. Mr. Whitney stated Planning Board that they saw the coi traffic, and if the bi question of. if thi "here " ?, which, ideal, courts would be gro, parking considerably are growing toward a of contained in their for the noise and space, a quieter buil and lights. Mr. Le -- the drivers or the Mr. Lesser mentio„ne close to the busiest has ever been exp"re it appears from the p and the tennis cou Pine Tree Road to the that this is based o with the building, an Whitney stated that parking as close to t that summertime wo'ul saw this as the most parking lot and us walk to the summertim • so that the sequence of view. Mr. Frantz that problem. Mr. major entrance. Mr. one can approach' t that the underlying q at all. Mr. Smit maybe should not e Environmental Review Ms. Langhans qu indoor courts are goi that Cornell will enclose the outdoor;' c that Cornell is as time do they plan to Kennedy, in answer anything is ever for the plan at the p Ms. Langhans wondered more facilities. would happen as long predict what might reason why the tennis to the proposed ilar • bubble is totally ina and the two men's demand for tennis by -16- September 17, 1991 rts, if anything, wanted to be screened from the ilding is flipped "here" , then there is a courts go "here ", do the future courts go y, they are kept with "these" courts, the ing in "this" direction, and, hopefully, pushing own the hill, adding, as a result the courts major intersection rather than keeping them sort own environment; one for the players and two fight spillage, and providing, in terms of active ing facing the street rather than tennis courts ser wondered who would be disrupted by the noise players? Mr. Whitney answered, the players. that the Ithaca High School courts are very oads in the area, and he is not aware that that sed as a problem at all. Mr. Frantz stated that ans that if Cornell were to switch the building ts, it is about 220' from even a newly realigned edge of one of the courts. Mr. Frantz stated the idea or premise of just flipping the courts keeping the parking essentially as it is. Mr. Cornell prefers in wintertime use to have the e front door as possible. Mr. Whitney said be no problem. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell easonable diagram of getting people into the ng the wintertime facility, and if they want to facility, put that farther away from the road of events is making sense just from a user point ;entioned that a covered walkway would solve Whitney stated that, realistically, that is a 'rantz said that there are a lot of ways that ,is from a design standpoint. Stephen Smith said estion is whether or not it even belongs there stated that a site is being argued about that `en be there. Mr. Frantz said that the `ommittee did raise that question. stioned that, if Cornell feels that the six g to be sufficient, then is there a possibility ind that they will have greater use and may urts in a bubble. Mr. Laing Kennedy responded ing permission for the six indoor courts; at no over any of the six outdoor courts. Mr. to Ms. Langhans question, stated that whether ure the plan is not to. Ms. Langhans said that esent is not to. Mr. Kennedy responded, right. about the pressure if and when Cornell needs r. Kennedy stated that he can just state what as he is Director of Athletics, he cannot appen 50 years from now. Ms. Hoffmann asked the bubble is being closed and the facility moved a. Mr. Kennedy replied that the present tennis equate for tennis needs -- physical education and women's intercollegiate teams, and also the he Cornell community, adding that the pressure Planning Board -17- September 17, 1991 is on that facility to then locate to have a first class indoor i tennis facility. Mr.pKennedy mentioned that if one takes a look at the tennis program °that is offered at the University, they are totally inadequate compared to other institutions in their league. Mr. Kennedy stated that to have an intercollegiate tournment requires six courts; four courts is not adequate for a tennis match. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if the bubble has four courts, with Mr. Kennedy answering, yes. Ms. Hoffmann wondered why it has not been considered to build a tennis facility like the proposed one on the present site. Mr. Kennedy responded that they did, but they felt the proposed site was a very desirable site for the use, in that they thought the whole area was an attractive recreation area consistent with what is in that corner, such as the Equitation Center, adding, they felt the proposed facility would be very compatible with the area. Ms. Hoffmann' stated that it seemed to her if Cornell is catering to Cornell students and members of the Cornell community, that the convenience of having it on the site where the bubble is now would greatly outweigh any advantage of having it where it is proposed. Mr. Kennedy said that they have found that the Cornell bus service to the Equitations Center works very well, and also, if one takes this kind of allfootprint it just would not be adaptable to the bubble site. Ms. Hoffmann wondered why it would not be adaptable. Vice Chairman Kenerson mentioned the indoor and outdoor parking. Mr. Kennedy stated that there is not enough room. Mr. Smith asked about the plans for the bubble area once it is dismantled -- is that going to go back into lawn or into parking? Mr. Kennedy said that'it would be outdoor tennis courts; there is a tremendous demand fox tennis. Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered if there were any other 'indoor courts besides the bubble. Mr. Kennedy answered, no, and Barton Hall is not used for that. Ms. Langhans commented that taking Ithaca weather where there is a very short Spring, Sijummer and Fall playing time is why she brought up the idea of out courts all of a sudden becoming enclosed because she is sure there is a lot of tennis in the winter. Ms. Langhans said that the students are only around in the Fall /Spring, and not too many in the summer. Ms. Langhans noted that the summer would be more for the community, and member play. Mr. Szabo, of the Cornell Athletic Department, stated that Cornell does not desire to have tennis bubbles at all; they are, essentially, temporary buildings and they °are!I more headache than they are worth. Ms. Langhans stated that' she thought the quick way to have more courts would be a bubble. Vice Chairman Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. Mario Giannella, of 6 Dove Drive, approached the Board and commented about the pa';rking space in the front of the building. Mr. Giannella stated that as he understood it, that is a violation of • zoning to have a parking lot between the front of the property line and the building. ` g. r. Giannella wondered if a variance was required for that. Mr. Frantz responded that there is no parking allowed Planning Board -18- September 17, 1991 within what is called the front yard setback, which is a certain distance from the edge' of the road right -of -way into the lot itself. Mr. Giannella said that he recalled when the Equitation Building was being built it was pointed out that the parking lot was a violation of zoning. Town Planner Floyd Forman said that it may have been too close to the road right -of -way; it is a distance setback; it does not matter what is there; either a parking lot or a building, there is a certain setback distance from the road right -of -way and they have met it. Mr. Giannella) wondered about the relocation of the road. Mr. Giannella said that one can see the parking at the Equitation Center, but a hedge has been planted, which, some years from now will fill out and will block the view of all those cars parking there. Mr. Giannella said that' there is no such a hedgerow planned for the proposed facility, there are just a few trees, so one would be able° to see all the cars parked in the parking lot. Mr. Whitney responded' that the parking lot would be surrounded by a five - foot -high wood fence. Ms. Langhans wondered if it is a solid fence. Mr. Whitney, replied that it is a staggered board fence, and, essentially, it is opaque with horizontal boards. Mr. Giannella wondered, instead of making a completely separate parking lot, why not combine it with the existing parking lot? Mr. Whitney, indictating on the map, noted that "this" is a wetland in "here" that Cornell is retaining, adding that they wanted to keep the parking as far away from the road as possible and as near to the front door of the building as possible, for reasons that' he discussed earlier. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell felt that it may be better, rather than just creating a large single parking lot) and knowing there is a certain space to • accommodate, to breakithat up into a smaller piece that is surrounded by its own fence. I Mr. Giannella wondered about the plans for expanding the parking if another ten courts were built. Mr. Whitney, again indicating oni the map, said that is in "this" area "here "; "that" is a diagram as to the final resolution on that extension, and, basically, tYatlis the area which Cornell is dealing with, which would about double ',the parking. Mr. Giannella wondered if it would basically be the' whole front of the building. Mr. Whitney replied, yes, that is correct. Mr. Giannella wondered how one would see the front of the building with the fence there. Mr. Whitney said that driving by one would see the fence and the top of the building. Ms. Hoffmann said that (that drawing does not show it the way it will actually look. Mr:, Whitney responded, it does; it has the fence in there which is indicated by the brown line; that is the bottom of the fence, and the top ''ofthe fence is about a third of the way up the front wall. Ms. Langhans wondered how high the fence is. Mr. Whitney answered, 4 -1„2 to 5 feet, and it would match the Equitation Center fence. Mr. Forman, in answer to the question about the setback, stated that it would be 70' from the new alignment of Pine Tree Road. Mr. Giannella asked about the requirement. Mr. Frantz answered, 50' or 601. Mr. Smith askediabout the expanded parking lot. Mr. Frantz . said that the expanded parking lot would require a variance. Mr. • Forman, referring to the whole parking issue, commented that there is not enough parking {lin that area when there is a large tennis event. Mr. Forman said that one suggestion was that that should be the Planning Board -19- September 17, 1991 primary parking area,'using Equitations' parking as a secondary area, • and if there was a conflict, some sort of side grassed area as a temporary third parking area, as needed in those few instances where there would be a confl111ict, to share.. At this point, Mr .',Forman referred to a letter addressed to him, from Laing E. Kennedy, Director of Athletics at Cornell, dated September 9, 1991, MrC. Kennedy noted in his letter that this would be the only year' of any sort of scheduling conflicts. Mr. Forman said that it would belexpected that that parking on the side, on the grassy area, would I�only be for this year. Mr. Forman said that, in the future, he would sJiee the parking going in the present parking lot and also using E'qui�tations' parking lot. Mr. Whitney offered that there is a pedestrian gate "here" and the reason that is indicated is for the potential'lyi big events in tennis, which are scheduled as is planned, off -peak, ,of Equitations; this would be used as overflow tennis parking so people could get to either the outdoor or indoor facility. Mr. Formansaid that another suggestion, if the Planning Board decides to,, go along with this, would be that Cornell and the Planning Board need t ' work out the type of plantings necessary, and where. Mr. Formian'h stated that Eva Hoffmann raised a number of questions about plantings. Mr. Forman said that the planting schedule really needs to be looked at if, again, the Planning Board goes along with the facility proposed. Mr. Frantz noted that there is one planting scheme on "that" drawing, a planting scheme "here" on this drawing that wasipresented to the Planning Board members, which is different, then there is a slightly different conceptual plan received last week from Ms. Noetzel- Wilson. Mr. Whitney stated that "this" is the current proposed scheme as was most recently discussed with Cornell. Mr. Whiltney offered that the difference is that some of the vegetation has been reduced on the front, adding, there have been extensive discussions with Cornell's planning and landscape architects about what the front should look like. Mr. Whitney said that it has nothing„ toI do with budget; it strictly has to do with what is the best`sol�ution for the front of that building, commenting that it was decided there were too many trees proposed, and they needed to cut the number of trees down in the interest of the quality of the site. Mr. Whitt ey said that is what is proposed, but did not think that was the finalized provision. Mr. Frantz stated that he had informed Ms. Noetzel- Wilson that it is something Cornell has to finalize before going much further. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that, for clarification, she thought Cornell had submitted those materials to the Planning Board in mid -July. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that Cornell has gone further with their landscaping studies, and they are still very conceptual,, but this is the latest; it is, basically, a rendered edition of; what Ms. Noetzel- Wilson had submitted last week. Mr. Frantz stated that the Board would like to see the final. Natalie Emlen, o�!f the Ellis Hollow Planning Committee, addressed the Board and stated that she thought the way Cornell has bifurcated the buildings is : kind of nice, however, she is still very concerned about the preservation�of views to the west. Ms. Emlen stated that • she has heard discussions of all the views from South Hill, from Pine Tree Road, from EllisHollow Road, and from Mitchell Street, but no Planning Board -20- September 17, 1991 discussion of the view from the way many people in the Hollow come along Ellis Hollow Road toward the P &C, facing "this" way. Ms. Emlen said that at the meeting in May or June 1991 at the Senior Citizens Housing, someone stood up and said "there is no view until one gets somewhere along P °ine�l Tree Road." Ms. Emlen said that she was a little confused when she came out of the meeting, adding, the view along Ellis Hollow {Road, coming into Town, looking over to Ithaca College is gorgeous', so she is very concerned about the height of the proposed building totarlly interrupting that view completely. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson produced a drawing which she had submitted to the Planning Board, slating that it actually is the photograph of the balloons, with a small sketched perspective of what Cornell thinks the building will Iook4like. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson pointed out that "this" is a view t4en from Ellis Hollow Road, adding that she thought it would gi,ve,Ms. Emlen a better idea of how this might look. Ms. Emlen ' responded that she thought it destroys the view quite considerably.11 Ms. Emlen said that she cannot tell whether one 1 11 can look across and see Ithaca College. Ms. Emlen pointed out Ithaca College on the photograph. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that she does not know exactly where the photograph was taken, because she was not involved in the actuai taking of the photos, but she would say that it was 700' away from the intersection, at least. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she agreed with Ms. Emlen in that when she pulled out of the driveway from the Ellis Hollow Apartments the evening of the meeting she noticed the same gorgeous view. • Ms. Emlen stated that at the meeting other people raised the complication of students coming back and forth from Campus and maybe tying this whole site into bike paths and some kind of safe haven for pedestrian traffic, commenting that she does not see that on the plan this evening, but she raises that as an issue -- how is Cornell going to get students, hopefully on bicyles, some of them even perhaps walking, across that intersection? Ms. Emlen stated that she did not think they were all going to walk around to the curbcut entrance. Sandy Tallant, of Cornell University, stated that the Tennis Facility is part of the study area for the G /EIS. Ms. Tallant stated that, as far as the Cornell Campus Planning Office is concerned, the bikeway is part of a much larger system than the proposed site, and they are in the process of looking at the bikepath aspect, and will be included as part of the G /EIS. Ms. Tallant stated that that information is reallyiinot available at this time. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson offered that, in discussing the realignment of Pine Tree Road with the County, Cornell had granted them the right -of -way and the right -of -way includes adequate width for pedestrian walks as�! well as bikepaths, adding that it is in the County's hands as to how that land is going to be used; hopefully Cornell and the County will work together on that. Ms. Emlen commented that East Hill Plaza is across the street and it seemed to her that with a simple shuttle bus service a lot of overflow parking • could go there, and not have to have people parking on the grass. Ms. Emlen noted that the proportionality of 16 outdoor courts to 6 indoor courts seems kind of lopsided to her as a long -term strategy. Planning Board Ms. Emlen asked if 4gym was i, classes. Mr. Szabo,: responded, primarily recreation I'courts, indoors. Mario GiannellaJ commented that si'nc nice to see some word of that. Mr. Gianne not complete, and thi impact on that pro- the obstruction of vi have been mentioned project could go ah,;ea completed. Ms. Ho she was going to brin received from Corne parking and traffic i a more thorough 'an scheduled to be rel;ea in view of the f,ac in construction until are in hand from addition, she would 1 laying out the site that she would like t • recommendation to the Attorney Barney, what changes Ms. Hoff Hoffmann answered, buildings in some way, fits into the co'mmu lights, or whether it views, or any of t Hoffmann stated that s located in an east% Chairman Kenerson stat the building every co has not seen that, and how it would work out. "„ At this point,, T if she had brought th meeting. Ms. Noet their efforts in maki -- the engineering, discuss the proposal Ms. Noetzel- Wilson meeting and show sket adding that she wou be happy to sit down Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, just wanted to rep -21- September 17, 1991 taught in quarters or full semester full semester, the outdoor courts are and most of the teaching would be 6 Dove Drive, again approached the Board and the question of the G /EIS came up, it would be from the Town or Cornell to clarify the status a stated that as he understood it, the G /EIS is looks like a project that does have quite an sed area with the wetlands, with the lighting, s, disturbance to wildlife, etc., things that tonight. Mr. Giannella wondered how such a when the G /EIS for the area has not been mann stated that that is a very good point and ` that up. Ms. Hoffmann said that the report even says, in Appendix III, that as far as the act they have a preliminary analysis, and that ysis will be included in the G /EIS document d later this year, adding, in view of that and that this project is not supposed to be started he Spring, then why not wait until the facts ,e G /EIS to even do anything more, and, in .e to see, personally, some more attempts at .ifferently than it is now. Ms. Hoffmann stated see that before the Planning Board makes any oning Board of Appeals. directing his question to Ms. Hoffmann, wondered ann would like to see on the site. Mse try to relocate the tennis courts and the so that it better fits into the landscape and nity so it does not disturb -- whether it is the is the height of the building blocking the he things that have been discussed tonight. Ms. he thought the building, perhaps, could be west direction instead of north /south. Vice ed that Cornell had stated they tried locating nceivable way. Ms. Hoffmann said that the Board she would like to see it to try and visualize wn Planner Floyd Forman asked Ms. Noetzel- Wilson sketches he had asked her to bring to the el- Wilson said that because they concentrated' g up a proposal with all the backup information the drainage information, etc. -- they wanted to nd brought it to the Board for their review. aid that they did not want to come to a public hes of ten or twelve different alternatives, d be happy and was sure that the architect would ith the planning staff and go through that. referring to tonight's meeting, stated that they y to the Board's specific questions. Ms. Planning Board 22 September 17, 1991 I Noetzel- Wilson commented that as the ?owner, they have been answering to a large number of constituencies, some of those being the Athletics Department and the coaches who have needs for their own athletic play, etc., as well as environmental groups. