Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-11-05• Fam TOWN Of TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD' NOVEMBER 5, 1991 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 5, 1991, in Town Hall, 1''26 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. Herman, Mario PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Virginia Langhans, Robert Kenerson, William Lesser, George R. Frantz (Assistant, Town Planner), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John C. Barney (Town Attorney). Von Borstel, Ed Hallberg, ALSO PRESENT: Alyssa Kahn, Wan Chen, Judith Beckenbach, Jeannie Yoo, Linda Myers, Hallie Bornstein,' Lauren Herman, Mario Giannella, Sandy Lednar, Bill P,odulka, Kent Womack, Laing Kennedy, Laura Tong, Bil °1 Szabo, Bill Austin, Tracey Nichol, John C. Gutenberger,', Paul Griffen, Larry Fabbroni, Tim Martin, Sandy Tallant, Shirley K. Egan, Tim Whitney, Priscilla Noetzel- ;Wilson, Ernest Von Borstel, Ed Hallberg, Brad Lane. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 29, 1.991, and October 31, 1991, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon -the various neighbors of the property under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk,of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commisioner of Planning, and upon the applicant and /or agent, as appropriate, on October 31, 19910 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State ,Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this portion of the meeting at 7:38 p.m.' 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 3, 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 ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 60- 1 -8.2, -6, AND -9.1, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; PRISCILLA NOETZEL- WILSON, ;,AGENT. (ADJOURNED FROM SEPTEMBER 17, '19916) • i Planning Board Chairperson Grigorov above -noted matter duly Notice of Public Hearing -2- November 5, 1991 declared the Public Hearing in the opened at 7:39 p.m. and read aloud from the as posted and published and as noted above. Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson, of Cornell University, addressed the Board and stated that Cornell had asked for a positive recommendation for the Tennis Facility project at the September 17, 1991 meeting to go for Special Approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson noted that an informal meeting was held with Cornell, Town Planning staff, and Planning Board Members Hoffmann, and Lesser on October 29, 1991. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that a number of issues were discussed at the informal meeting, and Cornell had agreed at the end of the informal meeting on a list of issues that Cornell would try to address at tonight's meeting. Those issues are. 1. Traf f is 2. Parking 3. Pedestrian /Bicycle traffic on the project site 4. Lighting of the outdoor courts 5. Height of the facility 6. View 7. Modifying the building on the site The Minutes of the informal October 29th meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit #1. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson introduced Brad Engineer from Cornell University. Mr. III of the proposed Tennis Facility's Report was submitted in July 1991, Transportation Demand Management Program, in the report have changed quite a decrease in demand for parking and generated by the proposed facility. Lane, Traffic Planner and Lane said that since Appendix Parking' and Traffic Impact Cornell has implemented a and the numbers submitted bit, which would result in a a decrease in the traffic Mr. Lane stated that, initially, Cornell had estimated that the percentage of people arriving by private vehicle would be about 900, however, since the implementation of the Program that has dropped to about 760. The estimate of the number of people per vehicle has been changed from 1.5 to 2.0. The old estimate of parking was 43, now the total number of spaces needed is 29. Mr. Lesser asked about the Program. Mr. Lane said that, basically, Cornell is trying to reduce the number of people arriving on Campus in single occupancy automobiles; they are providing incentives for people to arrive in carpools and also in busses. With respect to use of cars, Mr. Lane said that the people that would be using the Tennis Facility will be either staff, faculty, or students; Cornell is primarily interested in staff and faculty. Cornell does not really have a lot of data on students, but it is estimated that about 60% have private cars to arrive at the Tennis Facility; their usage of automobiles is much less than staff and t Planning Board • faculty and that Lane said that students with the faculty. -3- November 5, 1991 is why Cornell focused on staff and faculty. Mr. court -time would be segregated -- totally used by teams or it would be used by the staff and Ms. Hoffman wondered about the people who "do not come by car or by bus. Mr. Lane responded that that is sort of in the process of being planned, adding that there is an active bicycle planning component to transportation at Cornell, and they are looking at the G /EIS area. Mr. Lane stated that this would depend a lot on what the County is doing with the realignment of Pine Tree Road. