Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-07-21TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TU'LY 21,1998 RUD TOWN OF rrHACA Dare_ 9 Cferi� �� The Town of Ithaca met in regular session on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox (7:36 p.m.), Eva Hoffmannn, Greg Bell, Robert Kenerson, James Ainslie, Lawrence Thaver, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), Randy Marcus (Attorney), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). ALSO PRESENT: John Kiefer, Peter Karp, Andrea Cobv Riddle, Noel Kurtz, Jean Reese, Peter Demjanec, Ed Franquemont, Michael Murphy, Jane Hubba, David Bouldin, Stan Seltzer, Pat Graham, Margery and Frank Shipe, George Bayer, Jane Hammond, Peter Korytko, Pete Loucks, Karen Westmont, Bill Loratta, Warren Allmon, Don McPherson, Laurene Gilbert, Harry Ellsworth, Barbara Ebert, Andreas Albrecht, Marian Van Soest. Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann declared the meeting duty opened at 7:33 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 13, 1998, and July 15, 1998, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on July 15, 1.998. (Affidavit of posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Vice Chairperson Hoffmann read the Fire 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. Noel Kurtz, 186 Besemer Hill Road, stated he continued to be opposed to the Lake Source Cooling Project because Cornell University has not demonstrated an economic need for the project. He felt Cornell University should not be permitted to cause vast disruption to the Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Lake until that was done. Mr. Kurtz wrote a brief summary of what should have been in the Environmental Impact Statement. He provided a copy of his summary to the board. (See Attachment #1). Mr. Kurtz explained that engineers were supposed to be able to summarize complex issues into brief understandable terms and that is what he tried to do on the first page of his hand -out. He illustrated how a comparison of options to Lake Source Cooling should have been presented. Mr. Kurtz briefly explained the first page of his hand -out to the board. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kurtz stated the premises of the project was that Cornell University had to replace the chillers. Every comparison was done in relation to the base option. Mr. Kurtz asked the board to look at the last column on the right. The payback on all the options was not good. When he talks with persons in the private sector they generally do not want to look at a project that has less than a five year payback. The lowest payback on his front page diagram was 8.4 years. According to his diagram, Simple Chiller Replacement would be the most cost effective project. Mr. Kurtz stated it was clear that Lake Source Cooling was the least cost - effective option. He explained the first page of his hand -out was what should have been in the Environmental Impact Statement. The second page was what was in the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Kurtz explained that when he looked at the Environmental Impact Statement, he wondered if the project had a legitimate economic basis. Mr. Kurtz stated in the last few months Cornell University had presented information that was not included in the Environmental Impact Statement relevant to alternatives. It turned out that before their previous claims Cornell University did not look at the important alternatives. He believed Cornell University was mistakenly investing in a project that does not have a basis. Mr. Kurtz felt it was not smart for Cornell University to go through with Lake Source Cooling and it was not smart of the Town of Ithaca to approve it. Cornell University needed to show economic reason for the project before they are allowed to follow through with Lake Source Cooling. A second look needs to be taken and a look at the alternatives to decide what would be best for Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Kurtz stated there had been no one in the approval process to do the type of check on the Environmental Impact Statement that he had done. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation focused on the environmental issues and not whether the process had an economic basis. Mr. Kurtz felt a very simple solution would be similar to the Veterinary Incinerator Project. An independent commission was formed to evaluate alternatives and to come up with a solution that was in everyone's best interest. Board Member Hoffmannn and Board Member Bell stated the board needed to look at his hand -out before they could comment. Board Member Bell asked if the payback years were a combination of the extra capital costs compared to the base options and energy costs. Mr. Kurtz responded the cost savings divided by the incremental costs of the project gave you how many years it would take for the cost savings to payback that extra cost. Board Member Bell stated the construction costs of Lake Source Cooling are $30,000,000 more than the simple chiller replacement. The energy costs are also lower and the payback was 31 years because the capital cost was high. He asked if Mr. Kurtz had looked at the cost of the funds and if Lake Source Cooling could be done because they were receiving tax exempt bonds. Mr. Kurtz replied if present worth or return on investment was calculated there were more sophisticated means of analysis that take into account inflation, interest rates. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 JULY 21f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPRO VED Chairperson Wilcox stated the board had received correspondence from the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. addressed to Doria Higgins. She asked that it be distributed to the board. (See Attachment #2). PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance proposed by Montessori School at the Montessori School Annex located at 117 East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, R45 Residence District. Montessori School, Owner/Applicant, Peter Demjanec, Agent. Peter Demjanec, Demjanec & Associates, stated the Zoning Board of Appeals was uncomfortable with their sign. They made some changes to their proposal and will be bringing it back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The sign already exists so there will not be changes to it The Montessori School had the sign made and it was temporarily erected on the site. The changes made were the location was moved 21 feet farther from the road, 42 feet from the edge of the pavement. The new location has the sign over the second property line of the Montessori School onto their uncontested property. It also locates the sign behind the planting bed that fronts on East King Road. The sign was previously illuminated and now it is not. The sign was previously 6 feet high and changed to 4 feet high. With the changes Mr. Demjanec was hoping the Zoning Board of Appeals would be more comfortable with the sign. Mr. Demjanec stated he spent a moment looking at the sign law. The board was operating under two foundations for the sign law. One was aesthetics and the second was safety. Mr. Demjanec provided photographs of the sign approaching from the east and west and a close -up of the sign. (See Attachment #3). Mr. Demjanec stated the sign law categorized signs into two categories. One is an exempt sign which people may put up as of right. The other is a regulated sign that can be erected after the applicant obtained a sign permit. Amongst the exempt signs are signs identifying houses of worship, libraries, museums, nursing homes, and similar institutions. The signs are allowed to be 24 square feet and 6 feet high. These signs exist by special permit in residential districts and districts which have high traffic volumes that are two attributes the Montessori School shares. He suggested the intent of the sign ordinance by taking those particular institutions and allowing them is to ensure public safety. It was to provide ample notification that an institution exists. Mr. Demjanec felt the Montessori School fell into that category and should be entitled to the 24 square feet sign. He stated the Montessori School Annex is located across the road from the main building. Immediately to the East of the site is a multiple residence district that is entitled to have 24 square feet. To the West a commercial district is located and which is entitled to have 50 square feet signs 20 feet high. This particular sign and the R -15 lot are the only lot fronting on East King and it is surrounded by properties that are permitted to obtain larger signs. Mr. Demjanec stated the school had taken the initiative and contacted their neighbors and asked if they had the opportunity to see the sign while it was erected. The school asked if the sign was appropriate in the neighborhood. Everyone had responded positively. Mr. Demjanec provided copies of the letters to the board. (See Attachment #4). Board Member Hoffmannn asked if the school was asking for a larger sign than before. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 JULY 21, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Demjanec stated they were asking for the same sign that was previously approved by the Planning Board. The sign was located farther from the road, two feet lower, and not illuminated. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is rehearing an application for a free standing sign at the Montessori School Annex Building, located on 117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 2-7, Residence District R -15. Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Peter Demjanec, Agent, and 2. On May 5, 1998, the Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals, approval for a similar sign in a different location, and 3. The earlier sign proposal was denied approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 13, 1998, and 49 The currently proposed sign measures approximately 10 square feet in size, whereas the Town of Ithaca Sign Law permits a maximum size of 4 square feet for freestanding signs in residential districts, and 5. The Board of Appeals, pursuant to the Town's Sign Law, has referred the application for said sign to the Sign Review Board (Planning Board) for its review and recommendations, and 6. The Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, at a public 1waring, held on July 21, 1998, reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and Part 11, prepared by Planning staff for the Zoning Board of Appeals, who will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed sign; drawings labeled "'Al- Exhibit 1, Site Plan - Montessori Annex," dated February 12, 1998, and most recently revised June 5, 1998, prepared by Demjanec and Associates Architects, and additional application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed sign variance for the Montessori School Annex Building, for the sign as shown on Sheet Al, entitled "Exhibit 1, Site Plan - Montessori Annex," dated February 12, 1998, and most recently revised June 5, 19980 AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmannn, Kenerson, Thayer, Ainslie, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 JULY 21f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments Demolition, 120 Pleasant Grove Road. Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the agenda. John Kiefer, Department of Planning, Design & Construction at Cornell, stated he was working on the North Campus Residential Initiative Project. Jean Reese, Cornell University Student and Academic Service, stated the residential experience was an important part of college. It has been the subject of many studies, surveys, task forces and committees. The committee presented a number of recommendations to President Rawlings that were intended to address the concerns that had arisen concerning the undergraduate residential experience. Cornell University houses 41% of its undergraduate population. That is the lowest in the IVY League. It rises to 55 -60% when the fraternities and sororities are counted. There was a concern over the last decade regarding the different cultural, social, and ethnic mixes that exist on west and north campus. The committee made a recommendation to the president to try to address some of those concerns. Ms. Reese stated the President wanted all the freshmen moved to one geographic location on campus and to build new housing to accommodate them. He wanted to guarantee housing for the upperclassmen. Currently housing is only guaranteed to freshmen. The President also wanted to improve the environment for faculty engagement with students on campus. The goals are to provide a more unifying experience for freshmen. Ms. Reese stated Cornell University felt Pleasant before the President announced the residential initiative. Cornell University anticipated demolishing the units for apartments were not necessary with the expansion a Pleasant Grove contains 90 apartments. She explained 30 and it dropped to 20 in the spring. Currently the families Grove Apartments needed to be removed There has been a clause in the lease stating the past five years. The graduate student nd renovation of Hasbrouck Apartments. families occupied the apartments in the fall have moved. Peter Karp, Cornell University Architect, stated he would refer to the aerial photograph of the campus. He showed the board the location of Beebe Lake, Triphammer Bridge, Balch Hall, Clara Dickson Hall, Mary Donlon, Low Rise, High Rise, and Pleasant Grove Apartments. He presented on the aerial photograph the location of Pleasant Grove Road. Pleasant Grove Apartments border on the existing recreational athletic fields. The fields are intramural and recreational only. The athletic fields will be relocated. He explained the aerial photograph showed there was little organization of the plan and the creation of spaces was haphazard. Cornell University wanted to find locations to add residential facilities but, also to tie the area together more closely. Mr. Karp showed the board the statits of the Master Plan indicating what their intentions were. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Karp stated they would be constructing accomodations for 560 beds. It would be about the size of Clara Dickson Hall. The red portions of the drawing he was presenting to the board represented the idea for location of residential units. He stated Cornell University hoped to create the kind of organization as presented on the drawing. It creates more space between the residential units. Mr. Karp stated they were considering the addition of the dining hall on top of Helen Newman or on an alternate site east of Helen Newman. Mr. Karp stated the drawing showed the town and city line. He thought all but three of the units were within the city boundary. Mr. Kiefer explained a chain link fence around the Pleasant Grove Apartments would be constructed first. The buildings would be demolished, the foundations filled in, and the removal of the fence after demolition. Their intent was to build a walkway for persons in Hasbrouck Apartments in order for them to walk around the site. The Pleasant Grove Apartments were filled with asbestos. The floor tiles contain asbestos and the roof construction contains transit on all the buildings. Cornell University felt the demolition would take about 3 months to complete. Mr. Kiefer mentioned that buildings 12 and 14 had not been used for students' apartments for a while. The Department of Campus Life used the buildings for storage and shop use. He explained Cornell University would like to continue the use of those buildings if the overall North Campus Residential Initiative permitted. Some of the issues around the design was whether the roadway that they were thinking of constructing would fit between the buildings and the gorge. If they can accomplish what they want the buildings would also be removed. He would like the board to consider that buildings 12 and 14 be optional on demolishing. Board Member Hoffmannn stated she assumed on drawing E2 that the walkway would be around the street lights. Mr. Kiefer stated when the project was finished and they removed the fence they had planned to keep the existing paved surface. During construction they did not want to have persons walking through the area. They were making a temporary walkway to avoid problems. One reason they wanted to leave the paved surface was that they did not want to generate any more potential for erosion. Board Member Hoffmannn asked if the street lights were going to be relocated. Mr. Kiefer stated he thought the intent was to have the pedestrian route through the area. Board Member Ainslie asked if there was a special problem on the routing of the asbestos. Mr. Kiefer stated he did not think there was a problem with routing it to a landfill. Board Member Hoffmannn asked Mr. Kiefer to discuss what Cornell University would be doing after the demolishment of the apartments. Mr. Kiefer replied that before they did anything they would come back before the board and present their intent. Their present intent was not to add the fields into the demolition project, but to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED fill the foundation holes in and make the site presentable. The athletic fields would be a subsequent phase. Mr. Kiefer explained the fields were a replacement of the fields north of Helen Newman Hall. Board Member Hoffmannn stated the Moore House was shown in one plan but it was not shown in the other plan. Mr. Kiefer explained that their architects recommended that Cornell University not retain the Moore House. He stated they were working with Historic Ithaca to decide what would be the best for the Moore House. Mr. Kiefer stated they did not want to demolish the Moore House and that they would rather relocate the house. Board Member Hoffmannn stated she was disappointed that Cornell University was considering to move the Moore House, Mr. Kiefer responded that it was not that they had not tried. They had approached the Moore House from different perspectives. Presently there had not been a department that came forward showing interest in the Moore House, Board Member Bell stated he did not approve of the segmentation of phases. He felt that the board needed to discuss the issue. The applicant had cited exemptions under 617 by which segmentation could happen. He felt the problem was it was discouraged under SEQR because of the problems the board was seeing. The applicants routinely change the perspective by presently small pieces one at a time so that the review committee did not see the entire picture. He did not know whether the exemption that Cornell University states is appropriate. Board Member Bell felt uncomfortable with the idea of segmentation. It was not the way the SEQR was designed to be set up. Assistant Town Planner Frantz explained that Cornell University was not presenting a little piece at a time. The staff and board were being presented with the entire project. The demolition was Phase I, the intramural fields and parking lots were Phase IL and the dormitories and dining hall were Phase III. Cornell University is not coming in without giving the staff and board an excellent idea of what will be happening with the project in the future. Board Member Bell responded that the SEQR review was treating it as segments. Assistant Town Planner Frantz replied that staff was recommending the Planning Board segment this portion out of the entire project. Staff read SEQR as being one of the rare instances where segmentation is appropriate and justifiable. Another thing that governed the staff's recommendation was Cornell University's intention to demolition Pleasant Grove Apartments since 1990. The demolition of the apartments may well have happened several years ago as a permitted action without committing the town to any further approvals. It is not something that was presented to the board as a new idea. It was discussed as part of the review of the Hasbrouck expansion. At that point it was made very clear that the addition of the apartments at Hasbrouck was essentially to replace the Pleasant Grove Complex that would then be demolished. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated she thought there had been thoughts of constructing a large dormitory on the same site as the Pleasant Grove Apartments, Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that was also an idea that would be discussed. The approval of the demolition of the apartments was meeting the requirements of part 617 because it was not committing the Town of Ithaca to any further approvals. Director of Planning Kanter stated another complication was the split jurisdiction between the Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca. Most of the proposed building is within the City of Ithaca where most of the demolition is within the Town of Ithaca. It becomes difficult unless the city was willing to relinquish and the Town of Ithaca was willing to accept lead agency through out the whole process. That would be strange given the future plans for the buildings. Attorney Marcus stated the segmentation could be justified solely on those grounds even without the additional factors Assistant Town Planner Frantz described. It becomes almost unworkable from the perspective of the Town Planning Board in conjunction with the City Planning Board to come up with a non - segmented environmental review. Board Member Bell replied that there was another alternative that neither the city nor the town be the lead agency. It would seem to make sense to have a large entity such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that has jurisdiction over both municipalities to be the lead agency. Director of Engineering Walker asked on what basis could the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation be the lead agency. He also asked what review and approval did the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation perform. Attorney Marcus replied that the lead agency had to be an entity that had the authority to grant the approval of the project. Chairperson Wilcox stated he agreed with the segmentation recommended by staff. He would be concerned if the construction phases were segmented using the city /town boundary as the reason. The problem was being avoided by segmenting between demolition and construction. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the Planning Board and the staff need to decide if Phase 11 or Phase III would be segmented. Phase II and Phase III could also be reviewed as one project. Then have the Town and City decide who would be the lead agency rather than have the Town continue lead agency through Phase H. Board Member Hoffmannn stated Cornell University proposed the Town of Ithaca be the lead agency for Phases I and 11 and the City of Ithaca be the lead agency for Phase III. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded that the project had been discussed with the City of Ithaca. It has been discussed with the City of Ithaca and Cornell University staff on how the two entities would be handling the project. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmannn stated she thought segmenting the project was new to the board and it may cause problems. She was worried because the Environmental Assessment Form talked about the three phases. Phase II and III were talked about in a different way. There was nothing definite. Board Member Hoffmannn stated she was uncomfortable with that She would like the Environmental Assessment Form to deal only with Phase I. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the reason it was decided to go this route was they wanted for the record for Cornell University to reference the phases in the Environmental Assessment Form. Board Member Hoffmannn stated that she prefers it if they agree that those are only references for the record and the Planning Board is not bound by what is described in Phases II and III. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the way the resolution was set up the Planning Board was not bound. The resolved in the SEQR Resolution refers to the above referenced action as proposed as the first Whereas. Board Member Hoffmannn stated that was the reason she was troubled by the Environmental Assessment Form for Phase I. She did not want the board to be tied down to approving something that should not be approved. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated all the information under site description was only the Pleasant Grove site. Board Member Hoffmannn responded that the Environmental Assessment Form was inconsistent. Attorney Marcus stated he was comfortable with the proposal that Assistant Town Planner Frantz had made. He suggested the Planning Board members add that the Environmental Assessment Form included solely for informational purposes some reference for Phases II and III that were not being considered by the board. Board Member Bell asked for a correction on drawing C2 and C3. The municipal boundary was identified as the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. It should be the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Hoffmannn stated in Assistant Town Planner Frantz's memo it was talked about as a Sketch Plan Review for the proposed North Campus Residential Initiative. She wanted to be sure it was not considered a Sketch Plan Review, Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the Public Hearing and the Planning Board approval was solely for the demolition of Pleasant Grove Apartments. Due to the nature of the project the Sketch Plan review was not separated. Assistant Town Planner Frantz suggested that Cornell University come before the board when the final decision about Phase II and III were completed by Cornell University. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmannn stated the Sketch Plan for Phase II and III was not advertised. Director of Planning Kanter stated the Public Hearing notice was done differently from the agenda. The Public Hearing notice made reference to a sketch plan, but the agenda stated it would include a general discussion of future plans. Chairperson Wilcox stated the two buildings closest to the gorge were in question of being demolished. If Cornell University did choose to demolish the buildings there was concern about their proximity to the gorge. He remembered when the Planning Board approved the use of the two buildings as storage facilities that the Planning Board was worried about traffic. Mr. Karp explained there was a wooded hillside before the gorge edge. They did add additional vegetation buffer. Chairperson Wilcox asked what measures would be taken to ensure that debris was not spread outside the site. Mr. Karp responded the demolition was going to be an extremely careful procedure due to the hazardous material. They have contract documents that clearly state how the work is to be completed. Board Member Hoffmannn stated it looked to her as if the fence was on the other side of the two buildings and not on the gorge side. Mr. Kiefer stated that if Cornell University elected to keep buildings 12 and 14 that they would be apart from the contract limit line. If Cornell University chose to demolish the buildings then the contract limit line would be on the southeast side of the buildings. Board Member Hoffmannn stated since Cornell University was asking for permission to demolish the two buildings that the fence should be shown on the appropriate side of the two buildings. Then if the buildings were not demolished the fence would be removed. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated on Drawing C1 two fences were shown. One would be erected if the University decided to keep buildings 12 and 14. They then have an optional fence that would be located 20 feet on the gorge side of the two structures. The fence was 25 feet from the rim of the Fall Creek Gorge. He thought there would be adequate room and adequate protection as far as keeping debris out of the gorge. Board Member Thayer asked if the buildings were on a basement or if they were on slabs and if the concrete would be removed. Mr. Kiefer stated they were slabs on grade. The concrete would be jack - hammered out. He had misspoken when he stated basement. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Bell asked if it was peculiar for an applicant to come in with a major alternative of whether they would demolish two buildings or not Mr. Kiefer stated the indecision was schedule driven. They were just beginning schematic design of the next phase of work that included the roadway. Until the schematic design was completed, they would not be sure if it is possible to fit a road into that location. The issue of parking would need to be addressed to know whether the buildings could remain. Board Member Bell stated Cornell University was not ready to be applying for what they were applying. Normally, an applicant comes before the board with a proposal. Cornell University is not doing that. They are coming with a maybe proposal and a maybe not proposal. He wanted to know how the board was supposed to come up with an Environmental Assessment Form when the definition of the buildings involved was not defined. Director of Engineering Walker stated Board Member Bell needed to look at it both ways. If the buildings remained what would the concern be. If the buildings were demolished what would the concern be. Director of Engineering Walker stated that Cornell University was trying to bring the whole picture before the board. They stated the buildings were inefficient and needed to be demolished. Cornell University was trying to offer more. From an engineering, environmental standpoint the demolition was not going to cause run -off problems. The run -off would be reduced because retention basins would be put in. Approving the demolition did not mean the board was approving anything else. Cornell University is taking a four or five acre site and returning it to grass. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the Planning Board was considering approval for demolition of up to 12 apartment buildings. The staff's perspective was that whether Cornell University elected to demolish only 10 of the 12 there are no issues. The staff was comfortable recommending that the board approve the demolition. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated it was important that the approval did not say Cornell University could demolish any 10 of the 12 buildings. It was very specific. Attorney Marcus state he would be concerned if the proposal was to construct 10 or 12 buildings, but there was no reason for concern over their present proposal. It is a comfortable position for the town to be in. The applicant was turning the area back into vegetative cover. Board Member Thayer stated it was more practical to construct the fields while the area was already under construction. Board Member Hoffmannn stated there was an item in the Environmental Assessment Form on page 5, point 7. She felt there was another residential zone. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated R -30 should be included in the Environmental Assessment Form. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 JULY 21f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmannn stated she was confused by the description. of the road. The existing service drive to Balch Hall and Helen Newman Hall could be extended past the proposed parking lot to Pleasant Grove Road. She was unable to tell from the drawings where the road would be. Mr. Kiefer showed Board Member Hoffmannn the proposed road and the present road on the drawings he had posted for the board to see. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. MOTION by Lawrence Thayer, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 16 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along existing walkway to be retained. Proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68 -1 -11.2, MR- Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner; Joni Carroll, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, on July 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Pleasant Grove Apartments" Sheets C -1, C -2, C -3 and C -4, and "Pleasant Grove Apartments Demolition" Sheets E -1, E -2 and E -3, all prepared by Cornell University Planning Design & Construction and dated June 1998, and other application materials, and 3. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 40 This action is the first phase of a larger, multi -phase project subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which segmentation from later phases of the action, for purposes of environmental review, has been requested, and 5. In specific instances said segmentation of environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act is allowed, and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan for demolition of Pleasant Grove Apartments, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 JULY 21.r 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 79 The EAF includes references to Phase II and Phase III of the applicant's project, which references are only to provide additional information, and Phases II and III are not being considered or reviewed by the Planning Board at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That per the requirements outlined in PART 617.3(8) of the New York Consolidated Rules and Regulations, the segmentation of the above referenced action from fiutaure phases of the overall proposal is warranted, given that: 1s the demolition phase is a discrete project which is not dependent upon any fiurther phases of the project; 2. Town Planning Board approval of the demolition of the Pleasant Grove complex does not commit the Town to approval of any fiuttcre phases of the overall project; 39 segmentation of the environmental review of the demolition phase from the fixture phases of the overall project will not be less protective of the environment than combining said review with review of the overall project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmannn, Thayer, Ainslie, Bell, Kenerson. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along an existing walkway to be retained. This will also include a general discussion of Cornell's future plans of the North Campus Residential Initiative. The proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 6744.1 and 68 =1 -11.2, MR Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Joni Carroll, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Peter Loucks, Forest Home, asked what the traffic route would be when the material was hauled away from the site. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 JULY 21f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ed Franquemont, 108 McIntyre Place and Historic Ithaca, stated it was interesting to hear about the way the Town of Ithaca deals with demolition. He explained he did not have to give a definite number when demolishing buildings if Cornell did not need to be specific in numbers. He asked if vague plans could be presented and approved by the board. Mr. Franquemont stated he agreed with Board Member Bell that it was early to be granting permits of any phase of this project. Two weeks ago there was a public meeting with the same group from Cornell University. They were informative to the Forest Home area and they stated the plans did not mean anything. Mr. Franquemont felt the board were not looking at plans for the subsequent phases. The board was approving a demolition without reviewing what the subsequent plans would look like. Mr. Franquemont stated Forest Home residents are concerned about the roads. The plan was expanding Cornell operations on the North campus at the same time taking out a road that is access to Helen Newman. The result would be increased traffic on the Town of Ithaca roads. He hoped the board would ask Cornell to do a thorough analysis of the traffic. Forest Home would like Cornell to analyze their traffic needs and then handle the traffic needs on its property with its roads. He felt the traffic route needed to be detailed before any other phases were approved. Mr. Franquemont explained Historic Ithaca was disturbed about the Moore House. It is hard to overstate how important the house is to the Ithaca area. The person who built the Moore House was Isaac Cradit. He was the first person to come to the area and decide to settle here. Mr. Cradit built a large, prosperous farm. The farm extended from North campus, to the suspension bridge and down to the A lot. Mr. Cradit built Forest Home for his workers. The house was later bought by Doctor Moore. Since he is in our living memory we perhaps do not realize how important he was. The length of history will show him to be someone who was important. Mr. Moore began the idea of student health service at Cornell. He was the first person to argue that a major university should pay attention to the health and welfare of its students. In 1938 Mr. Moore looked to restore the house as it was when Mr. Cradit was the owner. He restored it in a project at least 30 years ahead of its time in terms of historic preservation. Out of his love for the university he gave the house to the university. Mr. Moore did not give the house to Cornell University because he thought it would be demolished. Historic Ithaca is troubled by the cavalier attitude of Cornell. The house should not be moved or demolished because Cornell University needs the fill below it in order to make a flat playing surface. Mr. Franquemont stated he was happy to sacrifice a playing field to keep the house intact. It is something that will fall on the Planning Board to protect. He felt the Planning Board should withhold the permits until there is a satisfactory resolution of the Moore House. Mr. Franquemont asked the board not to approve the proposal until later plans was definite. He understood that Cornell University could not have been up front about wanting to do something with the plans. Mr. Franquemont did an informal survey and found there were many departments in Cornell University that would like to use the Moore House. They were not given an opportunity. One group would have liked to have used it as a daycare facility. There could be a deeper examination of the issues around the Moore House and a more thorough look of the road situation. Karen Westmont, 206 Forest Home, stated she had lived in Ithaca for two years. She asked about the preservation of the house. It was never presented to the community in the community meeting about the planetarium. The gorge walls were noted as being preserved, but not the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED planetarium and the Moore House. They were told that the limited use of the road only applied to the western portion. Eventually the eastern portion would be serving a parking lot. Pleasant Grove Road would be the access to the 150 car parking lot Ms. Westmont would like to see limits that the Moore House was protected and would connect it to the other two houses. She thought it would make more sense to demolish buildings 12 and 14 and shift the fields to save the Moore House. Ms. Westmont asked if the Planning Board could add into the resolution for the Moore House to have a softer use than it presently was. Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Avenue, stated she represented Cornell Universitds Historic Planning Program. She encouraged the Planning Board to think clearly about the Moore House. Ms. Ebert stated she also represented the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and the chair of their Environmental Review Board. In that capacity they were unable to review the documents for this evening because their meeting occurred before they received the documents. The committee indicated great concern in an initial review of the segmentation issue. It is their belief that it is a very slippery slope. It is not something that the Planning Board wants to initiate despite the logical and possible ease with which you might be able to justify it. It is not a sufficient reason for segmentation because it is easier on the board and the staff. Ms. Ebert stated her comments were her thoughts, not the boards she represented. Chairperson Wilcox asked if any other members of the public wished to be heard. With no other persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox asked where the materials would be transported and by which route they would travel. Mr. Kiefer stated they would not have details on that until Cornell University had selected a contractor to do the work. The demolition debris would be hauled away from the site on public roads. It would be impossible for him to be specific about which roads. finish. Chairperson Wilcox asked how long Mr. Kiefer expected demolition to take from start to Mr. Kiefer responded that discussions with contractors they were working with indicated 3 months. Director of Planning Kanter asked how manv truck loads of material there would be off the site. Mr. Kiefer replied they did a rough calculation based on weight and it was 4,000 tons. If a truck was 10 tons then it would be 400 truck loads. He also thought there were larger vehicles that could haul the debris. Mr. Kiefer stated he understood that it was just not the weight, but also the volume could affect how many truck loads there would be. The concern may have been relative to traffic in Forest Home. He thought there were weight limits on the single lane bridges in the community that would make it a less attractive route. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmannn asked if special trucks would be removing asbestos debris and is the asbestos taken to special places. Mr. Kiefer stated his understanding was that the asbestos debris went to the same landfills but needed to be packaged. Board Member Hoffmannn asked where the asbestos would be packaged. Mr. Kiefer stated it would be packaged on site. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there would be any effect on the planetarium by this particular project. Mr. Kiefer stated the discussions they had on the observatory are that the contractor is not to block access to that facility. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the Moore House was on a separate tax parcel. Director of Planning Kanter stated he thought the Moore House was on the same tax parcel as the Pleasant Grove Apartments, Chairperson Wilcox stated he did not want the house demolished until all appropriate avenues had been addressed. If it is on the same tax parcel, the board could write into the resolution that the demolition would not affect the Moore House in any way. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated based on the plans the board was being asked to approve, on C -1 a limit of construction line that is some distance from the Moore House. Assistant Town Planner Frantz presented the location of the Moore House and tlw line that limited the construction on plan C -1. The applicant was telling the board by plan C4 that the Moore House would not be affected. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the applicant could come to the town and ask for a demolition permit for the house. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the applicant could come to the building department and ask for demolition permit. Director of Planning Kanter suggested that the Planning Board add into the resolution indicating that could not happen without further review by the Planning Board. Attorney Marcus stated even if the Moore House were on a separate tax parcel and as long as it was owned by the same person, the Planning Board would still have the authority to add a condition on any approval regarding the application. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kiefer stated it was not the intent of Cornell University to try to demolish the building. It was Cornell University's intent to find a solution for the Moore House that is mutually satisfactory. Board Member Thayer asked that the traffic concerns of the public be addressed. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated an assessment of the effects on traffic will be required as part of the Environmental Impact Statement of the project. The approval for the demolition of the apartments does not imply a town commitment to approve any other development. He understood the public's concern about the uncertainty of the plans. If nothing happens there will be a meadow where Pleasant Grove Apartments once was. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated he was not that concerned about that happening from a planning standpoint. Board Member Hoffmannn stated that the board has heard a number of times about the poor quality of the buildings. There is asbestos present and there is formaldehyde insulation. It makes the apartments unsuitable for housing young people and their families. The two buildings Cornell University is proposing to save have recently been renovated to be used for other purposes than residential. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that one bridge in Forest Home had a 20 ton weight limit capacity. It is possible and legal for the dump trucks to use it. Board Member Ainslie asked if Assistant Town Planner Frantz was suggesting the dump trucks make the right angle turn. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated he was just informing the board of the fact that the bridge was designed to accommodate 20 tons. Board Member Ainslie felt the debris would go out to Hanshaw and then down Route 13. He did not see how a dump truck would be able to travel through Forest Home. Director of Planning Kanter stated the board could require a routing that did not include routes through Forest Home. Chairperson Wilcox stated some persons might have some concerns about the downstream bridge and having a long -term effect on the bridge. He saw the problem more on the other side as you leave Forest Home. The road is narrow through there. Board Member Hoffmannn stated that much fill and debris from Cornell University construction has gone to Precinct 7 and been used as fill. She asked if that was likely to happen. Mr. Kiefer stated that was not likely. The approval process would extend the project beyond the period they would like to have the project completed. The University had not discussed that prospect. The reason Cornell University would like to have the buildings demolished in 1998 was because they would like to begin the relocation of the athletic fields as early in 1999 as they could. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Bell stated the county was looking at ways to reduce the amount of construction debris entering into landfills. He asked if there was any consideration of finding an alternate use for the material. Mr. Kiefer stated they had not mandated in the bid documents that the materials be recycled. They had discussed with future contractors to find out what their capabilities were in that regard. One contractor indicated the ability to crush the concrete foundations and use the material. The possibility of reusing the brick had also been talked about. The proposal that the university receives from bidding contractors has a requirement of having a plan that calls for the materials to be recycled. Board Member Hoffmannn stated there was a comment about if the road to Helen Newman was limited it meant more traffic would go through other residential areas. That is something that needs to be addressed, but the Town of Ithaca does not know enough at this point. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that was one of the key questions as far as traffic impact of any further phases. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox asked for a vote. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffinannn: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along existing walkway to be retained. Proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68 -1 -11.2, MR- Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner; Joni Carroll, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on July 21, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on July 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Pleasant Grove Apartments" Sheets C -1, C -2, C -3 and C-4, and "Pleasant Grove Apartments Demolition" Sheets E -1, E -2 and E -3, all prepared by Cornell University Planning Design & Construction and dated June 1998, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 JULY 21f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along existing walkway to be retained, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to the issuance of any demolition permit. a. revision of the site plan to include the name and seal of the registered surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic survey, and to change the name "Town of Dryden" where it appears on all submitted plan documents to "Town of Ithaca "; and be submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements; and ce submission of a record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state and federal agencies and copies of all such permits granted; and d, submission of an original or mylar copy, and two paper copies of the final site plan, revised as specified in condition 2a above, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, e. as an express condition of this approval, the applicant shall not take any action that shall effect or involve the structure known as the Moore House, located adjacent to and to the north of the subject site, or the landscaping or trees located on or around the site of the Moore House, including by applying for any demolition permit for such structure, and the applicant shall protect and preserve said structure, landscaping and trees throughout the process of demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartments, f. as an express condition of this approval, the applicant shall remove all demolition debris from the site, by requiring the trucks hauling the debris to leave the site by heading northward on Pleasant Grove Road and shall prevent routing trucks southward through the Forest Home area. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmannn, Thayer, Kenerson, Ainslie, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of additional athletic fields and facilities at Cornell University's Precinct 9, located behind and adjacent to the Reis Tennis Center off of Pine Tree Road on Tax Parcel No's 60 -1 -5, 60- 1 -8.2, 60-1- PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 991, 604-9.21 60 -148. Possible new facilities, as described on the "Site Sketch Plan, Precinct 9 Athletic Fields," dated 3/5/98 and revised 5/28.98, include two soccer fields, one multipurpose field, a changing facility, six indoor squash courts, an outdoor horse show ring at the Equestrian Center, and the reconfiguration of the existing parking areas in front of the Equestrian Center and Tennis Center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the agenda. Laurene Gilbert, Project Manager, stated they previously presented a plan to the Planning Board of the development of Precinct 9 for the Athletic department. The Precinct 9 area is from Mitchell Street, North to Pine Tree Road, then East to Honness Lane, and the recreational bike trail. She stated they previously presented a plan for the addition of two soccer fields, a multi- purpose field, and a small changing facility. It also included lighting, new drainage, new- parking areas, and an additional parking lot. The plan they had presented had a different layout of the soccer fields and the multi- purpose field. Ms. Gilbert presented the location of the fields and facilities on the updated plan to the board and public. She also described the location of the fields and facilities on t1w previous plan. Ms Gilbert stated that the board had made many comments about their concerns at the previous Sketch Plan. It involved interruption of the view shed, lighting as it affected the outside housing, drainage issues, and the configuration of the parking lot. Ms. Gilbert stated they worked with the L.A. Group and the Athletics Department and came up with a revised scheme. She explained Cornell University felt much better about the revised plan. Ms. Gilbert met with some Planning Board members at Precinct 9 and answered many of their questions. Ms. Gilbert stated the relocation of the two soccer fields reopened the view sheds. The soccer fields were going to be laid out in a tiered system. Vegetation separates the area between the bicycle track and the field. It would infringe on some of the existing secondary forest. The multi- purpose field would be located downhill from the existing paddocks and the proposed paddocks that opens up the view shed. The lighting for the present project has six lighting poles that reduce the amount of glare. Due to the new layout the light poles could be shared between the two fields. The additional parking lot has been removed and it was decided to pave the two existing gravel lots. Ms. Gilbert stated they had realized the additional parking lot was not necessary if the two existing ones were paved. There would be an additional entrance onto Pine Tree Road that would be a one way entrance. A bus pull -off would also be available. Donald McPherson, Project Consultant, stated the major changes were to condense the area of the project. The drainage they were considering was from Pine Tree Road down to the Recreation Trail. The main concern was to concentrate the drainage away from the road. The existing drainage patterns start on Hungerford Hill going east, and coming down hill. In the existing condition, the northern portion flows along the site, down to the deeper ravine, and continues to the West. The larger portion comes down Hungerford Hill, flows along Pine Tree Road and through a culvert to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the center portion of the site. With the development of the Reis Tennis Center a detention basin was constructed which was designed to catch storm water. It was designed to accommodate any new storm water run -off from the construction of the Reis Tennis Center. The remaining drainage on the site flows through some of the properties and continue to flow to the West. Mr. McPherson stated that with the overall drainage patterns they were able to make sure there were no impacts on the Honness Lane area. They were also able to take advantage of the existing detention basins. The existing run -off would be maintained or even reduced. Ms. Gilbert stated there would be a connection from the existing bike path to the path along Pine Tree Road. Board Member Hoffmannn stated the outdoor horse show ring was mentioned on the agenda, but they had not discussed it. Ms. Gilbert replied she did not know if they were referring to the proposed paddocks. Board Member Ainslie asked if Director of Engineering Walker had looked over the drainage on the site and if it was adequate. Director of Engineering Walker stated he thought there would not be a problem with Cornell University meeting the proper design criteria. He felt some of the drainage patterns could be improved and alleviate some of the flooding problems that occurred in the past. The nature of the work being performed was inserting flat fields in the middle of the slope which would reduce the speed of the run -off. Director of Engineering Walker stated he would recommend when Cornell University came to the final design stages that there be a few diversions across the slope. Mr. McPherson stated the Town of Ithaca installed a second culvert near the Recreational Trail to make sure the other culvert would not overflow. Board Member Ainslie stated it was hard to have a gravel parking lot. It would need to be maintained every week. Mr. McPherson stated the detention basin was designed to accommodate an asphalt parking lot as well as a gravel. Director of Engineering Walker stated the original drainage evaluation for the parking lot was for a paved parking lot. The only reason it was not paved before was the cost. Chairperson Wilcox stated the Planning Board had received a letter on May 12, 1998. The letter was received from the East Wood Commons Residence Association and was based on the initial plan and have not addressed any items on the current plans. He stated he received two letters. One from Mr. and Mrs. Rochow and one from David Stipanick. Their concern was drainage based upon the issues of the past few years. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. McPherson stated the lighting in the original proposal had 14 poles to produce the desired light level. The current design moved the fields so that the number of poles needed to light the field is reduced. The view from Pine Tree Road will not be significantly affected more. The lighting consultant suggested Musco lighting. Mr. McPherson explained the location of the lights to the board and presented a Spill Light Study performed by the lighting consultant. Board Member Ainslie asked how many days would the lights be used in a year. Mr. McPherson responded the lights would be used in late fall and early spring. Pat Graham, Cornell University Athletics, stated the lights would be on in the fall from approximately September 30 until November 15. It would possibly be six nights a week, but most of the time only five nights a week. The lights would not be on later than 10:00 p.m. They would turn on at approximately 4:00 p.m. In the spring the lights would be needed from mid April until the end of May. The lights would be off by 10:00 p.m. each night. Board Member Bell asked if the present detention basin would remain. Ms. Gilbert responded it would remain and there would be two instead of one. Chairperson Wilcox asked if any members of the public wished to be heard even though it was not a public hearing. Andy Albrecht, 119 Clover Lane, stated Cornell University did not mention what would happen to the drainage in the current creek. Mr. McPherson responded that because of the location of the fields the drainage to the North will not be affected by the project. Mr. Albrecht stated noise was mentioned and it was not discussed. Mr. McPherson stated the intent of the fields were for intramural games and practices only. They would not be used for competitions. Ms. Gilbert stated only supervised activities would take place. Students would not be able to use the fields at will. All practices would be scheduled by the Athletic Department. Mr. Albrecht asked how far the noise from the fields would travel. Mr. McPherson stated the residents on Clover Lane would hear the same amount of noise as there would be during an outside tennis tournament. Mr. Albrecht asked if the trail to Pine Tree Road would be lit. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Gilbert stated they did not have any plans to light the trail. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated by law the Recreation Way was closed one half hour after sunset. Richard Fisher, 135 Pine Tree Road, stated that in talking with persons in the neighborhood there were many serious concerns. They are concerned about the impact the project will have on traffic. There is a concern about the effect the lighting will have on their quality of living. Mr. Fisher stated his main concern was the effect of the drainage. Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane, stated he was a member of the Codes and Ordinance Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He would like to remind the board that the women's softball field did not have lighting. It was a very long discussion about whether there would be lighting or not Once lighting was allowed on the proposed fields, Cornell University would be back asking for lighting on the softball fields. The students use the trail to their practices and the trail will be used at night. The path has heavy traffic every day. Mr. Ellsworth felt the project would increase the traffic on the trail. Mr. Ellsworth stated the period the lights would be used had changed from their last proposal. He recalled the lights being in use from 7:30 - 8:00 p.m. Mr. Ellsworth stated he would be lobbying for limits on the lights. It did not matter what the light efficiency was or how they were focused. Mr. Ellsworth stated there should be vegetative buffering at the south side of the project. He felt Cornell University was developing the project rapidly and Cornell University would be before the board in couple months with another project. Mr. Graham stated there would not be amplified sound. The noise that is heard is amplified sound from the public address systems. A public address system would not be used with the three fields. There was a public address system on the softball fields. The trail side of the project contains a wooded area that will absorb much of the sound. The coaches would have whistles and there will be some cheering. The noise level will not be high because the coaches are trying to teach. They do not want their athletes hollering so that they do not hear their coach. He stated he did not remember saying the lights would be turned off at 7:30 p.m. It was always intended the lights be on until 10:00 p.m. The teams will generally be finished by 7:00 p.m. Cornell University would like to have the flexibility to let the teams continue practice. The lights will be on a timer system. At 10:00 p.m. the lights automatically shut down. The coaches will have to turn the lights on, and they are responsible to turn the lights off. All the Cornell University programs have to have a person on site in charge of the event. A team is unable to decide if they want to practice. The Athletic Department needs to be contacted and the team needs to be scheduled in so that the department is aware the team is on the fields. Chairperson Wilcox asked how the athletes would travel to and from practice? Mr. Graham stated the athletes would jog to the facility and a van would be available to transport the athletes to campus. Athletes do not drive their personal vehicles to practice. There PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED might be one or two vans and the trainer may have a vehicle or a coach. Mr. Graham stated he did not see where there would be new traffic. Board Member Hoffmannn asked if the fields would be in use during the summer. Mr. Graham stated the University may use the fields for day camps. He did not see a reason why the fields would need to be in use at night. The camps are finished by 9:00 p.m. and during the summer it is still daylight. Board Member Hoffmannn asked if it was possible for these fields to be available for community use and if they would be available for evening use. Mr. Graham stated the Athletic Department had discussed it with their Risk Management team. They felt there was a possibility for that to happen, but it would need to be a group function. The group would also be required to carry their insurance. The fields would be available for night use but the lights would not be available. Board Member Bell asked if the lights could be turned off if the field was unoccupied before 10:00 p.m. Mr. Graham responded that the teams were required to turn the lights off when their practices were complete. Sometimes people forget but the lights would automatically shut off at 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox explained to the public that this was a Sketch Plan Review. This allowed the Planning Board and the public to hear and make comments to the plan. The project would return to the board with a formal public hearing in the future. Board Member Hoffmannn asked if there were future development plans for the site. Ms. Gilbert responded the Town had requested a study of Precinct 9 to avoid further surprises. A preliminary report was presented in October 1997. The report looked at the area, outlined what was currently existing, and the plans for the future. In the plan the elements discussed were included. The plan did not imply future athletic plans. Board Member Hoffmannn asked if another entity could come before the board with other plans. Ms. Gilbert replied she was not aware of any plans for future development. She stated if there was a problem with the trail it did not have to be connected. Chairperson Wilcox stated he thought the reason for the connection was to allow athletes to travel from the campus to the fields. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Graham stated the athletes were currently riding over in vans. The Athletic Department could continue that procedure. The idea of the trail was to give the athletes a work out before practice. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated throughout the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan was to have people travel on foot and not in their automobiles. From the standpoint of the town it was a good idea to encourage the teams to jog to the field instead of driving to the field or jogging along Pine Tree Road. Board Member Thayer asked if the path needed to be legally closed at sundown. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded the Town of Ithaca's bikeway law stated that all trails open one half hour before sunrise and close one half hour after sunset. Signs are posted at all entrances to the trail. Board Member Hoffmannn stated she was concerned about future development of the site. Ms. Gilbert stated she could propose to the Planning Department and the Athletic Department to work verbiage stating there would not be future development. Mr. Graham stated on behalf of the Athletic Department there were no future plans for development. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting with there being no further comments from the board. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes = June 2,1998. MOTION Fred Wilcox, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the June 2, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby approve the following minutes as written with corrections submitted by the Planning Board. THERE being no fitrther discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - Wilcox, Hoffmannn, Bell, Kenerson, Ainslie. NAY - None. ABSTENTION - Thayer. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 JULY 21,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated he world have the outstanding minutes completed by the next Planning Board meeting. Director of Planning Kanter stated the New York Planning Federation Annual Institute would be from September 13 -16. He asked the board members to notify him if any one was interested in attending. One of the new Planning staff members will attend the entire program and then a day trip for other interested staff and Planning Board members. Chairperson Wilcox stated the August 18 meeting was canceled. Board Member Bell and Director of Planning Kanter stated they would not be in attendance at the August 4 meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated two people had applied for the open position on the Planning Board. He asked if a member of the Planning Board would be involved as a member of the interviewing committee. Board Member Hoffmannn stated she would be willing to be a member of the interview committee. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the July 21, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Prepared by: Carrie L. Coates, Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. z O C64 O W powW U W w a W A a W V ►.a W O O W W Attachment #1 z O a W O O a H Q a 0 W F W O a Cl) cc 'a CL Q 0 Z N Z CD U c� a (D a D U 4) _E U c 1 O oCL H0 d) CL Om W Co mm of Cu O L N p� N = Cu Y Cu U � U as CU x d c ou CD N Cc Cu E E c � N o W U �- C3 c E CU 'C O Cn Cu c E L O N %— Cl) cn WC M U 0) v �CO 0 -0 0 N In Q O 0 CN Cn �j 0 a �a L O C. L := �j 0) o r o Cu c cn a CD W +- E o W E E ~O ^ ti U w u 8 Z r•. ac ^ N w a .rte" L V1 V1 try to N N N N z r OC V1 V1 OC � =° s. CS c U � L U S N ° o c o � o a� d � 604 604 604 W 00 00 0 0 �yz�o 0 0 0 U U t M 69 %•'.Gki.% O O O O O .d o N O M O M O M o N M M � 6R 69 9 69 b9 G. h +� O O •� ...i _N O 3 i x 8 i ti e� `• O LW L w y ~ w U CJ U o f o ,[ o 0 O O ti O 5 V 00 v o Ca o c o C t9 b c `U° tic va $ in a C7 0 O � A z W Ov Oj v O a O z O O as E. v v� O C O � O O u C 0 � C7 Cl) cc 'a CL Q 0 Z N Z CD U c� a (D a D U 4) _E U c 1 O oCL H0 d) CL Om W Co mm of Cu O L N p� N = Cu Y Cu U � U as CU x d c ou CD N Cc Cu E E c � N o W U �- C3 c E CU 'C O Cn Cu c E L O N %— Cl) cn WC M U 0) v �CO 0 -0 0 N In Q O 0 CN Cn �j 0 a �a L O C. L := �j 0) o r o Cu c cn a CD W +- E o W E E ~O ^ ti U z 0 ENO a O z W W U d a a W A 0. a a ►:y U a W 0 O ENOO M..I d d w c �- a� s�r i :. Qr � 3 _ o oU a � c L W Ix tv Z �UU Ix W ~ _ O O UU c 0 O c d f' F H d r� SOW 0 u 64 Li uo„ r3 •^• ca $ m 3 � ICL aw I o a� 00 U y x R CL aai G Q ai �) U �Q ti �W �I qu w a 0 S z 4O W O U Q 8 w O W 0 C4 A O U U O V) 2 c� U O a N .N 'C CD N O (L Cd W Z m r co a O '0 CD O � O a a� c 3 3 cu V) Cc � c c O O Q O Q O) O O N O C N Co _ L E_ o� U 5 cN Eu cn 0) O w U_ 0) C "(D � c CD w co > ~w 5): WTII 177 U =4EO% _ o oU a � c L W Ix tv Z �UU Ix W ~ _ O O UU c 0 O c d f' F H d r� SOW 0 u 64 Li uo„ r3 •^• ca $ m 3 � ICL aw I o a� 00 U y x R CL aai G Q ai �) U �Q ti �W �I qu w a 0 S z 4O W O U Q 8 w O W 0 C4 A O U U O V) 2 c� U O a N .N 'C CD N O (L Cd W Z m r co a O '0 CD O � O a a� c 3 3 cu V) Cc � c c O O Q O Q O) O O N O C N Co _ L E_ o� U 5 cN Eu cn 0) O w U_ 0) C "(D � c CD w co > ~w 5): WTII 177 CORNELL'S RATIONALE FOR DISMISSAL OF COGENERATION COOLING DEBUNKED Cogeneration cooling is most commonly a hybrid system in which cooling is provided by a combination of electric chillers and steam- powered "absorption" chillers. On -site generated electricity provides the power for the electric chillers and "waste" steam leftover from the generation process provides power for the steam chillers. While there is absolutely no information within the EIS regarding cogeneration cooling, Cornell did produce a memo, apparently for the June 11 public hearin , which explains Cornell's rationale for dismissal of this alternative to LSC. The memo states that such systems are applied only "where electricity costs are higher" and "where the heat used to run the chiller is extremely low in cost." It then claims that "neither is the case for Cornell, eliminating further need to examine this... technology." However, the opposite is true; Cornell is subject to very high electric costs and has very low cost heat available. Regarding electric costs, a paper concerning LSC at Cornell co- authored by Lanny Joyce notes that Cornell's "current average costs er kWh are $0.08/kWh, well above the national average for industrial electricity." Indeed, NYSEG's industrial rate was ranked 15`t' highest out of 170 utilities in a recent national survey4 and is more than twice the national average of $0.038/kWh. NYSEG's high rate makes on -site generation of electricity very economically attractive - which is why Cornell currently does so throughout the heating season. As for the "heat used to run" absorption chillers, it should be noted that low- pressure steam is produced as an essentially free byproduct when Cornell generates electricity. Hence, Cornell has a very low cost heat source for powering absorption chillers, and Cornell's rationale for dismissal of this important alternative is completely false. ' "A summary of the study of conventional central cooling alteratives for Cornell" '` Cornell's LSC Project Leader. 