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted that there is a certain consistency within the nature of the area in question; it is an agricultural agrarian type of area, and that is why they felt it was important to pattern their building in that direction, and to put the building up front, where it was in a certain ,relationship to the Equestrian Center which also has that character. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that, again, she would' question putting lighted courts up front, because she thinks that would be read as a very foreign element in sort of an agrarian environment. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that Cornell has considered all those factors, and as the owner, with the owner's prerogative, they feel that the presented proposal is the one that best fits the needs. Ms. Hoffmann, commenting on the lights in this agrarian area, stated that it seemed to her that lights along a road might be less disturbing than lights in the middle of a field and woods. Mr. Lesser stated that the lights are only on, obviously, when it is dark and one would see less of the atmosphere of the area, and during the day one would see virtually nothing of those courts when the ambiance of the area is going to be relatively "apparent. Mr. Whitney said that Sasaki Associates felt, as well as Cornell, to treat that front area as much as possible, as grass ,and meadow going up to the building, adding,, it is really more in keeping of the barn and the landscape approach °than putting in the fenced -in opaque area. Mr. Lesser responded that that is fine', except that it is bigger than, virtually, any barn that anybody would imagine; the idea is good; it is just the magnitude. Mr. Lesser wondered if it was possibly considered reversing the building and the group of courts that are proposed, and placing the parking directly west of that turnaround area; that would take the parking out of the front, and would leave the front to see courts, in which case one would see a ten -foot high fence at a fairly substantial distance, except in the evening hours when the lights are on, it would place the parking directly adjacent to the building so there would not be the problem just mentioned with that access. Mr. Whitney said, yes, but there are wetlands that need to be respected "here ". Ms. Hoffmann noted that the wetland on the other side is being avoided instead. Mr. Whitney stated that there are a series of scenarios that "these" pieces can be built around, but, again, as site designers and building designers, Cornell felt that the image of the building, the components of the building lined UP in "this" fashion are the least obtrusive. Mr. Lesser stated that he understood that it is visually appe`'aling; it just happens that if it were on the other side of the road with no view, in his mind, the same issue would not arise; it is justithat there is an extraordinary view there, and it is an enormous building; it is almost 40% over the height requirement; 'it is substantially outside the range and possibly there is something that could mitigate that a little bit. • Mr. Lesser wondered, if it were moved back, what would the height drop? Mr. Frantz answered, about seven feet. Mr. Frantz wondered if the evergreen shrubs would be retained around the tennis courts. Mr.' Planning Board Whitney responded that softening the effect of Cornell will see that windscreen. Mr. Whitney -23- September 17, 1991 Cornell sees them as a windscreen plus the fence. Mr. Frantz said that, eventually, they almost completely hide the ten -foot responded, that is correct. Mr. Frantz, referring to impact on the view, said that if Cornell were to move the building back to where the tennis courts are proposed, and put the tennis courts in front where the building footprint is, it would substantially open up the view for a person travelling south on Pine Tree Road. Mr. Frantz said that it is not just merely a matter of lowering the building, but, indicating on the map, a view through "here" is actually less ideal, because the motorist is not going to be able to turn his head 900 to enjoy "this" view. Mr. Frantz noted the importance of the view, in an area where people would be looking out across the site, would be more in "this" area of Pine Tree Road and part of Ellis Hollow Road. Mr. Frantz commented that if Cornell were to move the building back, it would go from what is now essentially 50' between "this" corner of the building and "this" corner of the Equitation Center; it would be widened out substantially, and the ten -foot fence would be about 5' -6' higher than Pine Tree Road, so one would be able to see over it to the distant hills. At this point, Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that it seemed to him that the project was not ready to go ahead, judging from the number of questions and comments that the Board has. Mr. Forman • stated that, obviously, if the Board so chooses, it can, indeed, vote. Mr. Forman's thought was perhaps to sit down with Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, staff, a couple of members of the Planning Board, and a number of other people, hopefully, Ms. Hoffmann and Mr. Lesser, as they have been more vocal in their thoughts on the facility, to see if some of the details can be worked out on the project. Mr. Forman noted that there seems to be a number of issues unresolved, and he thought if would be in the best interests of Cornell, as well as the Board, to continue working on the matter. Monica Barrett, Attorney for Cornell, addressed the Board and wondered if there were any way that the matter can be voted on and give a positive approval, but with stipulations. Mr. Forman remarked that Cornell is looking for a positive° vote with stipulations like "let's move the building over here "; it is not as if it is being said that a few more parking spaces are needed or a few less, that the lighting needs to be adjusted somewhat -- what is being talked about, actually, is moving the building, moving the parking lot, literally moving everything around. Mr. Forman stated that he did not think the Board was in a position that they want to vote at this point, because the Board may not get the vote they want. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it also seemed to her that the bigger issue here is that if the Board goes ahead and votes they are bypassing the whole G /EIS process. Ms. Langhans commented that that is what bothers her. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the idea that the Board would still look at things and go through approving things in the middle of the G /EIS process, and taking things drop by drop, instead of looking at the whole impact of everything bothers her Ms. Hoffmann stated that she Planning Board -24- September 17, 1991 knows the proposed project was one that was mentioned in the original G /EIS document as something that was started, but as far as she can remember, all she saw of the project was a piece of 8 -1/2 X 11 paper with some plain lines on it outlining the rear of Pine Tree Road, and approximately locating a tennis facility, which was just very sketchy, adding that that is not enough for her to say that the project had been started before the G /EIS was started; she does not know if the G /EIS was started because she was not on the Planning Board at the time. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she sees it as very inappropriate for the Board to consider the matter before the G /EIS is finished, especially if it is going to be finished so soon and there will be more information to help the Board make its decision. Continuing, Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to add another thing that bothers her about the issue. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she has not heard anything about anything more than ten tennis courts outdoors, or at the most eight; she thought there were going to be two additional ones, and all of a sudden they might want to have 16 -- she said that she must say that she is rather turned off by that. Attorney Barney responded that what one has to look at is what is the proposal today -- the proposal today is for six courts if they want to come back in and ask for 8, 10,121 16 or 40, they can come in and ask for it, but not necessarily get it. Attorney Barney noted that, at that point, it is a revised site plan that would require review by the Planning Board and approval of the revision. Ms. Hoffmann stated that that is true, but the idea that they even • consider it turns her off. Mr. Forman, directing his comment to Ms. Hoffmann, stated that Cornell has made a commitment for a five -year period not to come back in with this project. Mr. Forman said that to be fair to Cornell they were just trying to show, long -term, the additional courts that may be used at some point in the future. Mr. Forman stated that he was trying to get Cornell to be reasonable and plan for reasonable increments, but if they want to come back in ten years and add additional courts, it is awfully hard to make commitments for some point in the future. Mr. Forman said that Cornell has made a commitment, in writing, that this is the project within a five -year time frame, which he (Mr. Forman) feels is reasonable. John Gutenberger, of Cornell University, addressed the Board and offered that the Cornell Campus Plan was developed in consultation with the Greater Ithaca community, including the Town of Ithaca, elected officials, Planning Board, appointed officials, City of Ithaca, and Cayuga Heights. Mr. Gutenberger stated that that Campus Plan shows a tennis facility contemplated in this area, and that Campus Plan predates any serious discussions of the G /EIS, so he would respectfully submit that the Tennis Facility was pre G /EIS, but in addition to that, by agreement with'the Town of Ithaca, since the G /EIS process is the first that Cornell University has ever done, and the first that the Town of Ithaca has ever done, and probably, to the best of his knowledge, the first of this type done in New York State, • by pre- agreement with the Town of Ithaca, any projects within the G /EIS study area that might come forward during the G /EIS process would be allowed to go forward on its own merits, as if a G /EIS did Planning Board -25- September 17, 1991 not exist, and that is by agreement from Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Hoffmann wondered what body of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Gutenberger responded that most of those letters are between the Town Supervisor representing the elected 'officials (Town Board) and Cornell University. Mr. Laing Kennedy, of Cornell University, approached the Board and stated that he wanted to reconfirm what is before the Board. Mr. Kennedy stated that the proposal is for six indoor courts and six outdoor courts. Lawrence Fabbroni, of Cornell University, addressed the Board and pointed out that it was on Cornell's initiative that they went to the County, since so much had been discussed about the relocation of the road, and the proposed site was being considered. Mr. Fabbroni said that it was not the other way around, and it was not the site being planned after the road was realigned; it was actually Cornell going to the County and saying -- this is your opportunity to define where you might relocate it and then that led, subsequently, to an active design project on their part. Secondly, Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would hope the Board would consider the scale of the building in terms of the scale of the periphery or the landscape that is being discussed, adding, there has been much talk about the views. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if this facility were placed where there are ten -foot high trees, it is sort of in one perspective; if it is put with the border that exists along the northern wetland and the forest to the west, it is pretty much in scale with what is active and mature in that area. Finally, Mr. Fabbroni stated that it was also Cornell's initiative to investigate the Federal Wetlands early -on in this project, and, in terms of that consideration, and the natural land use considerations that were mentioned earlier, Cornell winds up with the exact area where the parking lots, buildings, and tennis courts are. Mr. Fabbroni said that there is not a whole lot of creativity in terms of dominoes that one can do with the building and the tennis courts. Mr. Fabbroni said that from an engineering standpoint, if the building is flipflopped it becomes a little more complicated drainage issue for the whole site, to put the building on the second terrace down rather than having it on a flat area in the front, where the drainage can be directed away from the building quite easily; if it is put on the next terrace down it becomes a whole other issue in terms of draining in and around that building and under it. Mr. Lesser said that it is possible that he could be convinced; it is just that it is set before the Board saying -- this is the best way to do it. Mr. Lesser commented that he is not an engineer, and he has absolutely no idea of something more complicated. Mr. Lesser stated that it would be useful to give the Board some idea as to what the cost and complexities of these things would be. Mr. Fabbroni responded that in all honesty Cornell thought they had addressed a lot of that in the sketch plan. Mr. Lesser noted that it should have • been clear in the sketch plan review that the height was going to be a problem, yet this proposal came back and there was absolutely no accommodation made, whatsoever, absolutely no mention, and how could Planning Board -26- September 17, 1991, it not be an issue in an instance like this, the fact that Cornell . knows the Board is sensitive about height variances for the precedence they set. Mr. Forman again repeated his suggestion to sit down in the immediate future and work out the details. Ms. Hoffmann responded that she would be happy to do that, but for now she would like to move that the Board not consider the issue tonight, but wait until the Board has the G /EIS report, and until the Board has received more' information, more alternative suggestions for how to build the facility in the proposed location. Ms. Hoffmann noted that she is asking to wait until the Board has gotten the G /EIS so it can be looked at together with everything else in the G /EIS area, and in the meantime for Cornell to work on some of the suggestions brought up tonight and perhaps brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Forman, directing.his statement to Sandy Tallant, wondered if the G /EIS was expected to be ready by December 3, 19919 Ms. Tallant responded that she is waiting to hear from the consultants; there have been some delays based on some engineering and difficulty in getting information. Vice Chairman Kenerson wondered if that stage was the preliminary. Mr. Forman said that was the initial presentation. Vice Chairman Kenerson asked Ms. Hoffmann if December 3rd was the date she was talking about. Ms. Hoffmann responded that she did not know what date they would have it ready, but referred to APPENDIX III, in which it states Cornell Campus Planning Office is scheduled to release the G /EIS document later this year, adding that whenever that is, that is the time to begin considering the project again. Ms. Tallant stated that, when the G /EIS is presented, part of Cornell's delay is that when the consultants have finished the Cornell G /EIS and there has been internal Cornell review, it is the Christmas holidays, then the month of January, where many residents in Ithaca are vacationing, school is not in session, and it has been the understanding with Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca, that the best time to make the public presentations is at a time when it is expected that the community 'at large should be in Town participating. Ms. Tallant said that'the G /EIS presentation comes in the form of a public meeting with Cornell formally presenting the G /EIS to the Town Planning Board, Ms. Tallant said that the time is relatively undefined;,from a very economic time standpoint it might take two or three months, and, from a long -term standpoint it might be a year. Vice Chairman Kenerson thought it should be tied to something, not just let it hang. Ms..Hoffmann stated that it is also tied to getting some more suggestions, on how to do this project differently, based on the discussion. Ms. Hoffmann stated.that she would like to see some more information out of the G /EIS, especially relating to what is mentioned in „APPENDIX III about the traffic impact and the parking impact where (there is only a preliminary analysis available. Ms. Hoffmann thinks that the traffic is quite • important, for instance, as one of the, speakers said -- making sure that the traffic flows safely, not only the cars but the pedestrians and the bicyclists, adding that she thought that is something that Planning Board -27 September 17, 1991 could be looked into, commenting that if that is going to be part of the G /EIS later why not look into it now, and work on it in the meantime while waiting. Vice Chairman Kenerson noted that this meeting can be either Aye or Nay, postponed or adjourned, but there has to be a time to bring it up again.