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson offered that she had talked with the County Engineer and he said that there will be provision made for a pedestrian walkway /bicycle path on the east side of the Pine Tree Road realignment, and there is to be a crossover for that pedestrian /bicycle traffic made at the project site entrance accessway. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson said that there is a meeting scheduled for November 6, 1991 with Jim Kazda, Sr. Engineer with the County, concerning the pedestrian walkway /bicycle path. Chairperson Grigorov asked if staff had any questions or comments concerning traffic. Mr. Forman stated that he would like to take a look at the figures as it is the first time they have been presented, and before any kind of a comment can be made, staff needs to take a look at . them. Mr. Lane noted that the maximum number of vehicles generated per hour by the new facility would be about 24 vehicles. Mr. Lane said that the maximum number was divided up among the various roads and intersections based on existing patterns of transportation. Mr. Forman inquired about a Friday afternoon'tournment, where a lot of cars would be coming out at once. Mr. Lane responded that that would be dealt with by scheduling. Mr. Forman wondered about parking in the overflow parking area during a tennis tournment or an Equitation event that would have to be handled. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson responded that there is adequate capacity on the site. Ms. Langhans wondered'if there would be bus service on weekends. Mr. Lane replied that Cornell Transit does not run on weekends right now, but that would be looked into. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson introduced Tim Whitney, ,Project Architect from Sasaki Associates. Mr. Whitney addressed the issue of lighting of the outdoor courts. Mr. Whitney stated that he would discuss the issues of lighting, height, obstruction of views, and the issue of modifying the building location. Mr. Whitney said that there were issues raised about the height of the light standards at the rear of the building lighting the • exterior courts. Mr. Whitney offered that Cornell has proposed an alternative lighting scheme of locating light standards between each court; each court would be lit individually with its own set of k Planning Board -4- . poles, thereby lowering the light poles from 50 Mr. Whitney stated that the hedgerow and windscreen would still be retained, adding that 10 -15 feet above the 10 -foot opaque barrier. the other change proposed is to have 80 -foot play, and the option of being able to switch during recreational play, November 5, 1991 feet to 25 -30 feet. the solid 10 -foot high the lights would be Mr. Whitney said that candles for tournment down to 40 foot candles Mr. Szabo, Assistant Director, Cornell Athletics, said. that Cornell is reducing requirements down to the absolute minimum for an acceptable Collegiate standard lighting level. Mr. Szabo stated that Cornell felt that the two issues of lowering the poles and lowering the foot candles will substantially diminish the glow that was a concern. Mr. Szabo offered that the courts will also be switched individually; courts not in use in the evening can be shut off. Mr. Szabo said that there would be a miniminal amount of lighting for the parking in front of the building, adding, for security reasons there are four light poles lighting that area which are similar to the Equitations lighting; there is a small amount oflight coming off the building to light the pedestrian path to the rear of the courts. Attorney'Barney wondered who controlled the lighting. Mr. Szabo replied that that would be controlled by security, and the switches would be located in the building. Mr. Lesser wondered what was going to be visible with the new suggested lighting format from a distance. Mr ?. Szabo responded that • there is considerable vegetation in all directions so the view from the road would be diminished, adding, with the courts in the back there certainly would not be any distraction for;the vehicles passing by. Mr. Lesser wondered about placement of the courts in the front of the building. Mr. Szabo responded that he would address that when that issue is discussed. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about the impact on the view of the lights from South Hill and West Hill. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that the wooded area is'high enough and thick enough that one would not be able to see the ''lights. Mr. Szabo offered that the trees are in the 30 -40 foot range. Mr. Szabo said that the lights would be pointed straight down. Linda Myers, Women's Tennis Coach at Cornell, stated that Cornell does not play a lot of their matches at :night; a lot of the tournaments would run to 8:00 p.m. maybe, addin "g that the facility will be open, but the outdoor courts would be closed. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about the strong lights in that why couldn't the games that need the strong lights be played indoors. Mr. Bill Austin, Men's Tennis Coach at Cornel.l, responded that once a Collegiate match is started outside it is very desirable to play on the same surface all the way through unless it begins to rain. Mr.,; Austin stated that tennis, by Intercollegiate rules, is an outdoor game, if at all possible. Ms. Myers offered that tennis can be ''played outdoors for almost eight months. Mr. Whitney addressed the issue of height of the building. Planning Board -5- November 5, 1991 • Mr. Whitney stated that the height of the building is currently 19 feet over the requirement. Mr. Whitney noted that the building has been set down 3 -1/2 feet. Mr. Whitney said that the mass of the building that is over the height restriction is 8 -1/2% of the mass of the entire building. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell wants to retain the monitor for the following reasons: first of all, it does aid in ventilation requirements and it is a mechanical issue, adding that it is allowed to ventilate directly over all the courts. Mr. Whitney said that Cornell is trying to put as many low velocity fans in the tennis facility as possible to reduce the noise inside. Mr. Kenerson asked about the point of ventilation. Mr. Whitney said it was approximately even with the top of the entrance tower. Mr. Whitney said that the monitor is 5% of the building mass. Mr. Frantz wondered how many low velocity fans were being considered. Mr. Whitney answered, about 4 -6. Mr. Frantz asked if Cornell had considered, instead of using the monitors, using cupolas to house the fans; they would substantially reduce the impact of the monitors. Mr. Whitney responded that Cornell considered it, but they thought the monitors were a less busy looking roofscape and a simpler form for the barn and a more attractive building rather than having a series of large scale 8�foot square cupolas to accommodate the fans. Mr. Whitney said that there would have to be a total of three cupolas. Mr. Whitney stated Cornell felt that since the primary views were in the east and west direction, and the monitors are directed in the east /west direction, whether it is one large cupola or a straight bar the way the monitor is now, is not going to diminish the east /west views. At this time, Mr. Whitney stated that he would discuss the views in the westerly direction, which, as he understands it, are a concern. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell and Sasaki Associates agreed that views were very important regarding this site. Mr. Whitney said that the facility is two buildings; it added cost to the construction, but Cornell felt strongly that one single shed, whether it is located in any direction would consume more of the site and more of the views than a double shed scheme. Mr. Whitney noted that the second move Cornell did was to align the building peaks in an east /west direction, thereby opening up the sky. Mr. Whitney stated that the next move Cornell made was to depress the building down 3 -1/2 feet; the tennis courts are down 3 -1/2 feet from the entrance grade. Mr. Whitney said that the building was also pulled away from Equitations; they needed the turning radii, but the, view areas between Equitations and the Tennis Center were also important. Mr. Whitney offered that Cornell pulled the building back along Pine Tree Road while still allowing for future expansion of the tennis courts behind the building. Mr. Whitney stated that the current site plan that is before the Board is the one Cornell is recommending. Mr. Kenerson asked about wetlands. Mr. Whitney pointed out on the map the wetland boundaries. Mr. Kenerson wondered about the percentage of coverage for the building. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson responded that it is a 16 -acre site, and the percentage of coverage Planning Board -6- November 5, 1991 is indicated in the EAF; Cornell is under the limit. Mr. Frantz stated that the building itself covers approximately 80 of the site. Mr. Lesser asked about reversing the courts and the building. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell feels there are a number of reasons they do not want to take that approach. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell felt that screening the lighting of the tennis courts from the road is an advantage to the drivers and also an advantage to the players. Mr. Whitney said that if the courts and the building were switched then there is potential for the new intersection to impact the tennis players using the facility at night., Mr. Whitney said that it had been suggested that if Cornell switched the building and the outdoor tennis courts the building could be brought down about seven feet. Mr. Whitney stated that that is not correct; what is gained is about four feet because the indoor tennis courts are already set down 3 -1/2 feet. Mr. Whitney said that all the utility connections to the building are out to Pine Tree Road. Mr. Whitney offered that the sewer line runs through the parking lot, and they would connect to that. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell felt that the site has a better appearance from Pine Tree Road and the intersection without having an opaque 10 -foot high fence in front of the building. Again, Mr. Whitney said that the tennis courts and the hedge would be screened by the building. Mr. Whitney, commenting on the issue of views relative to switching the building, stated that Cornell acknowledges that some is views would be improved, however, Cornell does not think it is substantial. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the views from various points of the surrounding roads and hill's. At this point, Mr. Szabo spoke on the operational aspects of the facility. Mr. Szabo said that the proposed facility has been placed in several different ways, and the plan before the Board tonight is the absolute best configuration for Cornell to operate properly. Mr. Szabo said that having the courts next to the road is not a good idea because it would be too distracting for the players as well as the vehicles. Mr. Lesser said that the Ithaca College tennis courts are next to a road. At this time, discussion was area. Chairperson Grigorov noted that asked if there were anyone from questions. held with respect to the wetland this was a Public Hearing and the public who had any comments or Mario Giannella, of 6 Dove Drive, spoke from the floor and opposed the parking in the front of the building. [Letter addressed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, from Mario Giannella, dated November 5, 1991, attached hereto as Exhibit #2.] • Laing Kennedy, Director of Athletics at Cornell, addressed the Board and commented that Cornell is committed, as this is an integral part of the University, to enhancing this area, and being a good Planning Board 00070ND November 5, 1991 • neighbor. Mr. Kennedy stated that he felt by breaking up the parking area it preserves much more of the green area and makes it a much more attractive area. Mr. Kennedy, commenting on the views, said that Cornell had challenged their architect in the management of this project to do everything that is humanly possible to preserve the views, to preserve the natural beauty of that area, and at the same time meet the needs of the tennis program. Mr. Kennedy stated that he wanted to assure the Board, on behalf of the Athletics Department, that Cornell is very committed to excellence in terms of management, in terms of control, in terms of cooperation of scheduling between Equitations and the Tennis Facility and in terms of running a first - class, enhanced tennis facility that would be a tremendous asset to the Town of Ithaca. • r� Bill Podulka, of Ellis Hollow, spoke from the floor and said that the statement he would make is both for himself and Sandy Lednar of Ellis Hollow. Mr. Podulka and Ms. Lednar have viewed the site and strongly support the construction of the Tennis Facility. Kent Womack, of 106 Brandywine Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he supports the plan as it currently °exists. Mr. Womack stated that he noticed that the Board members have a concern about the issue of views. Mr. Womack felt that the issue of the view is a personal matter. Mr. Womack wondered about the trade -off -- what is the value of the view versus the value of a very high quality facility in the neighborhood? [Letter to members of the Planning Board from Kent and Jane Womack, dated November 5, 1991, attached hereto as Exhibit #3.] Mr. Womack stated, for the record, that he and his wife are not employees of Cornell. At this point, Mr. Forman wondered what access the general public would have to the courts. Mr. Kennedy responded that there would be open times available to the community; the priority will be students, faculty, staff, and there will be open membership times. Mr. Kennedy stated that it is important to keep in mind that the outdoor courts and indoor courts would be managed as one unit. Mr. Kennedy stated that he did not know the actual times the facility would be open to the community, but he recalls that it would be something like Friday through the weekend. Mr. Kennedy noted that it would be paid membership, but he did not know the fee. Ernest VonBorstel, of the Ellis Hollow Community Association, appeared before the Board and stated that he thought the stretch coming down Ellis Hollow Road toward East Hill Plaza is really a beautiful stretch; one can see forever. Mr. VonBorstel felt that anything that would destroy that view would be a real shame. Paul Griffen, of Cornell University, addressed stated that the cost of construction would be about 2% foot. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that the proposed budgeted at 3.46 million dollars. the Board and to 4% per facility is Planning Board -8- November 5, 1991 There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to 0 speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Forman said that much of the information before the Board tonight was new information. Ms. Langhans commented that from what she heard the reversing of the building and the courts only saves four feet in height. The Board discussrd at length the reversing of the building and the courts, as well as the different views. Mr. Frantz reviewed Part II of the EAF with .the Board. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Stephen Smith. RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public Hearing in the matter of the Cornell University Tennis Center, proposed to be located off Pine Tree Road, south of Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 60- 1 -8.2, -6, and -9.1, Residence District R -30, be and hereby is adjourned for approximately • thirty days, that is, to December 3, 1991, in order that the Board may, during that time, receive and review the recommendations of Town staff with respect to the environmental impacts of said Tennis Center as the same is currently proposed, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that consideration be given to the impacts on views of two modifications to the proposed site plan, the first of which would move the proposed indoor tennis facility to the north and west, and the second of which would rotate the tennis facility 900 such that the front entrance would be in line with the centerline of the exterior tennis courts, as the same are currently proposed, and such that the parking lot would be placed immediately in front of such newly -sited indoor tennis facility. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - Kenerson, Baker, The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the proposed Cornell University Tennis Center duly adjourned at 11:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THE MATTER • OF MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE DEER RUN SUBDIVISION APPROVED PLAT WITH RESPECT TO ROAD RELOCATION WITHIN THE APPROVED PHASE THREE -B AND MARCY COURT PORTION OF SAID SUBDIVISION. • • Planning Board -9- November 5, 1991 Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 11:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above. Town Engineer Dan Walker addressed the Board and stated that he considered this matter to be a very minor modification to the subdivision, and, according to the Subdivision Regulations, if the Town Engineer thinks it is a minor modification then the Board can approve it. Mr.- Walker, noting that the 41 -lot clustered subdivision was approved stated that Mr. Hallberg suggested a modification to the road alignment based on existing site conditions. Mr. Walker, indicating on the map, stated that putting the road in this configuration "here" would not be a major change. Mr. Walker said that there are minor square footage changes to some of the lots; "these" lots up "here" would increase because they would be a little deeper; "these" lots down "here" would increase because they would be a little larger in square footage. Mr. Walker noted that the lot lines have changed in a minor way; the frontages are still in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Walker said that the proposed configuration of the road is more of a standard Town road; it is much preferable as far as maintenance and cost to the Town. Mr. Walker stated that he felt this is a modification to the lot lines and it is totally acceptable. At this point, Attorney Barney stated that this is enough of a change to require a revised map and approval of the revision by the Planning' Board. Attorney Barney suggested that the matter be re- advertised as a Public Hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE There was no discussion held on the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER BUSIINESS Chairperson Grigorov stated that she has to appoint two Planning Board members to the interview committee, as there is a vacancy on the Board. Chairperson Grigorov appointed Virginia Langhans and Robert Kenerson. Chairperson Grigorov took a straw vote of the Board members. No one had any objection to approval. The Board members indicated to Mr. Hallberg that if he were to go ahead and construct the road, or at least lay the road out, that will not be held against him at the next meeting. The Town Board will be advised that the Planning Board is in favor of this informally, but it has to go through a Public Hearing by the Planning Board. Mr. Walker said that he would present it to the Town Board on Thursday, November 7, 19914 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE There was no discussion held on the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER BUSIINESS Chairperson Grigorov stated that she has to appoint two Planning Board members to the interview committee, as there is a vacancy on the Board. Chairperson Grigorov appointed Virginia Langhans and Robert Kenerson. • • • Planning Board ADJOURNMENT -10- November 5, 1991 Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the November 5, 1991, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.