3 Deep Water Source Cooling = An Untapped Resource; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E. and Hazen E. Burford 4 Energy User News CORNELL'S RATIONALE FOR DISMISSAL OF GROUND - SOURCE COOLING DEBUNKED (This letter was submitted to The Ithaca Journal in response to a letter by Steve Little - Senior Energy Engineer and Associate Director of Utilities, Energy and Distribution, Cornell University. The following is the "unabridged version" as The Journal extensively edited what they printed.) To the Editors, Steve Little's recent letter - which was clearly written in response to my guest column - warrants a rebuttal as it contains several factual errors and some egregiously duplicitous logic that can only add to the confusion regarding Lake Source Cooling (LSC) and alternatives. First of all, I have not been advocating "ground- source heat pumps" as an alternative to LSC - as Little, and others, have implied. Those systems, which are also often referred to as "geothermal heat pumps," are a very specific form of geothermal technology which are not suitable for Cornell for a number of reasons - cost being primary, as they would require extensive internal renovation, as well as extensive site work. The type of ground - source system I believe warrants investigation would simply replace Cornell's cooling towers with buried ground loops or with well -water loops. This form of ground- source is, in fact, very similar to LSC. Like LSC, it would continue to rely on chillers (Cornell really should stop making the false claim that LSC would "eliminate" the need for "mechanical refrigeration" - Cornell's proposal includes the retention of two of its large electric chillers). And both systems represent forms of "geothermal cooling" because they both use the earth as a thermal sink. In Cornell's case, the big differences between the two is the extent of reliance on chillers - where LSC has the advantage due to the lower temperature of deep Cayuga Lake water - and pump energy - where ground-source has the advantage due to Cornell's better proximity to ground than the lake. Cornell has conceded that ground - source cooling would be less expensive than LSC to install, but they maintain that the alleged efficiency advantage of LSC would offset that benefit in the long -term. That conclusion, however, is not based on hard data. Lanny Joyce, the LSC Project Leader, told me that Cornell's Facilities Department performed no energy calculations whatsoever for any ground- source alternatives. So Little's assertion that ground- source cooling systems "are certainly not more efficient than LSC" is opinion, not fact. What is more surprising, given Little's credentials, is his claim that LSC would require less pumping power than a ground-source system "because LSC uses about 7 miles of large pipe... vs. 1200 miles of small tube." That is an absurd "apples and oranges" comparison. Ground - source tubing would be piped in parallel - not in one long loop, as Little seems to imply. The total flow for ground-source - which would be comparable LSC - would therefore be divided among thousands of pipes, with the total friction being equivalent to one large, but relatively short pipe. The pump energy for ground - source would therefore be substantially less, not more. To get a ballpark measure of how much so, let's assume that the furthest distance a ground- source loop could practically be located from one of Comell's existing chiller plants is a mile away. The total developed length of that loop would be two miles (out and back), plus the length of the buried loop - let's conservatively call that 1,000 feet. Given that, the total length of travel for water through the ground - source pipe would be less than 1/3 of the total length for LSC - with pump energy being proportional. There is, of course, more to it than that - for example, the heat exchangers required by LSC to keep lake water separate from campus water would have considerable resistance, which must be overcome by additional pump energy. But, given the conservative nature of the above calculation, it is safe to assume that a closed -loop ground- source system would consume less than 1/3 of the pump energy of LSC. Little's point regarding the vast acreage required for a horizontal, closed -loop, ground- source cooling system (in which water would circulate in extensive fields of small horizontal pipe buried about 5 feet deep) is well -taken - I agree that such a system can be dismissed as "non -feasible" offhand. But his rationales for rejecting the other ground- source options lack credibility. For example, Little dismisses open -loop ground-source cooling (in which well -water is used as a heat sink) based solely on the claim that an aquifer of sufficient capacity is "not available on East Hill." Once again, his assertion must be considered opinion, not fact, as Cornell did not investigate whether that is the case. Indeed, it would appear that Cornell avoided doing so; Ed Bugliosi of the U.S. Geological Survey District Office informed me that the USGS offered to assist Cornell in developing the necessary data -base to enable such a determination, but Cornell never acted on it. Given that open -loop would be the least expensive ground- source option - and far less expensive than LSC - the decision to dismiss it as "non feasible," without doing any feasibility studies, is simply irresponsible. As for vertical, ground- source cooling (in which water would circulate in numerous pipe loops installed in vertical bores), Little resorts to the deceptive use of big numbers to "prove" it to be "non- feasible." Yes, the roughly 7,000 holes such a system would require is a lot, and, yes, so is 1,200 miles of plastic pipe. But what Little doesn't mention is that only a single loop of 1" or 1 1/4" plastic pipe is inserted in each bore, that the pipe costs less than $0.25 per foot, that each hole would be only 4 to 6 inches in diameter, and that such a system would cost considerably less than LSC. Regarding area, Little claims that 300 acres would be required for sufficiently spaced bore holes but I calculate 100. Keeping within one mile of Cornell's three chiller plants would mean finding 33 to 100 suitable acres for locating the bores out of 2,010 - which seems eminently feasible to me. Little's statement that "ground-sourced systems were discussed in the final environmental impact statement" is both misleading and beside the point. The paltry few paragraphs he refers to - which were included only as a response to a public comment - do not contain detail "sufficient to permit a comparative assessment," as is required by New York State law. All in all, if Cornell's Facilities Department considered other "non-feasible options" with the same bias and lack of diligence with which it approached ground - source, then skepticism regarding their assertion that LSC is the most cost- effective solution is certainly warranted. The public - and, indeed, Cornell - deserves better. It is high time this project was put on hold pending the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement via a serious feasibility study of the alternatives to LSC. Sincerely, Noel Kurtz, PE 186 Besemer Hill Road Ithaca, NY 14850 -JED srgTSS o �Alo Q t PROIEG�2 Doria Higgins 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms, Higgins: COPY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 It - ---- -- - - -- JUL 2 0 f998 N, OFFICE OF WATER EPA has just developed a National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (enclosed). The basic message of this strategy is the following: When nutrient criteria are developed, they should be developed taking into account the regional nature of the area in question and the waterbody type being evaluated. In other words, the criteria for phosphorus, nitrogen or any other nutrient - related pararneter should consider the "natural" background level of the nutrient expected to be found in a distinct ecological region and waterbody type. The Clean Water Act has required States to designate specific "beneficial uses ", such as drinking water supply, fishing and swimming, or provision of habitat for aquatic species, for each of their water bodies. Assuming that New York has established such a beneficial use for Cayuga Lake, the process for setting criteria would look like this: 1 • Collect enough biological (chlorophyll a, algal biomass, fish and invertebrate community information) and chemical monitoring data (phosphorus, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen) to determine the state (trophic condition) of the lake so you can answer the question of whether the lake is already supporting beneficial uses such as swimming and fishing or is actually in a state of degradation (not meeting all the uses). To accomplish this for a lake (or a portion of the lake), such as the Cayuga, we would recommend that monitoring data from several Springs /Summers for the lake (or parts of the lake) be collected and analyzed. 29 If a reference condition (a condition representing pristine or minimally impacted water quality) can be identified in the lake, then that should be considered in the setting the water quality' gu>ii (water quality criterion) for the lake. Other information that should be considered in the development of criteria are: historical monitoring data, predictive water quality models, and the expert opinions of scientists familiar with the data and waterbodies in question. ^7 EPA has adopted this policy to avoid the application of one national number for the entire country. We realize that a criterion for phosphorus in New York may not apply to Florida or to other States in distinctly different ecological regions of the country. Another point of note, I I {dt t :j understand that New York State has developed a standard or goal for phosphorus of 20 ug/L for S s ra all lakes and reservoirs in the State. For more information on eutrophication and regulations to 1 + control excessive nutrient levels in your State waters, I would call John Zambrano at (518) 457- 1\0 t` 6997 or Jay Bloomfield at (518) 457 -0731 of the New York State DEC. In addition, you may ' t� "r 4 call Wayne Jackson, the Nutrient Coordinator of the EPA Region II office in New York City, at SPP4� 5' P'fv�%I.r Attachment #2 �4C. Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer) (212) 637 -3807. Please do not hesitate to call me once again (202) 260 -5546 if you need to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Robert Cantilli, Coordinator National Nutrient Criteria Program n 7T-1- +` J, 1 i TF3�<= •Tf�y�•�3% {y.�n ,. 1. •4 L/• 1i4., I•G .yrR� 4t•rJ� y :M p '1� 4. Tr W* " �• r, :.}:�� ... � �� •"113 � -�, , ?. .• ilti-. ►-Iwa Via/ yr - -- .�..�_.�•.; �4.;} �Il.(s .,�,...\. - _r.r+. fear Ip n 7T-1- +` J, 1 i TF3�<= •Tf�y�•�3% {y.�n ,. 1. •4 L/• 1i4., I•G .yrR� 4t•rJ� y :M p '1� 4. Tr W* " �• r, :.}:�� ... � �� •"113 � -�, , ?. .• ilti-. ►-Iwa Via/ yr - -- .�..�_.�•.; �4.;} �Il.(s .,�,...\. - _r.r+. fear n 7T-1- +` J, 1 i TF3�<= •Tf�y�•�3% {y.�n ,. 1. •4 L/• 1i4., I•G .yrR� 4t•rJ� y :M p '1� 4. Tr W* " �• r, :.}:�� ... � �� •"113 � -�, , ?. .• ilti-. ►-Iwa Via/ yr Pam 1 1 q .i y i Montessori School of Ithaca Dear Neighbor, (av'O j f E"') You probably saw the sand carved sign at the annex (117 East King Road) which we had up for the re- naming ceremony for our school. (It is similar to the new sign at t"e main building, but smaller.) We need special approval from the town and Board of Zoning Appeal to have it up as it is a bit bigger than the law aliuws. If"you feel it is appromnate aesthetically, we would appreciate you signing the bottom of this letter and placing it in our mailbox by July 15`h so that we can bring it to the meeting where a decision will be made. Thank you in advance for your help. We appreciate your support! Yours very truly, G��G Andrea B. Coby Riddle Administrator I have seen the proposed x si or 117 East King Road and feel it is appropriate. Name: �- Address: /3Z Attachment #4 � . 12o East King Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 . Phone /Fa-r 607 - 277 -7335 e -mail msiithaca @aol.com Dear Neighbor, Montessori School of Ithaca F1. You probably saw the sand carved sign at the annex (117 East King Road) which we had up for the re- naming ceremony for our school. at is similar to the new sign at the main building, but smaller.) We need special approval from the town and Board of Zoning Appeal to have it up as it is a bit bigger than the law allows. If you feel it is appropriate aesthetically, we would appreciate you signing the bottom of this letter and placing it in our mailbox by July '15'h so that we can bring it to the meeting where a decision will be made. Thank you in advance for your help Yours very truly, ��I�i1,C�tr'cl Andrea B. Coby Riddle Administrator We appreciate your support! I have seen the proposed Annex sign for 117 Fast King Road and feel it is appropriate. Name: Address: r 3 L- . lzo East King Road, Ithaca, New York 1485o . Attachment #4 Phone /Fa.Y 607 -777 -7335 e-mail msiithaca @aol.com Montessori School of Ithaca Dear Neighbor, Ti A1 Fi You probably saw the sand carved sign at the annex (117 East King Road) which we had up for the re- naming ceremony for our school. (It is similar to the new sign at the main building, but smaller.) We need special approval from the town and Board of Zoning Appeal to have it up as it is a bit bigger than the law ailows. if you feei it is appropriate aesthetically, we would appreciate you signing the bottom of this letter and placing it in our mailbox by July 15'' so that we can bring it to the meeting where a decision will be made. Thank you in advance for your help Yours very truly, Andrea B. Coby Riddle Administrator We appreciate your support! I have seen the proposed Annex s ggn. for 117 East King Road and feel it is appropriate. Name: Address: Attachment 414 r i 2� • 12o East King Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 . Phone /Fax 607- 27 7-i335 e -mail msiithaca @aol.com TDWPJ OF ITHACA, T6ZRNSM I T NY ID:60?2735�354 CONE I RMI:o- AT I OPT REPORT NO. 002 RECEIVER TRANSMITTER TOWN OF DATE NOV DURATION 00'41 MODE STD PAGES 01 RESULT OK *0012550291 ITHACA. NY J3'9S 22:16 NOV 03198 22:16 THOMAS W. WHITMORE 4 CRIMSON COURT (607) 6594538 CANDOR NY 13743 WORK EXPERIENCE Home Central Rich Street Candor, NY 13743 Responsible for inventory control of lumber yard (unloadings delivery trucks and stogcking lumber yard, etc...) and the distribution of lumber to customers. Computer use included checking inventory, prices, and ringing out customers. ROYAL CHRYSLER MOTORS, INC. ROUTE 17C OWEGO, NY 13827 Responsible for inventory control (unloading delivery trucks and stocking the parts, etc..) and5 parts /dstribution, in the service department. Dealing with the general public, vendors and other dealerships on a daily basis. Part time auto detailing. MACGUIRE FORD SOUTH MEADOW STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 Responsible for reconditioning, auto detailing, boat detailing and reconditioning (window t 0/95 vehicles at both dealerships in Ithaca and Trumansburg. 9 (vrindow tinting included) new and used TOPS FRIENDLY MARKETS SOUTH MEADOW STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 3/89 -2/95 Extensive experience in various departments in the store. Some of the duties and responsiblities included: store security, stocking shelbes, unloading delivery trucks, inventory control of bulk foods and dealing with the general public on a day -to- day basis. .JAMESWAY STATE ROUTE 17C OWEGO, NY 13827 Security guard - responsible for department store security, 9/93 -12/93 ity, apprehension of shoplifter, building checks and closing. J & L AUTO REFINISHERS WILLSEYVILLE SQUARE WILLSEYVILLE, NY 13812 Considerable experience in auto refinishing, body work, and detailing. SUMMER 1992 Vehidewindow tinting, auto detailing, miscellaneous roofing and remodeling ART -TIME SELF - EMPLOYED transmissions, oil changes, etc.. 9 projects with father. Experience in engin work, EDUCATION EXPERIENCE 1993 GRADUATE OF CANDOR CENTAL HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDED TOMPKINS COUNTY BOCES- CARPENTRY REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 21, 1998 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance proposed by Montessori School at the Montessori School Annex located at 117 East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43 -2 -7, R -15 Residence District. Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Peter Demjanec, Agent. 7:50 P.M, SEQR Determination, Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments Demolition, 120 Pleasant Grove Road. 8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along an existing walkway to be retained This will also include a general discussion of Cornell's future plans for the North Campus Residential Initiative. The proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68 -1 -11.2, MR Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Joni Carroll, Agent, 8:45 P.M. Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of additional athletic fields and facilities at Cornell University's Precinct 9, located behind and adjacent to the Reis Tennis Center off of Pine Tree Road on Tax Parcel No's 60 -1 -5, 60- 1 -8.2, 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, and 60- 1-18. Possible new facilities, as described on the "Site Sketch Plan, Precinct 9 Athletic Fields," dated 3/5/98 and revised 5/27/98, include two soccer fields, one multipurpose field, a changing facility, six indoor squash courts, an outdoor horse show ring at the Equestrian Center, and the reconfiguration of the existing parking areas in front of the Equestrian Center and Tennis Center. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 19, 1998; June 2, 1998; June 16, 1998 (in packet). 7. Other Business, 8, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Tuesday, July 21. 1998 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance proposed by Montessori School at the Montessori School Annex located at 117 East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, R -15 Residence District., Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Peter Demjanec, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along an existing walkway to be retained. The proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68 -1 -11.2, MR Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Joni Carroll, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: TOWN 1998 OF ITHACA Wednesday, July 15, PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, July 21. 1998 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance proposed by Montessori School at the Montessori School Annex located at 117 East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, R -15 Residence District., Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Peter Demjanec, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex at Cornell University, said project to consist of demolition and removal from the site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, regrading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegetative cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along an existing walkway to be retained. The proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68 -1 -11.2, MR Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Joni Carroll, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, July 13, 1998 Publish: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 ° The Ithaca Joumal Wednesday, July 15, 1998 TOWN OF "U Ad CANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC 'Ing Board of Appeals re. HEARINGS m o sign variance pro- Tuesday, July 21, 1998 by Montessori School i y d i r e c t i o n of t he Montessori School An- :hairPerson of the Planning located at 117 East King Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY on Town of Ithaca Tax 3IVEN that Public Hearings el No. 43 -2.7, R -15 Resi- vill be held by the Planning . District. Montessori loord of the Town of Ithaca ol Owner /Applicant; in Tuesday, July 21, 1998, jr Demjanec, Agent. it 126 East Seneca Street, D P.M. Consideration of Chaco, N.Y., at the following iminary t and Final Site imes and on the following i Approval for the .pro- natters: ad demolition of the 7:35 P.M. Consideration of isont Grove Apartment i Recommendation to the plex at Cornell Univer- soid projed to consist'of ��olition and removal from die site of up to 12 one -story apartment buildings, reg- rading the site and reseeding disturbed areas with vegeto- tive cover, and relocation of eight (8) streetlights to new locations along an existing walkway to be retained. The proposed project is located at 120 Pleasant Grove Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -1.1 and 68- 141.2, MR Multiple Resi- dence District. Cornell Univer- sity, Owner /Applicant; Joni Carroll Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.. Individuals with visual impoir- ments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must made such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public heorin s. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Dated: Monday, July 13, 1998 July 15, 1998 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen M. Van Etten sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca. New York on Tuesday, July 21 1998 commencing at t 7.30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting Date of Posting: Date of Publication: July 13, 1998 July 15, 1998 STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Bulletin Board, Front Entrance of Town Hall. / 1 CLLn :C/Lclr, Karen M.Van Etten, Secretary Town of Ithaca. Sworn to and subscribed before me this /5th day of J w r\Q .. 1998. da'ro 0 oJ& ublic. Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga County MY Commission Expires a