° At this point, Attorney Barney noted an interesting interplay between SEQR and the timeframe in the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney said that the Zoning ordinance states the Planning Board is obliged to make a recommendation within 60 days of submission, and, if the Board fails to make any recommendation at that point it is deemed to have been approved by the Planning Board and it goes on to the Zoning Board' of Appeals. Attorney Barney stated that in the absence of the consent of the applicant to adjourn the matter, the Planning Board should act within the 60 day period. Town Planner Floyd Forman thought that it was up to the applicant in terms of whether the Planning Board wants to consider this or not; the applicant has the right to withdraw their application to a later date, otherwise it is up to the Planning Board to make a decision within that timeframe. Mr. Forman stated that he is suggesting to whoever makes the decisions for Cornell that they have the right to withdraw the application. Stephen Smith wondered about the agreement between the Town and Cornell in regard to existing projects and projects underway during the G /EIS process. Attorney Barney responded that there is a • provision which allows segmentation, where you can take a project that is in an area °covered by the G /EIS and segment it out; let it stand on its own merits or fall on its own merits, and review it on its own merits. Attorney Barney said that there has to be a review ,to a level that one is satisified with under SEQR before a recommendation is made, adding that he senses from what Ms. Hoffmann is saying that she does not feel this review, at this point, has been sufficient to accommodate that. Mr. Smith noted that it is requiring the G /EIS to be completed in an appropriate way. Attorney Barney stated that he was not so sure that, legally, he would be comfortable if Cornell chose to litigate the matter. Attorney Barney stated that if the Board is going to do anything he would rather see three possibilities occur: 1) if Cornell consents to an adjournment for a period of time to give staff and members of the Board an opportunity to work on a program to find more consensus than this apparently is finding, that relieves a time period; 2) deal with the SEQR aspect, and if the Board feels there is uinadequate material supplied to permit an adequate environmental review, then the Board would be obliged to make a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, which would then throw it into its own''separate Environmental Impact Study, and, 3) take a vote tonight on,whether or not the Board wishes` to recommend its approval or not. Attorney Barney said that, personally speaking, and being of the practical mind, he would much prefer to see an adjournment, with Cornell's consent, and an opportunity to see if the matter can be put into a configuration and work with the"Board. . Planning Board -28- September 17, 1991 Ms. Noetzel - Wilson wondered if it could be adjourned for a certain period of time. Attorney Barney responded that a timeframe could be picked if Cornell would consent to extending the time from 60 days to 120 days, that would give people an opportunity to work it out, then see what `happens. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that Cornell will consent to ajourn it for 120 days. Vice Chairman Kenerson offered that it would be 120 days from the date of submission. Ms. Hoffmann wondered what time that would,be. Attorney Barney stated that it is not the date the application itself walks in the door; it is the date the application is deemed complete, and that may, or may not have been, when the initial submission occurred. Vice Chairman Kenerson stated that he thought there should be a date. Attorney Barney suggested, if the Board is willing to do it that way, we are talking 60 days from tonight, which would mean it should be back on the calendar of the Planning Board mid - November, and at that point a decision can be made; then make the decision one way or the other. Ms. Langhans stated that it does not bring it into the timeframe of the G /EIS, adding that she thought the idea that the Board wanted the G /EIS was because Cornell was coming in one after the other with development plans, or whatever, for this large area, and we,really had no idea at the time of where Cornell's future development was going; there was talk about the Orchards and this and that, so the Board said -- let's have a plan (G /EIS) of what was going to happen to this large area bounded by NYS Rte. 366 and NYS Rte. 79, yet they are still coming in with the plans. „Ms. Tallant stated that her • recollection of the initial conversations with the Town of Ithaca was basically because a G /EIS of this magnitude has never really been done; with both the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University, this is new ground. Ms. Tallant stated that the sense was that there has been a good working relationship, that if the G /EIS extended out for a two -year period it would not necessarily mean a complete moratorium on building. Ms. Tallant commented that if the Board felt, at the time of a review of an individual project before the finish of the G /EIS, that the impact was not so great that it would fundamentally cause a catastrophic disfunctioning of the transportation system. Ms. Langhans interjected that the 'Board has approved things right along, but there seems to be quite a ;bit of controversy with the proposed project. Mr. Lesser remarked that he was sympathetic to Cornell's viewpoint on that matter; if!!the Board is, indeed, talking about a 60 -day delay, if it were another two weeks, and the Board has all the information, he thinks there would be no question the Board should wait, however, he anticipates that the initial presentation of the G /EIS is going to be the beginning of a valuable, but nonetheless, long' process, commenting that he did not think, 75 days from now, even with the G /EIS before them, the Board was going to be any more ready to move on the project. Ms. Langhans stated that she thought the Board could at least hear the preliminary. Ms. Tallant said that she thought the last agreement, in terms of schedule that Cornell had with the Town of Ithaca, is that Cornell would make a public presentation, . she believed, December 3rd or December 4th, • 1991, adding, they are running behind schedule and it is certainly a mutual thing that several of the staff members are aware of; it is just a matter of a very complicated engineering system and Planning Board -29 September 17, 1991 understanding those systems and getting all the material which not • only comes from the Town of Ithaca but!l,the City and the County. Ms. Tallant stated that she thinks itil is not realistic to think that there will be a draft in November. Attorney Barney wondered, on the flip side, if there will be enough information -- some of the things that Ms. Hoffmann has mentioned, e.g., the traffic studies; those will start to fall into place a little bit, so that kind of information would' be available in considering this particular project. Ms. Tallant offered that Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, or Brad Lane, from the Transportation Office can really elaborate on this a little bit further, but Travers and Associates has been hired to do the traffic impact, and when the tennis facility came on line, Cornell's consultant, through the G /EIS, provided services to the Transporation Office and to Ms. Noetzel- Wilson on the project to begin to look at what the impacts would be on Pine Tree Road, etc. Vice Chairman Kenerson offered that things are being tied in as Cornell receives them. At this time,, Eva Hoffmann withdrew her prior motion, and Vice Chairman Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion that ,conforms to the conclusion reached by the Board. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Virgina Langhans: RESOLVED, of the applicant, • Consideration by of the Town of that the a Report Ithaca Planning Board, with the consent Public Hearing in the matter of to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Cornell University Tennis Center be postponed for no more than 60 days from the evening of September 17, 19910 At this time, Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to have it done with the understanding that some more work will be done by the applicants, based on the questions discussed tonight. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would also like to request that both the applicants and the Town get the minutes of this part of the meeting so that the Board can be on top of what was said. Ms. Langhans commented to work on the height and put those big fans down lower someplace; if Cornell can get them lower in the Equestrian Center, then they can be gotten lower in the Tennis Facility ii There being no ;further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Smith!; Hoffmann, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Kenerson declared', Cornell Tennis Facility matter duly postponed for sixty days. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE FURTHER PARTITIONING OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 618 ,ELMIRA ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. Planning Board -30 September 17, 1991 6- 33- 3 -2.7. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. DAVID AXENFELD, APPLICANT /OWNER. Vice Chairman Kenerson declared" the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. A map was appended to the bulletin board. Mr. Axenfeld addressed the Board and stated that he wants to take a two - tenant space located at 618'' Elmira Road and make it into a three - tenant space. Mr. Axenfeld said that the 25 parking spaces plus the two additional handicapped spaces and everything else would remain the same. Ms. Langhans stated that she noticed the property was up for sale. Mr. Axenfled responded that he,needs the money and that is the reason for adding another tenant space; otherwise he would have to sell. Ms. Langhans commented that she thought the ambiance of the place leaves a lot to be desired. 1, Mr. Axenfeld agreed. Vice Chairman Kenerson, noted that a landscape plan had previously been approved. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Axenfeld if the landscaping that was approved had °been installed. Mr. Axenfeld answered, yes, to his knowledge it has, and it has also been inspected. Assistant Town Planner stated that he has no knowledge of approving a landscape plan. • Eva Hoffmann commented on the control of traffic, i.e., traffic going in and out of the driveway. Vice Chairman Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to, speak. No one spoke. Vice Chairman Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Stephen Smith was concerned about the waste from the proposed tenants. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that the area will be served by water and sewer in the near future. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned the planting of deciduous trees. Mr.1 Frantz said that the trees would grow high enough to provide a buffer to the highway. There appearing to be no further discussion, Vice Chairman Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared,to make a motion. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded °by James Baker. WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Modification of Site Plan Approval to "allow the further partitioning of an existing commercial building at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 33- 3 -2.7, Light Industrial District. Planning Board -31- September 17, 1991 . 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review. 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on September 17, 1991, has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the Assistant Town Planner, a site plan showing the proposed partitioning of the existing structure, and other application materials. • 4. The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED. That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action as proposed. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by William Lesser: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Modification of Site Plan Approval to allow the further 'partitioning of an existing commercial building at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 33- 3 -2.7, Light Industrial District. 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on September 17, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental significance. Ji 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on September 17, 1991, has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the Assistant Town Planner, a site, plan showing the proposed partitioning of the existing structure, and other application materials. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Approval to the Modified Site Plan as proposed, subject to the following conditions and stipulations: • 1. The approval granted herein is for no more than three be located in the building; tenants to Planning Board -32 September 17, 1991 • 2. That the aggregate trip generation of all proposed businesses and any future retail tenant not exceed 250_ trips per day as calculated pursuant to the ITE Trip Generation Guide or other recognized authority for determining vehicle trip generation of various businesses;, 3. Application of at least three inches of topsoil and seeding to vegetative ground cover of those areas of the site where fill has been deposited by the applicant, said work to be completed by October 15, 199,1, 4. Planting of four deciduous trees, each with a minimum diameter of 2.5 inches at breast height, along the front of the lot, locations and species of which to be approved by the Town Planning Department. Said planting is to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for more than two of the three proposed retail spaces. If the season is inappropriate for such planting, the planting may be deferred until the next planting season and a certificate of occupancy issued upon the applicant posting security with the Town in the form of a letter of credit, cash, or other security, acceptable to the Town, to assure completion of the plantings at the next season. If the applicant fails to complete such plantings during the next season, the Town may use the security to install such trees, 5. That, in view of the changed use in the premises, the outside • display area be removed and there be no outside display nor storage; 6. Submission of a site plan showing currently planned configuration of the building with actual dimensions, to be supplied before issuance of any building permit. There being no further discussion,!'the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Kenerson declared the matter of the Modification of the Site Plan Approval for an existing commercial building at 618 Elmira Road duly closed. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TOCPROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the Board and stated that in looking through the Zoning ordinance there were a number of areas that he thought needed tightening up before the Comprehensive Plan was done. Mr. Forman said that he tried to steer clear of use items because he thought that is something that should be looked at in the Planning Board to 6 -33- ' September 17, 1991 plan. Mr. Forman mentioned residential and commercial zones as.,_.,ac • requirements. Mr:. Forman said that one of the things he to do was to make sure that there would not be another East Hill Plaza where there is'just simply parking lot and buildings, and there is no required open space. and ri LvJ r LJ The Board, along with Town Planner'Floyd Forman, held a lengthy discussion of the subject proposed local law. 0 There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Stephen Smith: WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its regular meeting on September 17, 1991 reviewed a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to provide for minimum density requirements in commercial zones, and WHEREAS, said Planning Board made certain amendments to such proposed local law; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that and hereby does recommend to both the and the Town Board the adoption of the the Town of Ithaca' Zoning Ordinance Requirements in Commercial Zones. the Planning Board recommend Codes and Ordinances Committee Proposed Local Law Amending to Provide for Minimum Density There being no ''further discussion,'the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker,: Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The recommended local law is attached hereto as Exhibit #1. Vice Chairman Kenerson Recommendation to the Codes Proposed Local Law Amending Minimum Density Requirements declared the Consideration of a and Ordinances Committee with respect to the Zoning Ordinance to Provide for in Commercial Zones duly closed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1991 MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 5, 1991, approve and hereby does approve the. Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of March 5, 1991, with the following amendment of the 4th paragraph on Page °18: 1. Delete Paragraph 4, Page 18; replace with: "Chairperson Grigorov stated, for the record, that Board Member Judith Aronson will be attending the "Local Planning and Zoning Seminars" sponsored by t Planning Board • • -34- September 17, 1991 the Tompkins County Planning Department and the Southern Tier East Regional Planning Board, consisting of four two -hour seminars to be held in Sadd A''at the Tompkins County Planning Department, entitled (1). "General Overview of Planning and Zoning ", February 28, 1991, (2) "Zoning Ordinances ", March 14, 1991, (3) "Subdivision Regulations "and Related Controls ", March 28, 1991, and (4) "State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR)", April 11, 1991. Chairperson Grigorov noted that Ms. Aronson did attend the February 28th, 1991, seminar. There being no further discussion, "the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Update on the happenings at the Cornell University Hasbrouck Apartments complex. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that Cornell has asked for some changes to be made from the Hasbrouck Apartments approved site plan. Mr. Forman said that the two areas that were discussed with staff were dormers and landscaping. Mr. Forman stated that Cornell has requested, and staff has agreed, that the interior dormers which are interior to the courtyard, are being removed, the more attractive dormers -that face the street are-remaining. Mr. Forman, referring to the revised plan on landscaping, stated that Cornell is cutting back on landscaping. Mr. Forman said that planning staff has not agreed to that and he has made that clear to Cornell. Mr. Forman stated IL the interior courtyard that the only thing agreed to for changes was dormers. There being no further discussion,'Vice Chairman Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by James Baker: RESOLVED, that, 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., granted Final Site Plan Approval, with conditions, on June 4, 1991, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts and approves the recommendation of the Planning Department staff that the elimination of the interior courtyard dormers, as the same had been proposed for a new third floor for certain existing buildings, does not constitute a substantive modification of the site plan as approved. There being no further discussion,,;the Chair called for a vote. b •. • • Planning Board -35 September 17, 1991 Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was .declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Vice Chairman Kenerson declared the September 1991, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 1 17, 0- • • I" TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO, OF THE YEAR 1991 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows. Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Article 7, Section 37, is amended to read as follows: "SECTION 37. Area, Yard, and Height Requirements shall be the following: 1. Area: A minimum tract of two acres is required for the development of a "business district" . 2. Yards. Front Yards Not less than 50 feet Side Yards' None required with .respect to buildings all on the same lot but not less than 30 feet from any structure _ to a side property line ii Rear Yards IF Not less than 30 feet' The foregoing yard requirements may include any required buffer areas and shall not be in addition to any required buffer areas. 3. Building Coverage: No building or buildings on a lot, including accessory buildings, shall be erected, altered or extended to cover more than 30% of the lot area. 4. Minimum Useable Open Space: Minimum useable open space shall be not less than 30% of the lot area. For this purpose `useable open space' shall mean that portion of the lot area not covered by any structure or driveway, and generally intended to be occupied by suitable vegetation. 5. Height: All structures shall conform in height with other structures in the vicinity, provided, however, that.no building shall exceed thirty-four feet in height from lowest interior grade nor thirty feet in height from r e n L� lowest exterior grade and further, provided that no structure other than a building shall exceed thirty feet in height." 2. Article 7, Section 38, subdivision 1, is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the last paragraph reading as follows: "If the Planning Board finds that the particular use, nature, and location of the proposed project, utilizing the criteria set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance, requires that parldng be to the rear of the principal building on the site, parking shall be so located." Section 2. The invalidity of any section or provision of this local law shall not invalidate any other section or provision thereof. Section 3. This law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law, except that the amendments made by this local law shall not apply to any construction pursuant to a site plan approved prior to the adoption of this local law provided that such construction is (a) in compliance with the ordinance as in effect prior to the effective date of this local law, and (b) is substantially commenced within 18 months of the adoption of this local law and diligently prosecuted to conclusion. 7# i I EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF -�;.4EPTEMBER 17, 1991.' THE PLANNING BOA FILED TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC HEARING: 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 39 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED CORNELL UNIVERSITY TENNIS CENTER, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED OFF PINE TREE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF EL.LIS HOLLOW ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 60- 1 -8.2, -61 AND -9.1, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; PRISCILLA NOETZEL- WILSON, AGENT. At this time, Town Planner Floyd Fo,r:man addressed the Board on a couple of points. Mr. members Forman of the Cornell r•e,ported that community or Board are, SEAR. a on meeting the was Tennis recently Facility, held with some among them: Priscilla Szabo of the Noetzel- Cornell 'Wilson, Athletic Athletic Department. Director time; Laing Kennedy, and Bill Mr. Forman stated that some of the focuses of that meeting included the additional outdoor tennis courts that they were discus - si-nq at th-e time, over-.and above °wh.at the Board wi 1 1 see -- what ornell called add- alter•_nates., Mr. Forman mentioned some p r•-k-i n 9. c o n f l i -c i s w i- t:h _E:q u.i-t a i i .o n, a l -o.n g with- the h-e -i g h t o f the facility. Mr. Forman said-that- thedisc_u.ssion was with people from Cor--ne11 . - M . •For•ma.n s t-ated ­±-hat - latter -; i-n a telephone convers- ation with Prisc-illa, he •menti-aned that -he thought it would be helpful to t h-e P 1 a-n•n i -n 9 B-o-a:r d Wt : t °a k e .. a 1_o- -.o•k ,-at h.o,w- b_e.s-t _t-o. s i -t e t h e f-a c i 1 i t y on the lot and asked Priscilla to bring in some ,additional sketches that, ap- parently, she had already done, abort different possible locations on the site. Mr. F stated two would not c with addi t no conflict schedule i stated that to site t facility, a have come parking, r t 0 i s s h n man h i n me ona W a wha e d a up sta't gs: 1 back 1 cou th Eq Tread t he facil gain, wi th e,d that he received } that Cornell woul on the Tennis Facil rts, and, 2) after, uitation. Mr. F y set up so that hopes.the Board wil i ty on the par•ti the idea of parkin some ideas for how a./ letter from Mr. d.make a commitmen ity for a minimum• this year ( 1991) t or•man said that is understandable 1 focus on is, aga cular lot, the 9. Mr. Forman sai best to deal with Kennedy that t that they of five years here would be this year's Mr. Forman in, how best height of the d that they the issue of Mr. recommend would like what their opposed another Forman, to in a the thoughts sort terms referring Positive Planning of nudging of or Board are, SEAR. to Negative the the to and Planning take make SEAR, Determination a a look determination stated Board at the in that at presentation, at one staff this that direction time; did time, they not see as -or• :• PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -2= September 17,1991 • Priscilla Noetzel -W is a Project Manager/Arc Cornell University. Ms evening with Tim Whitney Ms. Noetzel - Wilson not the project. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson s Cornell is here to to project being sponsored and it is meant to rep it is built. The projec Tree Road, just north hedgerow, and up in the Mitchell Street. i l son appr•oa hitect, work Noetzel -Wi Project Ar ed that Sa tated that, lk about the by Cornell A lace the exi t i s .to be 1 of the Eq north it run ched the ing for 1 son off chi'?tect saki Ass as Mr Cornell thletics sting 'Ki ocated o uestr•i an s along Board and Ar•chi tectu er•ed that from bas ociates ar• Forman Tennis Ce and Phys to Hi l l Te n the west Center, j Ellis H stated that she r•al Services at she is here this •ski Associates. e consultants on had mentioned, rater. This is a ical Education, nnis Bubble when side of Pine ust south of the ollow Road and At this point., Acting Chairman Robert Kenerson announced for tha record, that Virginia Langhans, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, William Lesser, and himself, viewed the site. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that the site itself is about sixteen acres in size, currently Agricult -ural rise, with about five acres of agricultural land and existing horse pasture, adding, it is in the Town of 'It-haca and in a.n __are:a that is zoned R -30. An educational institutional- use is permitted -in zoning R -30, i f -a Sp_eci al Approval — 1- s g-r:an•t.e d -f r o m -t-h e 'Z-o:n i n_g -Bo a r_d _ -of - A ap�e_a A _ s _. M-s o e t -z -e l - W i l -s o-n • stated that, of course,-their thrust of the - presentation tonight is t o -.a-'s :k - f•or• -p:o_s i-t-i v_e _r• e:c o mrrre:n d.a =t-i =o n -f-o.r• t h-e .p_r °o°j•e,c t --t-o -g-o an to t-h e ZBA. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson noted that when Cornell goes -on to the.ZBA t-h -e. y w-i 1 -1-- b e .:a s-k-i n-9 • fo_r .t-.h e_ ___S:p:e c _a -1 --Ap:p r o v -a 1 a's -__we 1 1 --a.s a var• fi a n c e for the height-of the facility, Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that building program is, first of all, courts; there are 180 fixed seats spaces such as a lobby area, offic etc. It also consists of an outdoo adding that there is also park parking should accommodate, for dai ,handicapped spaces. Ms. Noetze have associated landscaping treat program. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson sta by and large, educational, athle physical education classes from tennis. teams for•.their practice ses facility. Ms. Noetze1-Wilson of following: 9:00 a.m. - noon - it wi in broad terms, the facility an indoor tennis facility with six for spectators, with associated es, shower rooms, mechanical rooms, r• tennis complex with six courts, ing and .associated access .ways; the ly use, 46 cars, including four 1- Wilson said that, of course, they ment as part of their facility ted'that the use of the facili.ty.is tic; and it is meant to serve Cornell, as well as the Cornell lions, and also members of. the fer•e'd that the hours of use are the 11 be P.E. classes Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered if a sketch' plan had been before the Board. Assistant Town Planner• George Frantz •answered, yes. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson offered that the sketch plan.was.presented in June 1991, Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that building program is, first of all, courts; there are 180 fixed seats spaces such as a lobby area, offic etc. It also consists of an outdoo adding that there is also park parking should accommodate, for dai ,handicapped spaces. Ms. Noetze have associated landscaping treat program. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson sta by and large, educational, athle physical education classes from tennis. teams for•.their practice ses facility. Ms. Noetze1-Wilson of following: 9:00 a.m. - noon - it wi in broad terms, the facility an indoor tennis facility with six for spectators, with associated es, shower rooms, mechanical rooms, r• tennis complex with six courts, ing and .associated access .ways; the ly use, 46 cars, including four 1- Wilson said that, of course, they ment as part of their facility ted'that the use of the facili.ty.is tic; and it is meant to serve Cornell, as well as the Cornell lions, and also members of. the fer•e'd that the hours of use are the 11 be P.E. classes • • r1 LJ PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -3- September 17,1991 4:00 p.m. - 9200 p.m. - Cornell Tennis Team practice Ms. Noetzel that is broad .during the acad 4the summertime tennis clinics as of around courts would be wondered if t rep 1 y.i ng , yes, that there wi academic year, she thinks the then once the f have possibly the Autumn and once the facili --Wilson said that the ly from when it opens emic year, it will be when the outdoor scheduled during the noon time on Friday open for community hat would be for nc that was her understa 11 be Ivy League pla which are mostly in t first week-end in Mar acility is up and run three tournaments.a one in the Spring; of ty is in use. other f r o m open tour week o throug use. n memb riding. y that he mon ch 'unt n i r g C year cours 7 f t n h e t i 0 e hours in the 000 a.m. to or members s are in us the outdoor the weekend Acting Cha rs, with Ms. Ms. Noetz will be goin hs March t 1 the first rnell Athle they are thi those wi l l facility, and around midnight to play. In e there will be courts, and, those outdoor irman Kenerson Noetzel�Wilson el- Wilson said g on during the hrough May -- weekend in May, tics plans tc nking of two in be scheduled l At this point,. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson,turned the presentation over to Tim Whitney, from Sasaki Associates, who will talk about the site plan proposal and building design. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. Mr. Whitney described the building and the site to those present. Mr. Whitney stated that the building consists of six indoor courts and six outdoor courts. The building is, essentially, in'the middle of the site. Mr. Whitney, commenting on how the building wa.s sited, stated that they, as depsigners, tried to preserve the qualities of the meadow site as much as possible, given the fact that a building was being placed on it, adding, there was their overriding concern to keep the landscaping, siting of the building and the siting of the tennis courts in such a way that there is a minimal amount of intrusion, given the program they are dealing with. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell also saw maintaining westerly views as an important issue, commenting that they do not s,ee wetland and some existing meadow being developed atil any point in the future. Mr. Whitney, indicating on the map, said that the site plan is oriented north /south, "this" being Mitchell iStreet, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road; Equitations is the "orange" block down at the bottom of the plan. Mr. Whitney stated that, essentially, they are sort of Assistant Town Planner George Fr- ant.z, directing his question to 4M -s-. N-oetze 1 - -:Wi 1 c-on.,, .asked Ms : - Noe-t.z -_e 1- -W-i_l s -o-n t -o ­de�f i ne wh -a,t me ;mber.s of the facility - woul -d be. Laing Kennedy r- e- s- ponded -that members of -t-h e -c l_u:b a�r-e -p e c.p:a -e a s oc- -a to d --w t-h .. -C:o r.n-e 1 1 - -U n- v e-r_s-i -t y -.s -uc h -a-s .employees, students, f,acul-ty and their tami lies. -Mr. Frantz noted t hat i-t i -s 1-i m i-t e:d -t o -the - I _or-ne l 1 _c o m m u-n i t-y . _M r . =K eE n ne d y re-s p.onA e.d , as a member, right ,,now. -Board _member Vi rgi ni;a L.anglians wondered i f t -h -e °r e we r e -a f e e --f o r m e m b -e-r s-h-i .p .. M•r . K e n-n e d y. - a:n s we r e-d t-h a t -t h e r e will be, and there is now at the existing facility. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. Mr. Whitney described the building and the site to those present. Mr. Whitney stated that the building consists of six indoor courts and six outdoor courts. The building is, essentially, in'the middle of the site. Mr. Whitney, commenting on how the building wa.s sited, stated that they, as depsigners, tried to preserve the qualities of the meadow site as much as possible, given the fact that a building was being placed on it, adding, there was their overriding concern to keep the landscaping, siting of the building and the siting of the tennis courts in such a way that there is a minimal amount of intrusion, given the program they are dealing with. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell also saw maintaining westerly views as an important issue, commenting that they do not s,ee wetland and some existing meadow being developed atil any point in the future. Mr. Whitney, indicating on the map, said that the site plan is oriented north /south, "this" being Mitchell iStreet, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road; Equitations is the "orange" block down at the bottom of the plan. Mr. Whitney stated that, essentially, they are sort of PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -4- September 17,1991 • confined by q series of issues i n terms, of location of the building. Mr. Whitney said that, number-. 1, Equitations has, as one may know, quite an active schedule in the existi °ng gravel parking lot, with some large scale trailers that need the turning radii; Cornell needed to functionally keep a distance off the, Equitations parking lot to preserve that turning radii, so they can function on their own, independent of the Tennis Center, Mr.,Whitney said that Cornell also felt the need to pull the building back as far as possible on the site, given the contours of the site, and, if one is familiar with the site, it is fairly level "here" and it starts to drop; there is a slope right at "this" point which slopes "this" way and off in "this" direction. Mr. Whitney pointed out that the drainage pattern dr•ai.ns "this" Swale "here!'.and to this wetland "here ". Mr. Whitney stated that the building` was pushed as fa 11 as possible to the back while still trying to retain a flat place to build this quite large footprint. Mr. Whitney offered that the Tennil,s Center is also bounded on the south by a wetland "here ", and, there is a wetland boundary right below "this" dark green hedge, which they did not want to intrude on, so they jockeyed just the footprint of the building around the site, knowing that they. had a.n extensive outdoor court complex to accommodate, plus parking. Mr. Whitney said that moving the building away 'from 4the Eq °ue-s :tr•'ia.n tenter also a.l lowed- Cornell to -have pretty significant views- -retained through "this" zone "here ", and, as one - d r i -v e -s u P P-i. -n e Tr-e e R _`o-a -d the-re -i s a:n existing-:berm 11-her-Le " t:h,a _t • Cornell -p -lans on retain-ing._ Mr. Whitney said that once one gets to -t :h : tc -t :h " th -i 11 _po n _t�t e �w e : r _ on Pine Tree-Road, Mr. Whitney stated"'th.at Cornell felt the need for keGpi ng fihe b.u_i 1ci`i ng: . away -f -ro.m E-q_uit.artJ.o.n_s .:.era:: .a._- posirt-i ve mov -e ._f.r•o.m the westerly view proi-nt . Mr. Whi tn-ey appended another map to the bull - t-i-n bo-a -rd and` °ccimme -nted that "t-his" was -t-he drawi" that Cornell had presented the last time and noted that the building design has not changed much at all. Mr. Whitney said this is a.n actual scaled elevation drawing so it gives a true comparison of the Equitation Equestrian Center with the Tennis Center•, Mr. Whitney, pointing to the map, said that "this" is standing on Pine Tree Road looking westerly,. adding, the section is cut right off the road in front of Equitations. Mr. Whitney stated that one of the advantages of moving the building away from Pine Tree Road is that there is a slight grade change down to where the building is going to be located and that allows Cornell to drop the floor of the Tennis Court building about four feet lower than the Equitations. Indicating on the map, Mr. Whitney pointed out the existing fence which will be retained, and "this" is the existing Equitations parking. Mr. Whitney said that as one approaches the site from the east one can see between the two forms of the building, and that is the second primary move Cornell made on. the building; they had the „option of either• building a big single shed, quite Ion -g, building, or chopping it into two pieces, adding that they opted immediately for creating two sheds. Mr. Whitney stated that there is a question of whether the sheds can be • turned "this” way or the other wary, and, again "this" reduces the mass of the building from Pine Tree Road the' best from that viewpoint, so the basic decision was to go from one shed to two;. ok PLANNING BOARD/ ! EXCERPT -5- September 17,1991 • then, once the building is put on the s'''ite, to locate the ridgeline in an east /west direction. M'r. Whitney offered that the architectural quality Cornell sees, again, is trying to retain the rural character of the site, as they think it is quite a nice site in terms of the openness a.nd they see tr•e;ating the fields around the building as meadow coming right up to the building, and trying to minimize the impact of the.new planting and the grades to keep that rolling gentle quality to the grading and to the new planting so it- does not look like something that hasil been forced on it, on the traditional field, in