Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-10-29CORNELL TENNIS FACILITY • UNOFFICIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1991 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM, PRESENT: Timothy Martin, Director of Architectural Services at Cornell, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson of Architectural Services at Cornell, William Lesser (Planning Board Member), Eva Hoffmann (Planning Board Member), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John Gutenberger, of Cornell University, Mary Bryant, Secretary. This meeting is for the purpose of Cornell University presenting their views on why the plan they find acceptable is best suited for the subject site, along with presenting information and explaining why the alternative plans were not acceptable to Cornell. Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson noted that the first several site constraints. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson large wetland area by the hedgerow to the north, west of the Equestrian parking lot. Ms.;Noetzel- •small drainage ditch, adding that drainage will be where it crosses the road. issue deals with said that there is a along with wetland Wilson pointed out a underground except Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said. that the second major issue was the realignment of Pine Tree Road, Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, reporting on other issues, said. that the Equestrian parking lot has to be maintained.as existing because of the turning radii. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that it does not work to share the parking lot with the Equestrian Center because of horses, and people walking around, commenting that arrangements can be made to use the parking lot "for special events. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the Natural Areas Committee of the Cornell Plantations Group uses the existing meadow on the site for teaching purposes. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, referring to the site topo, said that the flat plate is in front of the site, and the grade falls off to the west and northwest. Ms. Hoffmann asked about the pasture and if horses would be kept there. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson responded, no, that is a grassy area of trees and is not going to be used as pasture land. Mr. Frantz asked about future tennis courts. Mr. Martin replied that that is not part of the current application; the decision on future courts will be considered by the ''user groups - Equestrian Center, Tennis Facility and the Plantations. Ms. Hoffmann asked • about the,layout of the building and if there would be room for future courts. Mr. Martin asked if the question was -- Is there a way of getting ten more courts without involving the proposed t c CORNELL TENNIS FACILITY • UNOFFICIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1991 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM, PRESENT: Timothy Martin, Director of Architectural Services at Cornell, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson of Architectural Services at Cornell, William Lesser (Planning Board Member), Eva Hoffmann (Planning Board Member), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John Gutenberger, of Cornell University, Mary Bryant, Secretary. This meeting is for the purpose of Cornell University presenting their views on why the plan they find acceptable is best suited for the subject site, along with presenting information and explaining why the alternative plans were not acceptable to Cornell. Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson noted that the first several site constraints. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson large wetland area by the hedgerow to the north, west of the Equestrian parking lot. Ms.;Noetzel- •small drainage ditch, adding that drainage will be where it crosses the road. issue deals with said that there is a along with wetland Wilson pointed out a underground except Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said. that the second major issue was the realignment of Pine Tree Road, Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, reporting on other issues, said. that the Equestrian parking lot has to be maintained.as existing because of the turning radii. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that it does not work to share the parking lot with the Equestrian Center because of horses, and people walking around, commenting that arrangements can be made to use the parking lot "for special events. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the Natural Areas Committee of the Cornell Plantations Group uses the existing meadow on the site for teaching purposes. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, referring to the site topo, said that the flat plate is in front of the site, and the grade falls off to the west and northwest. Ms. Hoffmann asked about the pasture and if horses would be kept there. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson responded, no, that is a grassy area of trees and is not going to be used as pasture land. Mr. Frantz asked about future tennis courts. Mr. Martin replied that that is not part of the current application; the decision on future courts will be considered by the ''user groups - Equestrian Center, Tennis Facility and the Plantations. Ms. Hoffmann asked • about the,layout of the building and if there would be room for future courts. Mr. Martin asked if the question was -- Is there a way of getting ten more courts without involving the proposed Tennis Facility -2- October 29, 1991 Informal meeting building? Mr. Martin said he did not know if Cornell will be able to construct ten courts in that area as it will require additional land. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson showed alternative plans in proximity to the intersection. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that she had talked with the County and they said the entrance to the Equestrian Center is to be used for both facilities. At this point, Ms. Noetzel- Wilson presented several alternative plans that are not acceptable to Cornell, along with the current plan Cornell felt was best suited for the site. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted that in alternative Plan, Scheme A, the mass of the building is on Pine Tree Road and is not acceptable to Cornell, adding that the building in this Scheme is 340' long. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the user groups (Equitation, Tennis, Plantations) rejected Alternative Plan, Scheme B, because the tennis courts are not situated properly -- the Coach needs to be able to see the whole court at one time -- it is not a good idea to have the courts too far away from each other. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson presented Alternative Plan, Scheme D, with the courts at the front of the building. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the Coaches rejected this Scheme because of the courts being too close to Pine Tree Road. • Ms. Noetzel- Wilson presented the current plan. Mr. Martin stated that, in terms of the massing problem, the current plan is the best. Mr. Martin said that the development of the building in the current plan would be constructed in one part instead of two parts. Mr. Martin also mentioned that it is not a good idea to have the courts close to the road. Mr. Lesser stated that he felt tennis courts next to the road would not be a problem. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that the Coaches and players felt it would be too distracting to have the courts close to the road. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned views, along with the fact that the Planning Board has to look out for everyone in the Town and not just Cornell. Mr. Frantz mentioned the significant height variance. Mr. Frantz noted that Cornell is asking for an 18' variance. Mr. Lesser stated that he felt the requested variance is a substantial variance. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that the project has been on a very tight budget from the beginning. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that Cornell wants to construct the building on a flat site because then there would not have to be so much filling and cutting involved. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that it is not logical to have the outdoor courts close to the parking lot because tennis is played • indoors nine months out of the year, and three months outside. Mr. Forman, referring to one of the alternative schemes, wondered why it did not work. Mr. Martin said that coaching is done from the e4el" & Tennis Facility -3- October 29, 1991 01V 9 Informal meeting ends of the center of the Ms. Noetz expansion in constructing a Noetzel- Wilson courts. court, and the high point of the court court, el- Wilson mentioned the possibilit that Cornell would like to keep the dditional courts in the back of the said that it is not a good idea has to be ies of options o building. to divide in fu pen up the ture for Ms. the Town Engineer Dan Walker said that there would be some difficulty in moving the building far to the west because it may create storm water management problems. Mr. Martin said that if the building were moved it would be affected by about 41 . Ms. Hoffmann pointed out the views from various angles, and suggested that Ms. Noetzel - Wilson join her at the site, with Ms. Noetzel- Wilson responding that she would be glad to. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she had concerns about the traffic and also the lighting. Ms. Hoffmann inquired about dimmers for the courts; there possibly could be two sets of lights, one for tournaments and one for regular play. Mr. Forman stated that there is some traffic information from the G /EIS study. Mr. Martin mentioned the view in that he wondered if it were public. Mr. Forman responded that it is an issue in the • Comprehensive Plan, and, in essence, it is the variance issue. Mr. Martin stated that Cornell is going to seek a height variance. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned placing the building to mitigate the height. Mr. Martin, referring to the lighting, stated that he would look into the light control matter, and get a further description of the lighting. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned intensity of lights. Mr. Martin said that he would study the lighting. Ms. Hoffmann mentioned the Jessup Field lighting which is very bright. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if the tournaments have to be played outside. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that Ivy League tournaments are played inside with the exception of two; one in the Spring and one in the Fall. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson offered that other tennis matches are played outside. Ms. Hoffmann asked about pedestrian pathways; she felt there should be some accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that the majority of people arrive by bus; it is fairly dangerous to walk /bicycle in that area. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson, referring to the walkways, does not know what the County has planned. Mr. Martin offered that all the walkways are internal and felt that it would be very dangerous to connect to the roadway. Mr. Martin suggested that the walkway issue be brought up for.discussion at a public hearing of the Tennis Facility. Mr. Martin suggested that the Town Engineer talk to the County • Engineer concerning the traffic. Mr. Martin noted the following Dissues to be considered: Tennis Facility -4- Informal meeting 1. Obstruction of views 29 Character of night lighting 3. Modify the building on site 4. Clarify parking issue 50 Clarify issues of traffic October 29, 1991 A Public Hearing is scheduled for the Tennis Facility on November 5, 1991. Mary Bryant, Secretary. 10/31/91 • • 0 • t ZONING.PL 5 -NOV -1991 15:24:18.44 6 Dove Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 November 5, 1991 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Proposed Tennis Facility of Cornell University on Pine Tree Road and the zoning of a parking lot in a front yard. The proposed area of development is zoned R30. The following are from the Zoning Ordinance as of March 20, 1991: "Section 19. Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts R30 shall include the following: 34 Off- street garage or parking space for occupants, users and employees in connection with uses specified under Section 18, but subject to provisions of Section 45 and Section 69." "Section 45. Special Requirements shall be as follows: 1. Parking: ... Parking shall not be located in any front yard." "Section 69. Parking Facilities. No automobile parking area shall be included in any front yard, except for a lot with a single dwelling, housing not more than 2 families." "Section 1. Definitions. 17. A 'front yard' is the open space between the street right of way line and the front line of the principal building ... extended to the side lines of the lot." It is much preferable to see green space in front of a building instead of a large parking lot, and I believe that is the intent of the zoning. If Cornell wishes to place a parking lot in the front yard, then a zoning variance should be required. Thank you, G�G Mario Giannella • • Kent a n d J a n e Womack 106 Brandywine Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 257 -2854 November 5, 1991 Members of the Planning Board Town of Ithaca Re: Proposed Cornell Tennis Facility Dear Planning Board Members: I would like to express my opinion about a very important issue for Ithaca. I am a resident, home - owner, and taxpayer in the Town, and neither I nor my wife are employees of Cornell. Cornell University has proposed to build a New Tennis Facility, and I urge your strong and immediate support of it. Here are my reasons: 1. Current Lack of Good Tennis Facilities in the Town -- There is great demand for tennis courts in our community, especially among young people, and there are no good quality courts except for on the campus of Cornell. I live in the Northeast section of the town and there are no courts within two miles of my house (that are not private). If the national averages are correct, 10% to 20% of our townspeople would play tennis, if courts were available. The proposed Tennis Facility would add eight outdoor and six indoor courts that the community could use, and they will be built at the University's expense, not with taxpayer funds. This is an inexpensive way to add value to our community. 2. The proposed plan does not devalue residential property -- On the contrary, this project should enhance the enjoyment and value of residential living in the areas surrounding it. No residential property views are affected by the proposed building, only the view of motorists travelling down Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road. I suspect that the minority who opposes this project because it blocks the. "commuting" view of the West Hill have not ask residents if that view is more important than the value of such a sporting complex to those residents. 3. We should not alter the plan by putting the ou road. -- Tennis is a game of concentration, and traffic noise and motion is very distractive. The value of the facility to serious sportspeople would be greatly impaired by changing the current plan and moving the building down on the hill and putting the outdoor courts nearer to the road. 4. We need this facility now, not after 5 or 10 more years of planning! -- The University has proposed this facility after several years of planning. We, as townspeople, would like to enjoy the benefits of this facility for ourselves and our children in the near future, not when we are ready to retire! We urge your prompt approval of this plan, so that these facilities can be built, and more importantly, used by our residents. Sincerely yours, Kent and Jane Womack