that sense. Mr. Whitney offered that the materials are similar• to Equitations, in terms of colors and materials, .adding that it is, basically, a pre-engineered steel building with a metal roof, metal panel, which is like the E.quitations building. Again, pointing to the map, Mr. Whitney said that "this!' is looking from Ellis Hollow..... Ms. Hoffmann interjected that she would like to comment on the drawing that Mr... Whitney had talked about just prior•. Ms. Hoffmann noted that Mr. Whitney was talking about that view' between the two buildings, and Ms. Hoffmann wandered what will happen to that view when those evergreens that are planted there grow up and get bigger; there are firs or spruce that ar•e planted there now, they were planted when the Equitation Center was built. Mr. Whitney said, yes, they -a -Ire exI-st°i ng, -but he does not really know-the history of :the trees, but thhou,ght they were _placed - there, probably, to help s-c_-- e e -n _ _. IIthh e - c- a -r =-s - a.n-d _ _t-h.e f e -n-c e -i -n t-h-a t 1 o.c-azt-i -o n . Mr. -W h-i -t n-e y felt - t � _ that is v.donceand, �e�ni ca l l y , it is not part of _ th s -p_ ro� e t h�ow- v_-e;, C.or-nE l - �s "-tih i s " app n-n e_s s in-terms of long -term -imp_o-rtance, so -it is a reasonable question as to whether in the -long - -ter °m the; e''v e:r:g r_e-e rr s s h o_u 1 c! b:e " h -e:r e -" , csr , p:o s.s i b 1 y c o_u 1-d =other -pla-ntings that keep the low profile be-more appropriate: Mr. Whitney pointed to the map view, and noted that "this" i half; if they had put it asi one bi double the length, so one ca proportioned building, and Cornell barn imagery, fairly simple col nothing unusual on the site. Mr. proposing, possibl "y, a light s under review with- Cornell as to Cornell wants the ", proposed bui Equitations Center. Mr. Whitney m roof, and metal red roofs tend t Cornell is a little, concerned abou and stated. that "this" is the side s the length of the building cut in g block of a building it would be n see it seems like a properly is trying to work with aesthetic ors,,simple materials and forms, and Whitney offered that Cornell is teel, blue =gray roof, but it is still the final color, commenting that ldinq to be compatible with the entioned that Equitations has a red o facie and turn a little bit pink so t that. Mr. Whitney stated that there is expansion, and was not sure if it was shown on the site plan before the Board, but it was referred to earlier in the meeting. Mr. Whitne y stated that there is the possibility of ten future courts, adding that at -one time there was an add - alternate providing eight courts.rather than six; two extra • courts -- that is not part of the project at this point. However, Mr. Whitney said that dotted in on the'site plan are the possible 'ten future courts, and associated parking of 36 spots, which would be PLANNING BOARD/'I: EXCERPT .6- September 17,1991 split "her-•e" and "here ", north and south of the existing parking which would, essentially, fully develop the site. Ms. Hoffmann-asked for clarification in that, does Cornellil mean a future set of ten courts total or an additional ten? Mr. Whitney .answered, an additional ten. Ms. Hoffmann-stated that would mean a total of 16 courts. Mr. Whitney replied, that is' correct, a total of 16 outdoor courts, then six indoor courts. Mr. Whitney stated that he would make two other points about -the site in terms of the limitations, noting that Ms. Noetzel- Wilson had mentioned the Natural Areas Committee of the Cornell Plantations. Mr. Whitney said that the Committee was, essentially, defining "this" area as an existing meadow, so, again, in terms of the development there is, basically, a zone "here" that Cornell is dealing with of wetlands and parking "here ", limiting 'the southerly movement, and, wanting to retain "this" meadow and wetlands "here ", is limiting the northern movement; then "this" hill dropping off, in the back is limiting the amount Cornell could pull the building back and still be economical in trying to build on a flat plate, and keep that building as far away from the road as they can. Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered-about the existing trees in that, would any of them be destroyed. Mr. Whitney responded that they would lose about three -trees that are in "that" corner, Cor•nel l is trying to retain as many as they ca -n as there are some significant ones out there and they are g o-i n g t -o -r•-e: s p,-e ct t h ai t, -b_u t t7h _e y are 1 o s' i n g that • -c:o r• ne-r• -cluster H g-h t "there". Mr . _Whi.tney said that "this'! hedgerow Corne 11 sees as being re_taIn -d -. Mr.. °Whitney= stated that tfie other issue °i_s the p_otenti,r-1 realignment of Pine Tree Road which the.County is pursuing, -and, as --p ree_s e -nt,e d Ia s-t °-:tJ m:e -, C- o.r• -n -e 11 h ad a °n. a p'p -r• o v e. d layout —f-r om -t-he County. Mr. Whit -ney noted that the County is thi nki n9 of adjusting --s1 i g: ht 1 -y -- h -e I s= not sure w -h i c-h way , C o r•-ne 1 1 i s -m e e ti -ng -w i -t h t hem tomorrow, possibly westerly in "this" location, but again, Cornell wanted to keep all present and future development west of that alignment, which is dotted on "this" drawing right in "that" location. Mr. Whitney said that that 'was something Cornell agreed with the County Engineer, and Cornell is not quite sure what stage they a.re at, but they a.r•e looking at ai slight adjustment from what has been shown; Cornell has been told it is not .a significant adjustment. Acting Chairman Kener•son wondered if there is any change in the access. Mr. Whitney replied, no, but that is another point which he had not brought up. Mr. Whitney commented that they want to keep a single point of access, looking at the volume of traffic, which is not heavy, it seemed to be best not to have another curb cut closer to that intersection; the Tennis Facility would be sharing the Equitations parking, including in terms of grading it, and adding "this" planting area "here ". Mr. Whitney offered that, essentially, "these" tr'ee's "here," are new; they are seen as trees in a meadow, not a significant amount of- trees, over the long - -term, but large deciduous in a field. Mr. Whitney, referring to the parking, stated that there is a fence around that area similar in construction to the Equitation parking, which is a very simple wood batten hor•tizonal screen for parking, and again, to try'to keep all the landscape stuff similar so that it does not look like two different developments; Cornell would like to keep.the integrity of the design. PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT _7_ September 17,1991 • Acting Chairman Kener•son mentioned the lighting in that, with so much night play lights are very important for visibility. Mr. Whitney stated t.het the total li,ghi,ting Cornell is proposing is a couple of 20' standard fixtures on the road and four poles on the parking, Cornell . is providing the ;;minimum level of safety, but Cornell is not really brightening up" the parking lot, they are :providing about the same amount as Equitations currently has. Corne 1 1. i s providing a couple of fi xtu!res on the wall "here" for night movement down to the outdoor °courts, adding, again, what one sees from Pine Tree Road is a minimal amount of outdoor lighting.' Acting Chairman Kener•son wondered if there would be any lights shining on the building. Mr. Whitney said, no, they were not going to shine lights on the building. Acting Chairman Kener•son wondered if the upper parts were glass, with Mr•., Whitney replying, no, that is opaque,. and the monitors are essentially exhaust areas for exhaust fans and ,air supply. Mr. Whitney said that the major outdoor. lighting Cor•nel 1 is pr•oposi n.g is on the outdoor courts as a maximum of two shifts, but the maximum is 100 -foot cameras which is for tour•nment play that can be videotaped. Continuing, Mr. Whitney pointed to another drawing, which is sort of a modified drawing reflecting the six outdoor courts. Mr. Whitney' pointed' out that "this" is a nighttime scene which is cut through the -buri- ld-i -ng - looking south;- in other words, i-f one i s st -nd-i ng on Ellis Hollow Road looking at the site "this'! i s a p-i-ece of _Equi t -ati ons over " here-" _, - .and -P t n-e T r- -e e R aa. _d -i -s - a.b_o.0 t " h -e-r e " ; " " - _this =i is the height -of • the building "here"; there are three court, "here"'which will be li- gh-t-ed with :5-0• -foot :p.o_le:s -, _b:ac.H,call -y four p.o-1- e.s,:-and not-ed t-h-at t-h -e option is: some of the poles can be ;brought down but the problem is - ..t =h -a J. o.ne. - h a -s - to -t h row rm o_r -e - h-o r• is t:x o n:a 11 y __t.o g -e-t •t o --th a_t c e:nt e r• c o_u-r•-t , so Cornell is recommending working with a 1-ighti ng manufacturer to raise them a. little bit and.- get them focused down to minimize spillage. Mr. Whitney said that there are wind screens on the outdoor courts, plus Cornell is putting heavy planting vegetation "here" around the three sides so „basically, one wi 1 1 see a thick evergreen hedge around the exterior courts. Mr. Whitney said that what one would see from a distance during the day is a thick evergreen hedge, and one would_ not necessarily know they were tennis courts, and, at night, under the worst case, which would be a very. humid summer night, there would be aglow up to a 50 -foot range; as one knows the moisture in the air would be picking up that light and reflecting off the court, Mr. Whitney said that on a clear night these high power fixtures would be focusing upon the court. Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered if light would be reflecting in one's eyes on Pine Tree Road, Mr. Whitney responded that all the fixtures Cornell is proposing are going to be high cutoff fixtures which will focus the light to prevent any spillage at all, so there will be no direct glare from anywhere off the tennis courts, even if one is within 30 feet, adding that the spillage would be from the moisture. Mr. Frantz asked if Mr. Whitney was talking about a total of, eight poles. Mr. Whitney responded, that is- correct. Mr. Whitney noted • that from Pine Tree Road one can see that the building is a little bit higher than the poles, adding that the total height of the building is 53 feet, which, again, is 19 feet over the 34 -foot height PLANNING BOARD /. EXCERPT -8- • from the Lowe they would be 1 feet from the little bit Lowe st i ookin i nt r tha me g f er•i n t September 17,1991 rior• grade. Mr. Whitney said that the variance or is a 19 -foot height variance over the 34 or grade up, commenting that the poles are a hat. A voice from the back of the room stated that she could not orient herself; it seemed to her that the courts are supposed to be on the other side. Mr. Whitney noted on the map that this is looking from the north to the south; if one is standing on Mitchell Street looking south, Equitatons, from a distance, is right "here ". Mr. Frantz wondered if anybody from Cornell knew how the proposed lights compare to the lights at the Athletic field off Jessup Road, both 'in terms of how high the poles are at the athletic field, and also, how many foot candles are being talked about. Laing Kennedy responded that he did not know exactly, but thought the poles at Jessup Field are about 45 feet in height, and his guess would be 80 foot candles; they are pretty old fixtures and they are the same as the fixtures on the Alumni Field. Ms. Langhans wondered about the lights in the football stadium. Mr. Kennedy responded that those fixtures are about 125 foot candles. Ms. Langhans commented that those one can see for miles. Mr. Kennedy commented that he gets calls every evening informing him that the lights are on. William Lesser wondered how visible the proposed lights would be from t-he surround-i ng co.mmunit -y. Pr•i sc-i l la Noetzel —Wi 1-s on -passed out photographs of the proposed building site to members of the Board. • -M s. N ..oe t-z -e 1 - -W i_ 1 s o n, poi 4n-t e d -to -t-he E q u-i-t a t-i .o n f.a &c i l i ty , t h-e P &.C_, etc., and the corne -r of Pine Tree Road and El-lis Hollow Road. Ms. N oe-t.z- e_1- --W i 1 -s-o-n c om m e-nt e d =t h a t w Ka t s-h e -f o -u n-d i-n-t -e r• -e st i n a i -n " t -h.i_s " .,a:eri -al photograph was that one can see ° clearly the hedgerow "here" -along E l l i s H-o1 1 ow- -R-oa d /-M i -t-c he 1 1 Street , a n d one ca-n a 1 so see t -he very thick forested -are-a at the rear of the site, adding, the proposed facility would be in this middle zone "here ", with the lighted courts back in "this" area. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson noted that there are no residences "here ", but one that she thought was rental up in "this" corner, she was not sure it was still residential. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that the residential area is, of course, back "here ", and the condominiums are "here', but there is really not much around. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson said that the area is thickly foliated in the summer when the lights will be on. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that it is her understanding that the facility will close at 11:00 p.m. in the summer, adding that one is looking at about three hours when the lights would be on, possibly from 8:00 p.m..to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Lesser commented that this time of year they would be on until midnight. Ms. Noetzel - .Wilson responded that, yes, she supposed it would, as soon as the academic year would start. Indicating on an aerial photograph, Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that "this" is taken from the other direction, again, to show how very thick "this" forested area. is and how thick the hedgerow is in that area. Mr. Whitney offered that the hedgerow is an area that parallels Mitchell Street, which is al.l deciduous, with some evergreen, and just about • all the time the outdoor courts are going to be in use they will be foliated. Mr. Whitney, indicating on the map, stated that there was a balloon "here ", and the top of the balloons are matched with the PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -9- September 17,1991 tops of the trees, so the poles would 'be slightly bel.ow the height of the trees in "this" area, so in the summertime, from "this" view, one would be able to see through, possibly, to some bulb lights. Mr. Whitney said that the residential development is somewhere down here", and this is the wooded area "'here", "this" is the area being talked about that has a 50 -foot zone of light focused on that spot. At this point, Ms. Hoffmann comment,ied on what Ms. Langhans had started to say. Ms. Hoffmann stated -that she thought maybe the view is screened from the north and west, but thought perhaps from the south and east it is not so well screened so the people on Honness Lane might see this. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she is also concerned about the people who will see "this" area from South Hill and West Hill, because if one stands on this site one can see those hills, so, obviously, the people who live on those hills can see back to the site, in fact,. if one drives on South Hill they can see the Equitation Center very well. Mr. Lesser commented that he lives on South Hill and he can see it out his window. Ms. Hoffmann thinks that the impact of those lights could very well be quite noticeable from those areas. Mr. Lesser mentioned the fact that the siting was an attempt to match the view, however,' he thought that appears to be in relation to the existing Pine Tree Road. Mr. Lesser wondered how the siting view would be affected if, and once, the rerouting of the road -i-s comp-leted, - which -app-ear ~s to Pbe -p-roceedi -ng. -Mr. W- hitney .wondered if -Mr. - Lesser was t.a 1 ki ng _about -the westerly views. Mr. L e:s s_e_r• -r_e:p 1-i -e d -, yes; . =M:r- . W- h-i-tgn e -y , -i -n d i' c:a t+T.n g o:n --the ..m a:p ; s a i d -t_ha:t • - t -he- relocation of the road starts about "here ", commenting, if one d - r - - i v -e -s o,u•t -t-h e-r E _"_t' h i -s � � i s -a_n -e.x =i .sting b-e -r- m :.wah i c;h w i l l b e -re t:a_i n e d.. Mr. Lesser - wondered if the berm would go when the- ir-oad was rerouted. �Mr• . ,W h1 -tn -e y -st -at.e d ° t.h a,t -i -n .t e-rm-s - .af t he Y.w e:st.e r• 1 -y v-i e w , eve n -i f -th-e road was not relocated, Cornell is preserving that strip, and even with t-he road r•eloc°ating starting at that zone t -here is still that same westerly view. Mr. Lesser~ responded that he understood that, but it seems to him that for a long portion, once the road is relocated, basically, the facility will be seen south and to the west. Mr. Whitney stated that, in terms of seeing the building, and losing the screen of the berm, unless Cornell and the County r•egrade the berm then, yes, it would become mare visible. Mr. Lesser asked, if the road now were as it is piIanned to be in the future would Cornell have located the building any differently? Mr. Whitney .answered, no, because Cornell assumed that that was going to be happening; Cornell. took that as a. probable result. Mr. Whitney noted that, given the growth that Cornell wanted to achieve, and given the fact that the grades start to drop .off that is about as far bask as Cornell wants to push the building on that location. Ms. Hoffmann, referring to the view that was indicated pr °i or•, stated that it looks like, on the drawing before her, Cornell plans to plant more trees along the driveway to block the. view from the road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that that is where Mr. Whitney indicated where the view is, and that is where he had indicated the. trees being planted, Mr. Whitney agreed with Ms. Hoffmann. Mrl Whitney stated that the nature • of the trees Cornell sees as long -teem one can see under them that they are pruned; they are large trees, and looking westerly he does not disagree with Ms. Hoffmann in that°ther•e is some view, blockage Cl PLANNING BOARQf'. 4 - _I EXCERPT - 10 September 17,1991 there. Mr. Whitney stated that C:or•nell wanted to give some planting to that sort of vague entrance area. Ms. Hoffmann commented that she did not think it made any sense to emphasize that that is where the beautiful view is if the view is going to disappear. Mr. Frantz noted that according to the drawings the outdoor tennis courts are 925' in elevation, ?,and adding 50' light standards, the tops of the lights will be about 975'. Mr. Frantz stated that the elevation of Pine Tree Road it) front of the building is about 9371. Mr. Frantz wondered if the four °,rear• lights were going to be visible from Pine .Tree Road. Mr. Whitney responded that he did not know if the building blocks it or not,:but he was sure, as one looks at the building from an angle, one can see the light poles; if one views the building directly, and since the peak of the building is higher than where the poles are., he doubts if one could see the tops of the poles. Mr. Frantz said that the roof slope: down. Indicating on the map, Mr. Whitney stated that, certainly, if one views the building from "this" angle, assuming no vegetation, or from "this" angle, one would probably see those-two poles peaking up over the roof. Mr. Whitney offered that Pine Tree Road varies in elevation "here ". Mr. Whitney stated that,', as one views the site from a diagonal point, they would not be invisible from Pine Tree Road. - A -t this point, Mr. Whitney stated that he would - discuss the h-e_i g.ht of t-h-e b u i i dJ-n-g . M r . -W h i t n e y , r f -e r•.r-ri n -g --t -o the via rJ a -n c:M -o n -t -h-e h e+g—_h�t , -s t:a t_e d .:t h at the little entrance tower can be,-iaken,yas being -: bout the limitation, s-o. - t-Ke y -a-re d:e.a 1 i ;n g- -w-i t-h _t-h_a t• p-r o.p or_t• _o-n of . -t-he m.a s s -of -t h-e b u i l-d-i-n g -- th.at monitor, p l:us a little pi ec of roof is-one-aspect that i s i n V i o l a t-i- o n of t-h e o r-d- -n4a7n c e. Act i r g- C=h-a-t r m a•n -K e-n e r o-n wondered at .what-point it begins to violate. Mr. Whitney indicated on the map that it is "thin'" top piece plus a''little bit of the pitched. roof. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned' that the lights are not drawn in on "this" drawing, but one can easily imagine,that the lights would stick out at the corners of the building. Mr. Whitney responded that they would be sticking up eight about "there "; if one is way back they could see them over the hill. Mr. Lesser- wondered what the building would look like if the waiver were not granted, or he thought it would have to be minimized, because he understood from the sketch plan review that the interior dimension is required to be 401. Mr. Whitney said that it is recommended NCAA planning; it is not an absolute requirement, but it is a sacrifice if it starts to drop, adding that, basically, there is a 40' clear requirement, plus a certain amount of structure, depending on the pre-engineered - manufacturer for five feet; either way they are dealing with a peak, and if they took that off they would lose that aspect of the building, which they are using as ventilation for the building, adding that they would have to introduce big roof mounted fan units which Cornell thought would be a- detriment to th,e appearance of the building. Mr. Whitney said that it is a mechanical issue plus.an issue of what is going to be the best looking building for the site. Mr. Whitney stated that even though those were taken off they would still be in. violation by about eight to nine feet. PLANNING BOARD /'. EXCERPT -11- September 17,1991 • Virginia Langhans wondered how high Mr. Whitney responded that it is 381; is closer to the road; when one looks at size of it it almost looks like the pr commented that the Equestrian Building m building, and wondered where they indicating on the map, said they are "he it is not fully properly exhausted in "t Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Eque is set down into the ground a little bit level was before it was built. Mr. Whi want to say for sure if that is the case plan that Cornell used as part of their there was significant entrenching; there out on "this" front side., but he wa that she was sure there was cutting out but she was not sure if it was actua but it looks to her like it might have ,b was before. Mr. Whitney said that i Tree Road. the Equestrian Building is. it is up four feet because it the building in terms of the oposed building. Ms. Langhans ust have exhaust fans in the were placed. Mr. Whitney, re", "here" at the ends, and here ". str•ian Building looks as if it compared to what the ground tney responded that he did not but looking at the site analysis it did not look like might have been some cutting s not sure. Ms. Hoffmann said "there" on the front side, lly the way the building sits, een -- compared to what it t is certainly lower than Pine Ms. Hoffmann stated that when the proposal was presented at the Ellis Hollow Apartments several weeks ago she (Ms. Hoffmann) had - -p-roposed t -h.at Co-r-n -e11 Took -into .swi tc °hi-ng -t-h.e site of th-e b-u.i 1di ng with the -site- of the court so that the courts would be toward Pine • T r e -e - 'R aa-d :a n.d t-h e b u i 1 di-n-9 - wo_u l .d be set -b a-c.k ; by t h-a t C_-or n e 1 1 co--u 1 d accomplish; that Cornell could get the building down on that area _- w :het -e i -t b-e g i -n s to s:l.op e -o-f--f., -t h-e-n -i-f - -i-t __.wa.s d -u g i- n t h e 9:r_o.u.n -d a littl -e bit the height impact from the road .would not be so great; -als-o -i-t would b-e if-art-h-.e-r--f-r-om.th�e r•oa-d. M's'. Hoffmann. wondered i-f Cornell had looked into that. Mr. Whitney responded that they had; they moved the building around the site, probably in every way that is imaginable. Mr. Whitney stated that the reason, number one, was the grade, trying to accommodate the building that, basically, wants to. sit on more of a flat site, with this slope and terr•ai n' i n this area, versus the relatively more flat averaged out areas, adding, that was one sort of construction cost issue. Ms. Hoffmann commented that Cornell had to make the tennis courts flat anyway. Ms.. Langhans stated, then the lights would be right on the road. Ms. Hoffmann said that now that she sees how strong the lights are she thought she would hesitate about that, but the lights are there in the parking lot; the lights are there in the P &C parking lot. Ms. Langhans commented that she knew, but they are not anything like what the proposed lights are going to be like. Mr. Frantz stated that there is also the option of having, perhaps, a few more lights on lower standards, with Mr. Whitney agreeing that that is. an option. Ms. Langhans wondered if anyone had ever seen an outdoor tennis court at night. James Baker noted that it.is just like day. Ms. Langhans stated it is like that so video and television.cameras can function. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she somehow thinks that it might be less • disturbing to have the courts toward the road rather than toward the woods in the back. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she remembers one of the reasons, when she brought this up at the apartment building, that it PLANNING B•CARG /„ % `:: EXCERPT -12- September 17, 1991 . was mentioned that the people at the Cornell Plantations did not really care to have the building back there before, because they thought it would be disturbing to their wildlife a.r•ea up there. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted that their meadow is actually used for teaching purposes; it is not a building, but it is an educational area. Ms. Hoffmann stated that.since she was at that meeting she has spoken to Professor Fischer,.who is an Emeritus Professor in Environmental Education at Cornell, and she asked him whether he thought the building, with no windows, just a building sitting there, would be more or less disturbing than outdoor tennis courts that are lit up with people bouncing around and balls bouncing around, to the wildlife, and he said -- definitely the building would be less disturbing to the wildlife. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson wondered.if Professor Fischer was talking about flora /fauna, adding, as she understood it, Professor Marks takes his classes through and he looks at succession and how overgrazing affects the fields, etc. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that she did not think that really bears on whether or not people are playing on the tennis courts or not, adding that, as far as wildlife, they have not ever discussed that with Plantations group. Ms. Hoffmann stated that Professor Fischer is somebody who has put out the birdhouses in that area, he has birds- nesting there, including Bluebirds, and some other species that are quite interesting birds, there are pheasants, deer, and other wildlife, etc., so he is quite familiar with that land; he lives on Pine Tree -R -o a d . Mr• -. F r• :a-n t -z s-t_a t d - .- t-h-at _e v.e n -i f _'.0 o r-n e 1 we r-e t o e- x-c•h-a-n g.e the b.ui ldi n.g with the tennis courts- and not even extend the area of -d-i �s t_u_r_••b-a_n-c e t=h-e - -h e -i -g-ht .o -f —t-h e b u i td i n g c a_n t. i 1 1- be r•-e d -u c e d by approximately seven feet. Ms. Hoffmann questioned: by moving it whe•r• -e tfi e- t en,n -i s courts :a-r-e ? -Mr . - Frantz replied , yes , essentially flipping the building and tennis courts. Mr. Whitney said that another issue with the tennis courts is with the adjacency of the courts to the road, in terms of noise and dirt. Mr. Whitney stated that they saw the courts, if anthing, wanted to be screened. from. the traffic, and if the building is flipped "here", then there is a question of: if the courts go "here ", do the future courts: go "here " ?, which, ideally, they are kept with "these" courts; the courts would be growing in "this" direction, and, hopefully, pushing parking considerably down the hill, adding, as a result the courts are growing toward a major intersection rather than keeping them sort of contained in their own.environment, one for the players and two for the noise and light spillage, and providing, in terms of active space, having a quieter building facing the street rather than tennis courts and lights. Mr. Lesser wondered who would be disrupted by the noise -- the drivers or the players? Mr. Whitney answered, the players. Mr. Lesser mentioned that the Ithaca High.School courts are very close to the busiest roads in the area, and he is not aware that that has ever been expressed as a.problem at' all. Mr. Frantz stated. that it appears from the plans that if Cornell were to switch the building and the tennis courts, it is about 220' from even a newly realigned Pine Tree Road to the edge of one of the courts. Mr. Frantz stated that this is based on the idea or premise of just flipping the courts with the building, and keeping the parking V PLANNING BOARD /:`. `. EXCERPT -13- September 1751991 essentially as it is. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell prefers i-n wintertime use to have the parking as close to the front door as possi�bTe,.. Mr. Whitney said that summertime wou.ld be no problem. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell saw this as the most reasonable diagram of get-ti ng people into the parking lot and use the wintertime facility, and if they want to walk to the summertime facility put that farther away from the road so that the sequence of events is making sense just from a user point of view. Mr. Frantz mentioned that a.covered walkway would solve that problem. Mr. Whitney stated that, realistically, that is a major entrance. Mr. Frantz said that there are a lot of ways that one can approach this from a design standpoint. Stephen Smith said that the underlying question is whether or not it even belongs there at all. Mr. Smith stated that a site is being argued about that maybe should not even be there. Mr. Frantz said that the Environmental Review Committee did raise that questions Ms'. Langhans questioned that, if Cornell feels that the s.ix indoor courts are going to be sufficient, then is there a possibility that Cornell will find that_ they will have greater use and will enclose the outdoor courts in a bubble? Mr. Laing Kennedy responded that Cornell is asking permission for the.si.x indoor courts; at no time do they plan to cover any of the six outdoor courts. Mr. - Kennedy, i -n a-ns-we-r -t-o M's. ._Lang-ha'ns question, s-tated _that whether, anythi -ng i s ever fo-r -sure the-plan-is not to. Ms._ .Lang.hans said that ..the - p l -a:n .at �t h e - p-r -e s-e.n t i _s n-ot t_o . M r• -. K e:n-ned y- r• es p on:d e d , r i :g h-t . Ms. Langhans wondered -about the-pressure if _and -when Cornell needs m o r -e f:a ci 1 i t =i =e s . Mr . -K e:n ri e dy -s t a =t_e d . -,t: h a t - h•e �c a-n - . j_u.s t -s :t.d:t :e what would - happen _as long as he is Di- rector of Athletics; he cannot p_r e.d i c t w -hat -m,i-g h t -h ap p_e n =5. ©- y e ar_s from - no . - Ms H of-f-m,y_n-n = a-.s.k:ed t-h e reason why-the tennis bubble -is being closed and the facility moved to the -proposed area.. Mrs Kennedy r•ep-lied that the present tennis bubble is totally inadequate for, tennis needs -- physical education and the two men's and. women'.s intercollegiate teams, and also the demand for tennis by the Cornell community, adding that the pressure is on that facility to then locate to have a first class indoor tennis facility. Mr. Kennedy mentioned that if one takes a look at the tennis program that is offered at the university, the-y are totally inadequate compared to other institutions in their league. Mr. Kennedy stated.tha.t to have an intercollegiate tournment requires six courts; four courts is not adequate for a tennis match. Ms. Hoffmann:, wondered if the bubble has four courts, with Mr. Kennedy answering, yes. Ms. Hoffmann wondered why it has not been considered to build a tennis facility like the proposed on the present site. Mr.. Kennedy responded that they did, but they felt the proposed site was a very desirable site for the-use, in that they thought the whole area was an attractive recreation area consistent with what is in that corner, such as the Equitation Center•, adding, they felt the proposed facility would be very compatible with the area. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it seemed to her if Cornell is catering to Cornell students and members of the Cornell community, that the convenience of having it on the site where the bubble is now would greatly outweigh any.advantage of having it where it is proposed. Mr. Ke -nnedy said that they have found that the Cornell bus service to PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT - 14 - September 17 , 1991 the Equitations Center works very well , and also, if one takes this kind of a footprint it just would not be adaptable to the bubble site . Ms . Hoffmann wondered why it would not be adaptable . Acting Chairman Kenerson mentioned the indoor and outdoor parking . Mr . Kennedy stated that there is not enough room. Mr . Smith asked about the plans for the bubble area once it is dismantled -- is that going to go back into lawn or into parking? Mr . Kennedy said that it would be outdoor tennis courts ; there is a tremendous demand for tennis. Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered if there were any other indoor courts besides the bubble . Mr . Kennedy answered , no, and Barton Hall is not used for that . Ms . Langhans commented that , taking Ithaca weather where there is a very short Spring , Summer and Fall playing time is why she brought up the idea of outdoor courts all of a sudden becoming enclosed because she is sure there is a lot of tennis in the winter . Ms . Langhans said that the students are only around in the Fall/Spring , and not too many in the summer . Ms. Langhans noted that the summer would be more for the community , and member play . Mr . Szabo, of the Cornell Athletic Department , stated that Cornell does not desire to have tennis bubbles at all ; they are , essentially , temporary buildings and they are more headache than they are worth. Ms . Langhans stated that she thought the quick way to have more courts would be a bubble . Acting Chairman Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments . Mario Giannella , of 6 Dove Drive , approached the Board and commented about the parking space in the front of the building . Mr . Giannella stated that as he understood it , that is a violation of zoning to have a parking lot between the front of the property line and the building . Mr . Giannella wondered if a variance was required for that . Mr . Frantz responded that there is no parking allowed within what is called the front yard setback , which is a certain distance from the edge of the road right-of-way into the lot itself . Mr . Giannella said that he recalled when the Equitation Building was being built it was pointed out that the parking lot was a violation of zoning . Town Planner Floyd Forman said that it may have been too close to the road right-of-way ; it is a distance setback ; it does not matter what is there ; either a parking lot or a building , there is a certain setback distance from the road right-of-way and they have met it . Mr . Giannella wondered about the relocation of the road . Mr . Giannella said that one can see the parking at the Equitation Center , but a hedge has been planted , which, some years from now will fill out and will block the view of all those cars parking there . Mr . Giannella said that there is no such a hedgerow plan for the proposed facility , there are just a few trees , so one would be able to see all the cars parked in the parking lot . Mr . Whitney responded that the parking lot would be surrounded by a five-foot high wood fence . Ms . Langhans wondered if it is a solid fence . Mr . Whitney replied that it is a staggered board fence , and , essentially , it is opaque with horizontal boards . Mr . Giannella wondered , instead of making a PLANNING BOARD/ -K. - EXCERPT _ 15- September 17 , 1991 completely separate parking lot, why not combine it with the existing parking lot? Mr . Whitney , indictating on the map , noted that "this" is a wetland in "here" that Cornell is retaining , adding that they wanted to keep the parking as far away from the road as possible and as near to the front door of the building as possible , for reasons that he discussed earlier . Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell felt that it may be better , rather than just creating a large single parking lot , and knowing there is a certain space to accommodate , to break that up into a smaller piece that is surrounded by its own fence . Mr . Giannella wondered about the plans for expanding the parking if another ten courts were built . Mr . Whitney , again indicating on the map , said that is in "this" area "here" ; "that" is a diagram as to the final resolution on that extension , and , basically , that is the area which Cornell is dealing with , which would about double the parking . Mr . Giannella wondered if it would basically be the whole front of the building . Mr . Whitney replied , yes , that is correct . Mr . Giannella wondered how one would see the front of the building with the fence there . Mr . Whitney said that driving by one would see the fence and the top of the building . Ms . Hoffmann said that that drawing does not show it the way it will actually look . Mr . Whitney responded , it does ; it has the fence in there which is indicated by the brown line ; that is the bottom of the fence , and the top of the fence is about a third of the way up the front wall . Ms . Langhans wondered how high the fence is . Mr . Whitney answered , 4- 1/2 to 5 feet , and it would match the Equitation Center fence . Mr . Forman , in answer to the question about the setback , stated that it would be 70 ' from the new alignment of Pine Tree Road . Mr . Giannella asked about the requirement . Mr . Frantz answered , 50 ' or 601 . Mr . Smi-t.h asked about the expanded parking lot . Mr. Frantz said that the expanded parking lot would require a variance. Mr . Forman , referring to the whole parking issue , commented that there is not enough parking in that area when there is a large tennis event . Mr . Forman said that one suggestion was that that should be the primary parking area , using Equitations ' parking as a secondary area , and if there was a conflict , some sort of side grassed area as a temporary third parking area , as needed in those few instances where there would be a conflict , to share . At this point , Mr. Forman referred to a letter addressed to him, from Laing E . Kennedy , Director of Athletics at Cornell , dated September 9 , 1991 . Mr . Kennedy noted in his letter that this would be the only year of any sort of scheduling conflicts . Mr. Forman said that it would be expected that that parking on the side , on the grassy area , would only be for this year. Mr . Forman said that , in the future , he would see the parking going in the present parking lot and also using Equitationsiparking lot . Mr . Whitney offered that there is a pedestrian gate "here" and the reason that is indicated is for the potentially big events in tennis , which are scheduled as is planned , off-peak , of Equitations ; this would be used as overflow tennis parking so people could get to either the outdoor or indoor facility . Mr . Forman said that another suggestion , if the Planning Board decides to go along with this, would be that Cornell and the Planning Board need to work out the type of plantings necessary , and M ft PLANNING) BOARD/ ' 4AF0" EXCERPT - 16 ~ September• 1 7 , 1 991 where. Mr. Forman stated that Eva Hoffmann raised a number of questions about plantings. Mr. Forman said that the planting schedule really needs to be looked at if, again, the Planning Board goes along with the facility proposed. Mr. Frantz noted that there is one planting scheme on !'that" drawing, a planting scheme "here" on this drawing that was presented to the Planning Board members, which is different, then there is a slightly different conceptual plan received last week from Ms. Noetzel - Wilson.. Mr. Whitney stated that "this" is the current proposed scheme as was most recently discussed with Cornell. Mr. Whitney offered that the difference is that some of the vegetation has been reduced on the front, adding, there have been extensive discussions with Cornell's planning and landscape architects about what .the front should look like. Mr. Whitney said that it has nothing to do with budget; it strictly has to do with what is the best solution for the front of that building, commenting that it was decided there were too many-trees proposed, and they needed to cut the number of trees down in the - interest of the quality of the site. Mr. Whitney said that is what is proposed, but did not think that was the finalized provision. Mr. Frantz stated that he had informed Ms. Noetzel - Wilson that it is something Cornell has to finalize before going much further. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that, for clarification, she thought Cornell had submitted those materials to the Planning Board in mid -July. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that Cor -hell has gone further with their landscaping studies, and they are -still v_e r y _c o n e ep -t -u a _l ,- _b_u:t t h i s is t h•e 1 a:t e:s t; it i -s , b ns-i_c.a 1 1 y,, a rendered edition of what Ms. Noetzel -W -il -son had submitted last week. 'Mr . F -r a.n:t7z - s t:a --t e d t Nat t h e B.o.a rd -wo u 1 d 11-k e to- s.e� t he f-i -n.a 1. Natalie Emlen, of the.Ellis Hollow Planning Committee,. addressed t:h:e - B o.a r °c� a-n d.._ :s t at e i °`t h-at s h e-- t.h.au g h -t t -h e- :wa y :Car n e 1 1 h-a s b.1-f a r•-c-a t -e.d the buildings is kind of -nice, however, she is still very concerned about the pr•eser•-vatian of views -to -the west. M-s. Emlen stated that she has heard discussions of all the views from South Hill, from Pine Tree Road, from Ellis Hollow Road, and from Mitchell street, but no discussion of the view from the way many people in the Hollow come along Ellis Hollow Road toward the P &C, facing "this" way. Ms. Emlen said that at the meeting in May or June 1991 at the Senior Citizens Housing, someone stood up and said "there is no view until one gets somewhere along Pine Tree Road." Ms. Emlen said that she was a little confused when she came out of the meeting, adding., the view. along Ellis Hollow Road, coming into Town, looking over to Ithaca College is gorgeous, so she is very concerned about the height of the proposed building totally interrupting that view completely. Ms. Noe the P 1 a n n i the balloon thinks the that "this" thought it look. Ms. quite cons can look ac College on a tzel - Wilson prod ng Board, stat S, with a smal building will is a view taken would give M Emlen responded iderably. Ms. rocs and see Ith the photograp uced a drawing which s ing that it, actually, 1 sketched per•specti look like. Ms. Noetz from Ellis Hollow Roa S. Emlen a better i that she thought it Emlen said that she ca aca.College. Ms. Emle h. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson he had submitted to is the photograph of ve of what Cornell el- Wilson pointed out d, adding that she dea of how this might destroys the view nnot tell whether one n pointed out Ithaca stated that she does PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT - 17 - September 17 , 1991 not know exactly where the photograph was taken , because she was not involved in the actual taking of the photos , but she would say that it was 700 ' away from the intersection , at least . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she agreed with Ms . Emlen in that when she pulled out of the driveway from the Ellis Hollow Apartments the evening of the meeting she noticed the same gorgeous view. Ms . Emlen stated that at the meeting other people raised the complication of students coming back and forth from Campus and maybe tying this whole site into bike paths and some kind of safe haven for pedestrian traffic , commenting that she does not see that on the plan this evening , but she raises that as an issue -- how is Cornell going to get students , hopefully on bicyles , some of them even perhaps walking , across that intersection? Ms . Emlen stated that she did not think they were all going to walk around to the curbcut entrance . Sandy Tallant , of Cornell University , stated that the Tennis Facility is part of the study area for the G/EIS . Ms . Tallant stated that , as far as the Cornell Campus Planning Office is concerned , the bikeway is part of a much larger system than the proposed site , and they are in the process of looking at the bikepath aspect , and will be included as part of the G/EIS . Ms . Tallant stated that that information is really not available at this time . Ms . Noetzel -Wilson offered that , in discussing the realignment of Pine Tree Road wit-, -the County , Cornell had granted them the right-of-way and the right-of-way includes adequate width for pedestrian walks as well as bikepaths , adding that it is in the County ' s hands as to how that land is going to be used ; hopefully Cornell and the County will work together on that . Ms. Emlen commented that East Hill Plaza is across the street and it seemed to her that with a simple shuttle bus service a lot of overflow parking could go there , and not have to have people parking on the grass . Ms . Emlen noted that the proportionality of 16 outdoor courts to 6 indoor courts seems kind of lopsided to her as a long-term strategy . Ms . Emlen asked if gym was taught in quarters or full semester classes . Mr . Szabo responded, full semester , the outdoor courts are primarily recreation courts , and most of the teaching would be indoors . Mario Giannella , of 6 Dove Drive , again approached the Board and commented that since the question of the G/EIS came up it would be nice to see some words from the Town or Cornell to clarify the status of that . Mr . Giannella stated that as he understood it , the G/EIS is not complete , and this looks like a project that does have quite an impact on that proposed area with the wetlands , with the lighting , the obstruction of views , disturbance to wildlife , etc . , things that have been mentioned tonight . Mr . Giannella wondered how such a project could go ahead when the G/EIS for the area has not been completed . Ms . Hoffmann stated that that is a very good point and she was going to bring that up . Ms . Hoffmann said that the report received from Cornell even says , in Appendix III , that as far as the parking and traffic impact they have a preliminary analysis , and that a more thorough analysis will be included in the G/EIS document scheduled to be released later this year , adding , in view of that and PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT - 18- September 17 , 1991 in view of the fact that this project is not supposed to be started in construction until the Spring , then why not wait until the facts are in hand from the G/EIS to even do anything more , and , in addition , she would like to see , personally , some more attempts at laying out the site differently than it is now. Ms . Hoffmann stated that she would like to see that before the Planning Board makes any recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Barney , directing his question to Ms. Hoffmann , wondered what changes Ms . Hoffmann would like to see on the site . Ms . Hoffmann answered , try to relocate the tennis courts and the buildings in some way so that it better fits into the landscape and fits into the community so it does not disturb -- whether it is the lights , or whether it is the height of the building blocking the views , or any of the things that have been discussed tonight . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she thought the building , perhaps , could be located in an east/west direction instead of north/south . Acting Chairman Kenerson stated that Cornell had stated they tried locating the building every conceivable way . Ms . Hoffmann said that the Board has not seen that , and she would like to see it to try and visualize how it would work out . At this point , Town Planner Floyd Forman asked Ms . Noetzel -Wilson if she had brought the sketches he had asked her to bring to the meeting . Ms . Noetzel-Wilson said that because they concentrated their efforts in making up a proposal with all the backup information -- the engineering , the drainage information , etc. -- they wanted -to discuss the proposal and brought it to the Board for their review. Ms . Noetzel -Wilson said that they did not -rant to come to a public meeting and show sketches of ten or twelve different alternatives , adding that she would be happy and was sure that the architect would be happy to sit down with the planning staff and go through that . Ms . Noetzel -Wilson , referring to tonight ' s meeting , stated that they just wanted to reply to the Board ' s specific questions . Ms . Noetzel -Wilson commented that as the owner , they have been answering to a large number of constituencies , some of those being : the Athletics Department and the coaches who have needs for their own athletic play , etc . , as well as environmental groups . Ms . Noetzel -Wilson noted that there is a certain consistency within the nature of the area in question; it is an agricultural agrarian type of area and that is why they felt it was important to pattern their building in that direction , and to put the building up front , where it was in a certain relationship to the Equestrian Center which also has that character . Ms . Noetzel -Wilson said that , again , she would question putting lighted courts up front , because she thinks that would be read as a very foreign element in sort of an agrarian environment . Ms . Noetzel-Wilson stated that Cornell has considered all those factors , and as the owner , with the owner ' s prerogative , they feel that the presented proposal is the one that best fits the needs . Ms . Hoffmann , commenting on the lights in this agrarian area , stated that it seemed to her that lights along a road might be less disturbing than lights in the middle of a field and woods . Mr . PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -19- September 17,1991 • Lesser stated that the lights are only on, obviously, when it is dark and one would see less of the atmosphere of the area, and during the day one would see virtually nothing of those courts when the ambiance of' the area is going to be relatively apparent. Mr. Whitney said that Sasaki Associates felt, as well as Cornell, to treat that front area as much as possible, as grass and meadow going up to the building, adding, it is really more in keeping of the barn and the landscape approach than putting in the fenced -in opaque area. Mr. Lesser responded that that is fine, except that it is bigger than, virtually, any barn that anybody would imagine; the idea is good, it is just the magnitude. Mr. Lesser wondered if it was possibly considered reversing the building and the group of courts that are proposed, and placing the parking directly west of that turnaround area; that would take the parking out of the front, and would leave the front to see courts, in which case one would see a ten -foot high fence at a fairly substantial distance, except in the evening hours when the lights are on; it would place the parking directly adjacent to the building so there would not be the problem just mentioned with that access. Mr. Whitney said, yes, but there are wetlands that need to be respected "here ". Ms. Hoffmann noted that the wetland on the other side is being avoided instead. Mr. Whitney stated that there are a series of scenarios that "these" pieces can be built around, but, again, as site designers and building designers, Cornell felt that the -image of the building, the components of the building lined up i n " t-h i s " -fYa s-h-i o n .a; r•-e - -.the 1 e :a s t o b t r• u_s- -v-e . Mr. _L -e s.s_e r• s t-a tte-d -t-hat he understood that it is. visually : appealing-* it just happens that if • i -t —were on -t -h e o t h e:r -s- d.e- _o f -t.h_e -r•-o a d: -w i-th n -o view, , i -n h-i_ s m+n d , t-he same -issue would not arise; it-is just th.at there is an extraordinary v-i -e :w the -r -e , and i t i_ s -an -e -n-or m o u-s b_u =i -1 d i -n-q ; -i _t —i s_ a l m-o.s t 4 -096 o v -e -r -t:h e .height requirement ; - i is - subst.anti lly outside the range and - p:o.s-s i b l =y there i s s om e thi °ng- °t h-a t could miti g a te t-h a t -a little bit* Mr. Lesser wondered, if it were moved back, what would the height drop? Mr. Frantz answered, about seven feet. Mr. Frantz wondered if the evergreen shrubs would be retained around the tennis courts. Mr. Whitney responded that Cornell sees them as a wi.ndscr•een plus softening ,the effect of the fence. Mr. Frantz said that, eventually, Cornell will see that they almost completely hide the ten -foot windscreen. Mr. Whitney responded, that is correct. Mr. Frantz, referring to impact on the view, said that if Cornell were to move the building back to where the tennis courts are proposed, and put the tennis courts in front where the building footprint is, it would substantially open up the view for a person travelling south on Pine Tree Road. 'Mr. Frantz said that it is not just merely a matter of lowering the building, but, indicating on the map, a view through "here" is actually less ideal, because the motorist is not going to be able to turn their head 900 to enjoy "this" view. Mr. Frantz noted the importance of the view, in an area where people would be looking out across the site, would be more in "this" area of Pine Tree Road and part of Ellis Hollow Road. Mr. Frantz commented that if Cornell were to move the building back, it • would go from what is now essentially 50' between "this" corner of the building and "this" corner of the Equitation Center; it would be widened out substantially, and the ten -foot fence would be about PLANNING BOARD /- EXCERPT -20- September 17,1991 5' -6' higher than Pine Tree Road, so one would be able to see over it to the distant hills. At th him that t number of stated tha vote. Mr Ms. Noetze and a num as they ha see if s Forman not and he t is poin he proj quest t, obvi Forma 1 -Wi 1 so ber• of ve been ome of ed that hought t, Town Planner Flc ect was not ready ions and comments ously, if the Boar n's thought was per n, staff, a couple other people, hopef more vocal in thei the details can there seems to be if would be in the yd Forma to go that d so c haps to of membe ully, Ms r though be wor•ke a numbe best int n stated ahead, j the Board hooses, sit down rs of the Hoffman is on t d out on r of is er•ests of as the Board, to continue working on the matter. that udgi has it with P 1 a n an he the sues Cor• it se ng fr Mr. can, Mr. K nning d Mr. facili projec unre nel1, emed to om the Forman indeed, ennedy, Board, Lesser, t , tc t. Mr. solved, as well Monica.Barrett, Attorney for Cornell, addressed the Board and wondered if there were any way that the matter can be voted on.and give a positive approval, but with stipulations. Mr. Forman remarked that Cornell is looking for a positive vote with stipulations like "let's move the building over here "; it is not as if it is being said that a few more parking spaces are needed or a few less, that the lighting needs to be adjusted somewhat -- what is being talked about, actually, -is- moving the building, moving the parking lot, literally mo v i -n-g e-_ver-yt h-i n g ar ° °o_u -n-d .. M r. -Forman -st.at-e-d th-at h e d -i d -n-ot t h i-n k the Board was in a position that they want to vote at this point, • bec.ause -t_he - 6 oar•d mazy- -n_ot- :geFt -the vote th -ey -.w.e:n-t. M*s. -Hoffmann stated that it also seemed to her that the bigger issue here is that -i .f t-h e .B -o-ar d -g o e.s a- h-e.a_d _trim! -v of e s -t-h-e y -are _by:p_a:s_s-i -n g -t h e w•h o le G/ E I -S process, Ms. Langhans commented that that is what bother-.s her. Ms. Ht f f ma-n-n -stated - t-h at °t-he i d e a. •t h7at = t-.h e - E } o a -r d - w.o u l d s t i l l -10 o k at things and go through approving things in the middle of the G /EIS process, and taking things drop by drop, instead of looking at the whole impact of everything bothers her. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she knows the proposed project was one that was mentioned in the original G /EIS document as something that was started, but as far as she can remember, all she saw of the project was.a piece of B -1/2 X 11 paper with some plain lines on it outlining the rear of Pine Tree Road, and approximately locating a tennis facility, which was just very sketchy, adding that that is not enough for her to say that the project had been started before the G /EIS was started,* she does not know if the G /EIS was started because she was not on the Planning Board at the time. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she sees it as very inappropriate for the Board to consider the matter before the G /EIS is finished, especially if it is going to be finished so soon and there will be more information to help the Board make its decision. Continuing another thing that she has courts outdoor • to be two a have 16 -- she by that. A tha n s, ddi sa tto Mse t bot of he or at tiona id th r•ney Hoffmann stat hers her about and anything a the most eigh 1 ones, and at she must sa Barney respond ed the bout t; s all y th ed t tha is an he of at hat t s Y t she ue. M thing hought s u d d e he is what o would so Hof more th there n they rather ne has li fma an w mig t to k n t e U 1 e t n s en t re t wa rned ook o adc tatec ennis goinc nt tc off at i=_ PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -21- September• 17,1991 • what is the proposal today -- the proposal today is for six courts if they want to come back in and ask for 8, 10,129 16 or 40, they can come in and ask ,for it, but not necessarily get it. Attorney Barney noted that, at that point, it is a revised site plan that would require review by the Planning Board and approval of the revision. Ms. Hoffmann stated that that is true, but the idea that they even consider it turns her off, Mr. Forman, directing his comment to Ms. Hoffmann, stated that .Cornell has made a commitment for a five-year period not to come back in with this project. Mr. Forman said that to be fair to Cornell they were just trying to show, lone -term, the additional courts that may be used at some point in the future. Mr. Forman stated that he was trying to get Cornell to be reasonable and plan for reasonable increments, but if they want to comeback in' ten years and add additional courts, it is awfully hard to make commitments for some point in the future. Mr. Forman said that Cornell has made a commitment, in writing, that this is the project within a _five-year time frame, which he (Mr. Forman) feels is reasonable. At this point, the Public Hearing was re-opened, John Gutenberger, of Cornell Univer °city, addressed the Board and offered that the Cornell Campus Plan was developed in consultation with the Greater Ithaca community, including th-e Town of Ithaca, -e - -1 e_c t e_d o -ff-i c i -a 1 s, -P 1_a n-n i n g B o.a r_d , ;app ai n-t y d of -f i c i a l s_, City of Ithaca, a-nd Cayuga Heights, Mr. Gutenberger- stated that that Campus • P 1 -a_n s_h_ow -s _ a t e n n-i s -f-a —1 1-i t y ._.c o nt_e mp 1 ate d-in -t-h i s -ar-ea, a.n-d that Campus Plan predates° any serious discussions of the G /EIS, so he .w -o u l d r=e_sp-e c t f.0 1 1 y-= s --ub.m i• t -_t-h at —the T -e n-n! s 'Fa --c-i 1 i -t y -wa.s 'p.r•:e G/ E I .S _, but in .addition t -o -that.,_ by agr.ee-ment with--the Town of Ithaca, since the G /-E -I -S -p-r o c e s s -1-s -t-he -f -i r -s t t .hat :C o r-•n e 1 -1 U -ni v r r s i t -y has -ever d-o ne , an d the first t -hat the Town of Ithaca has ever done, and probably, to the best of his knowledge, the first of this type done in New York State, by pre-agreement with the Town of Ithaca, any projects within the G /EIS study area that might come forward during the G /EIS process would be allowed to go forward on its own merits, as if a G /EIS did not exist, and that is by agreement from Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Hoffmann wondered what body of the Town of Ithaca.. Mr..Gutenberger• responded that most of those letters. are between the Town Supervisor representing the elected officials (Town Board) and Cornell University, Mr. Laing Kennedy, of Cornell University, appr•oache.d..the. Board and stated that he wanted to reconfirm what is before the Board. Mr. Kennedy stated that the proposal is for six indoor courts and six outdoor courts. Lawrence Fabbr•oni pointed out that it wa County, since so muc road, and the proposed that it was not the planned after the road to the County and sa of Cornell s on Cornell' h had been di site was bei other way ar• was realigne ying -- this U s s n 0 d i niversity, addressed the Board and initiative that they went to the cussed about the relocation of the g considered. Mr. Fabbroni said und, and it was not the site being it was actually Cornell going s your opportunity to define where . PLANNING BC,ARD/ I -EXCERPT 1 .22-- September 17,1991 • you might relocate it and then•that led', subsequently, to an active design project on their part, Secondly, Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would hope the Board would consider the scale of the building in terms of the scale. of the periphery or the landscape that is being discussed, adding, there has been much talk about the views. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if this facility were placed where there are ten -foot high trees, it is sort-of in one p.erspective; if it is put with the border that exists along the northern wetland and the forest to the west, it is pretty much in scale with what is - active 'and mature in that area. Finally, Mr. Fabbroni stated that it was also Cornell's initiative to investigate the Federal Wetlands early -on in this project, and, in terms of that consideration, and the natural land use considerations that were mentioned earlier, Cornell winds up with the exact area where the parking lots, buildings, and tennis courts are. Mr. Fabbroni said that there •is not a whole lot of creativity in terms of dominos that one can do with the building and the tennis courts. Mr. Fabbroni said that from an engineering standpoint, if the building is flipflopped it becomes a little more complicated drainage issue for the whole site, to put the building on the second terrace down rather than having it on a flat area in the front, where the drainage can be directed away from t-he building quite easily; if it is put on the next terrace down it becomes a whole other issue in terms. of dr•a..i ni ng in and around that bui ldi ng and under it. • is M r• . L_e s_s -e-r _s:a .i d t -h:a•t i-t i.s - p =o:s:s i-b l e t-.h:a -t -- h -e .co.u. l d be c.o n-v i n c e_d ; it is just that it is set before the Board saying -- th-is is the best way -t -o d_o i -t . -M -r• . I _e s:s. e -r• :c -o mm e n t_e d - °_t h a t -h e i -s not -a n . e n g -i n e e-r• , y_n d -he has _absolutely no idea of .someth-i ng :more comp -1 i sated . M . Lesser. st:a =te d --teh-at =i t -_w.ou _1 d t� e .u-s,-f u 1 t_o g i v -e -the B o.,y r d some i d e a. ,y s t o w� . t the cost and complexities of these things would be. Mr. Fabbroni re'spon.d-ed that in all honesty Cornell thought they had addressed a lot of that in the sketch plan. Mr. Lesser noted that it should have been clear in the sketch plan review that the height was.going to be a problem, yet this proposal came back and there. was absolutely no accommodation made, whatsoever, absolutely no mention, and how could it not be an issue in an instance like this, the fact that' Cornell knows the Board is sensitive about height variances for the precedence they set. Mr. For•ma.n again repeated his suggestion immediate future and work out the details. that she would be happy to do that, but for no move that the Board not consider the issue the Board has the G /EIS• report, and until the .B information, more alternative suggestions f facility in the proposed location. Ms. Hoffman asking to wait until the Board has gotten looked at together with everything else in the G /EIS area, and in the meantime for Cornell to work on some of the tonight and perhaps brought up.at the last meet ing. Mr. Forman, directing his statement to Sand the G /EIS was expected to be ready by,Decembe to sit down in the Ms. Hoffmann responded w she would like to tonight, but wait until oar•d has received more or how to build the n notes! that she is the G /EIS so it can be suggestions brought t up y 7allant, wondered if r 3, 1991. Ms. 7allant PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -23- - September 17,1991 • responded that she is waiting to hear from the consultants; t.here have been some delays_ based on some engineering and difficulty in getting information. Acting Chairman Kenerson wondered if that stage was the preliminary. Mr. Forman said that was the initial presentation. Acting Chairman Kenerson asked Ms. Hoffmann if December 3rd was the date she was talking about. Ms. Hoffmann responded that she did not know what date they would have it ready, but referred to APPENDIX III, in which it states Cornell Campus Planning office is scheduled to release the G /EIS document later this year, adding that whenever that is, that is the time to begin considering the project again. Ms. Tal'lant stated that, when the G /EI is presented, part of Cornell's delay is that when the consultants have finished the Cornell G /EIS and there has been internal Cornell review, it is the Christmas holidays, then the month of January, where many residents in Ithaca are vacationing, school is not in session, and it has been the understanding with Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca, that the best time to make the public presentations is at a time when it is expected that the community at large to be in Town participating. Ms. Tallant said that the G /EIS presentation comes in the form of a public meeting with Cornell formally presenting the G /EIS to the Town Planning Board. Ms. Tallant said that the time is relatively undefined; from a very economic time standpoint it might •tz. -k e- t woo -or -t h r-e e - -m o.n-t-h s , _a-n d ., -f -r om a 1_o_n -g -- t-e:r rn -s tza n-d.p ai -n-t -i-t m-i g ht be a year. Acting - Cha -irman Kenerson thought it should be tied to • something , n o t j us t 1-et- -T t— h a:n g.. Ms. -H of f-m a n n s t_a,t e d that i-t -i s a 1 s.o tied to getting some -more suggestions on h-ow'to do this project •d-i-f-fe r:e-n -t l y , .b a s3e_d .o_n- -t=he =di s.c_u :s-s i._an . - Ms . H off °ma -n-n . �st-a_t e -d -- t.h-at. -s h-e would like to see some more information out of the G/EIS, especially r-e l a-t-i •n g -t-o wkh-6 t -is m e-n t�.Yo n e d in A-F F E N Ci I_X -I-I :I about -t h e traffic impact and the parking impact where there is only a. preliminary analysis available. Ms. Hoffmann thinks that the traffic is qu.ite important, for instance, as one of the speakers said -- making sure that the traffic flows safely, not only the cars but the pedestrians and the bicyclists, adding that she thought that is something that could be looked into,, commenting that if that is going to be part of the ' G/EIS later why not look into it now, and work on it in the meantime while waiting. Acting Chairman Kenerson noted that this meeting can be either Aye or Nay, postponed or adjourned, but there has to be a. time to bring it up again-. At this point, Attorney Barney noted a between SEAR and the timefr•ame in the Zo Barney said that the Zoning ordinance states obliged to make a recommendation within 60 if the Board fails to make any recommendation deemed to have been approved by the Plannin the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Barn absence of the consent of the applicant t Planning Board should act within the 60 day • Floyd Forman thought that it was up to whether the Planning Board wants to cons applicant has the right to withdraw the n interesting interplay ning ordinance. Attorney the Planning Board is days of submission, and, at that point it is g Board and it goes on to ey stated that in the o adjourn the matter, the period. Town Planner the applica.nt in terms of ider this or not, the it application to a later 0 10 • PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT" -24 • da wi wh wi 0 te, thi oev the otherwise it i n that timefr er makes the de raw the applica a c t September- 17, 1991 up to the Pla.nn ng Board to make a decision me. Mr. Forman stated that he is suggesting to isions for Cornell that they have the right to ion. Stephen Smith wondered about t Cornell in regard to existing project the G /EIS process. Attorney Fear provision which allows segmentation, that is in an area covered by the stand on its own merits or fall on it its own merits. Attorney Barney s to a level that one is satisifi recommendation is made, a.dding that is saying that she does not feel this sufficient to accommodate that. Mr. the G /EIS to be completed in an appr stated that he was -not so sure that, if Cornell chose to litigate the matt if the Board is going to do an possibilities occur: 1) if Cornell co period of time to give staff and me to work on a program to find more con finding; -that relieves a time -peri and if the Board feels there is i p e-r m i t -an a d e q u a±_e -:e-nvi -r on m e-n t a l obliged to make a Positi -ve Gecl.ar:atio :v --h i c h would _ then t-h=r_ow -i -t into -i-t-s - Study, -and, 3) take_a vote tonight on- t_o r-e c-om m:e n d i- t s - ap= p_r-ov_a 1 or- --n-o t . - A pr•act Corne into ttorney i ca 1 mi 11's c a conf i Barn nd, he onsent gura.ti ey said that, would much p and an oppor on and work wi per ref tuni th t e agreement between the Town and and projects underway during ey responded that there is a here you can take a project G /EIS and segment it out, let it own merits, and review it on id that there has to be a.review d with under SEAR before a he senses from what Ms. Hoffmann review, at this point, has been Smith noted that it is requiring priate way. Attorney Barney legally, he would be comfortable r. Attorney Barney stated that thing he would rather see three. sents to an adjournment for a bers of the Board an opportunity ensus than this apparently is d -, _2..} deal wi t_h th.e . SEQR aspect, adequate material` supplied to evi -ew -, t -hen the Board would- 'be of Environmental Significance, wn s:a:p.a r -._i- t =e .E -n-v -i r.• o-n-m e n-t a 1 _Impact whether or not the Board wishes so'nally speaking, and being of the r to see an adjournment, with ty to see if the matter can be put he Board. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson wondered if certain period of time. Attorney B could be picked if Cornell would conse 60 days to 120 days$ that would give out, then see what happens. Ms. Noetz will consent to ajourn it for 120 offered that it would be 120 days from Hoffmann wondered what time that w that it is not the date the applicatio is the date the application is deeme not have been, when the initial submis Kenerson stated that he thought t Barney suggested, if the Board is will talking 60 days from tonight, which the calendar of the Planning Board mid decision can be made; then make the de it could be adjourned for a arney responded that a timeframe nt to extending the time from aeople an opportunity to work it ?1- Wilson stated that Cornell days. Acting Chairman Kenerson the date of submission. Ms. ,iuld be. Attorney_ Barney stated n itself walks in the door; it d complete, and that may, or may - lion occurred. Acting Chairman here should be. a:date. Attorney ing to do it that way, we are would mean it should be back on (November, and.at that point a .ision one way or the other. • PLANNING BOARD/ EXCERPT -25 Ms. Langhans stated that it does • of the G /.EIS, adding that she thoug�i the G /EIS was because Cornell was com development plans, or whatever, f had no idea at the time of where Cor going; there was talk about the Or� Board said -- let's have a plan (G /EIS to this large area bounded by NY are still coming in with the plans. recollection of the initial conversa basically because a G /EIS of this ma done; with both the Town of Ithac new ground,. Ms.. Tallant stated that been a 'good working relationship; tI a two-year period it would not necess on building. Ms. Tallant commente time of a review of an individual pr•o .G /EIS, that -the impact was not so cause a catastrophic disfunctioning Ms. Langhans stated that the Board but--there seems to be quite a bit of project. Mr. Lesser remarked that viewpoint on that m.atte-r•; if the- B.o.a..rcl 60- day delay; if it were another the -i of o.r• ma -t i an , _ _ h --t-h i --n k s -the -r -e -w_a_u should wait, however, he anti-c_ipates -- th-e _G /_E I S is g.o i ng --t o _b e- =th e b e nonetheless, long process, c-ommentin -,f r:om -now -, -even - witt-h- the iG./ EZ S ._b e,f_o r =e -t _any -more ready to move on the projec thought -t_he. Board could at l:ejas.t hear said that she thought the last afire Cornell had with the Town of Ithaca, i public presentation, she believed, 1991, adding, they are running behind mutual thing that several of the s just a matter of a very complica understanding those systems and ge only comes from the Town of Ithaca but Tallant stated that she thinks it there will be a draft in November. At flip side, if there will be enough i that Ms. Hoffmann has mentioned, e.g. will start to fall into place a information would be available in project. Ms. Tallant offered that M from the Transportation Office can rea bit further, but Travers and Asso traffic: impact, and when the tennis fa consultant, through the G /EIS, provid Office and to Ms. Noetzel- Wilson on th • what the impacts would be on Pine Kenerson said that things are being them. September 17,1991 of bring it into- the timeframe t the idea that the Board wanted ng in one after the other with r this large area, and we really nell's future development was chards and this and that, so the ) of what was going to happen te. 366 and NY Rte. 79; yet they Ms. Tallant stated that her ions with the Town of Ithaca was ni tude has never really been and Cornell Uni v.ersi ty, this is he sense was that there has at if the G /EIS extended out for r•i 1 y mean a complete moratorium d that if the Board felt, at the, ect before the finish of the reat that it would fundamentally of the transportation system. has approved things right along, controversy with the proposed he was sympathetic to Cornell's is, i n.dee- d.,_- .t,al.ki ng a.bout a two-weeks, and the-Board has all 1 -d bie no -question -the Boar -d that the initia -7 presentation of g i -nn-i n g of a _ v -a 1 u aka_] e, but g that he did not -t'hi nk, 75 days h ,re_m , the _ B_o a r• d was -g o f -n g to b e t. Ms..Langhans stated that she the- pr.e1imin-ary. -Ms. 7a1Iant ement, in terms of schedule that s that Cornell would make a December 3rd or December 4th, schedule and it is certainly -a taff members are aware of; it is ted engineering system and tting all the material which not the City and the County. Mss is not realistic to think that tor•ney Ba -rney wondered, on the nformation - some of the things the traffic studies; those little bit, so that kind of considering this particular . Noetzel- Wilson, or Brad Lane, ly elaborate on this a- little dates has been hired to do the i l.ity came o -n line, Cor•nell's d services to the Transporation project to begin to look at ree Road, etc. Acting Chairman tied in as Cornell r•ecei ves • • PL.ANNI'NC, BOARD / EXCERPT -2 At this time, Eva Hoffmann withdr• Chairman Kenerson asked if anyone we conforms to the conclusion reaches{ by MOTION by William Lesser, seconde RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca P of the applicant, that the Pub Con_si der•ati on of a_- Report to the Zon proposed Cornell Univesity Tennis than 60 days from the evening of Sept At this time, Ms. H done with the unders applicants, based on th stated that she wool and the Town get the mi B-oard - can be on top .of on the height and put t can get them lower in lower in the Tennis Fac offm t,a.nd e qu d al nute wha hose the ilit ann ing esti so 1 s of t wa big Equ y stated that s ons di ike tc this s. sa.i d fans estria There being no further discussion September 17,1991 w her prior motion, and Acting e prepared to make a motion that the Board, by Virgina Langhans: inning Board, with the consent is Hearing in the matter of ng Board of Appeals for the Center be postponed for no more mber 17, 19914 that-she would like to have it me more work will be done by the cussed tonight. Ms. Hoffmann request that both the applicants art of the meeting so that the Ms. Langha.ns-commented to work own lower someplace; if Cornell Center, then they c.an be gotten the Chair called for a vote. Aye,- Kenerson, =Bake-r, Langhans, - Smith, Hoffmann, Lesser. N-ay - - None., - _ -T h e -M 0 T.I ON - w a.s - -d e c 1 a_r• d -t -o --,b-e Act-i ng Ch.ai r•man Kenerson declar ma tt-e r• d -u '1 y °p-o s t p a n-e d at- 9: -5 0 -p . m. Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 10/8/91 _u- n-an-i m o us 1 y. the Cornell - Tennis Facility