Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1999-11-02TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 2. 1999 The Town lof Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 2, 1999, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:36 p.m.); Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (8:43 p.m.); George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner. OTHERS (PRESENT: Marie Kayton, 318 Elmwood; C. Savidge, 108 Schuyler Place; M. Sheurp, 5659 Clara Dickson Hall; Becky Rounds, 7424 Low Rise 7; Marian Cutting, 10 The Byway; Rod Howe, 126 Judd Falls Road; Susan Murphy, 49 East Lake Road; John Ford, 102 Eastwood; Karen Westmont;! 206 Forest Home; Darrell Wilson, 205 Muriel Street; Bill Olney, 914 East State Street; Kathryn P1rybylski, 118 Look Street; Andrea Dutcher, 21 Besemer Road; John Kiefer, Cornell University;!,( Adam Lindenbaum; Kyllikki Inman, 110 Halcyon Hill; Margery & Frank Shipe, 236 Forest Home Drive; Adam Holler, 210 Lake Street Apt 6A; Bruce Church, 134 Judd Falls Road; Peter Eliason, 12 Estates Drive; Scott Hepburn, Ithaca Journal; Nancy Brcak, 228 Forest Home Drive; Stan Seltzer, 228 Forest Home Drive; Bruce & Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road; DP Loucks, 116 Crest Lane; Steve Wright, 32 Warren; Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Shirley Egan, Cornell University Council; Mark Costage, Costage Engineering; Jean Reese, Cornell University; Bill Wendt, Cornell University; !,:Joni Carroll, Cornell University, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:31 p.m., and accepted for the record the'' Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication posted in Town Hall on October 28, 1999, 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 October 28, 1999. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. AGENDA (ITEM: Continuation of consideration of (1) adoption of a Statement of Findings pursuant 'i to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act regarding Cornell University's propose North Campus Residential Initiative, (2) a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning from MR Multiple Residence to a new Recreational District for Cornell University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative, and (3) PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Preliminary Site Plan Approval regarding the North Campus project, located on the west side of Pleasant Grove Road and south side of Jessup Road on all or parts of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67- 1 -1.1, 68 =1 -11.1, 68 =1 -11.2, and 68AA2.2, comprising approximately 14.1 acres of land. The overall project in both the City and Town of Ithaca is proposed to consist of new dormitories to house up to 560 new students, a new "community commons" dining hall /student activities center, a new road connecting the existing South Balch Drive to Pleasant Grove Road, a new 138 space parking lot, three new soccer fields, tennis courts and basketball courts, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf, landscape Architects, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board held a public hearing on October 19, 19990 All members of the public and the applicant were given a chance to express their opinions and views ii on this project. It is now up to the board to begin its deliberations. Representatives of Cornell University 1,,are present. The board may also address individuals not associated with this project if there are questions. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the logical place to start is the Statement of Findings. The contents of the Statement of Findings are pursuant to SEQR and govern what will be done in regards to site plan. The board will have to address the rezoning issue. The Statement of Findings does include a reference to rezoning from MR to Recreational. The board should discuss the rezoning issue first'' At the Codes and Ordinances Committee meeting, the committee voted unanimously to recommend that the portion of this project in the Town of Ithaca be rezoned from MR to R -30. It is a change from the information that the board received previously. The board has been asked to provide a recommendation for a rezoning from MR to Recreational District. This issue needs to be dealt with first. Attorney Barney stated that the Statement of Findings relate to the site plan review. It does not relate lo the recommending responsibilities to the Town Board. It is not a SEAR action. The ii board may want to deal with the question of what will be recommended in terms of rezoning. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Statement of Findings does state under agency jurisdictions both site plan approval and recommendation to the Town Board with regard to request for rezoning from MR to Recreational District, Attorney Barney stated that it does not have to state that. Board Member Hoffmann asked how the board could deal with site plan if they have not decided what the zoning will be. Attorney Barney stated that it is a topic that needs to be discussed. Depending upon the recommendation, the site plan determination may be postponed until the Town Board has acted on the zoning. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that the alternative is to condition site plan approval on the zoning that this board recommends to the Town Board. Attorney Barney stated that the Statement of Findings relates to the site plan. Until the board knows what governs the site plan review, it might be difficult to approve the Statement of Findings. if The board, may want to deal with the issue of what is being recommended first. Then look at the findings in', the context of what is being recommended. Staff drafted a brief proposed local law for rezoning to R -300 Board Member Hoffmann stated that it does make sense to rezone the area to R -30. The area surroiunding the site is zoned R -30. Board Member Thayer stated that from the last discussion on October 19th, he got the feeling that the board felt that R -30 zoning was more appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox stated that other recreational land in the Town that is part of Cornell University!,is zoned R -30. The proposed use of this land is a use that goes along with the residence next door., Part of building dorms is having recreational facilities available for the students. Board Member Mitrano asked Attorney Barney if he disagreed with 11-30 rezoning. Attorney Barney stated that the original proposal was to rezone to R -30. There were concerns raised. R -30 has many possibilities for future uses. In an attempt to respond to the concern, alternatives were discussed related to a Recreational zone or a Special Land Use District tailored to the specific use proposed by Cornell University. Board Member Ainslie asked if restrictions could be put on R -30 if it was too broad. Attorney Barney Barne responded that it is difficult to rezone to R -30 and conditionally rezone. There is site plan approval required for an educational use in an R -30 zone as well as a special approval. The special approval requires an affirmative recommendation from the Planning Board and a final decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is a process in place where there will be review of the particular proposal and a determination made whether it meets the legal requirements. The difference !� between a special land use district, which would be tailored specifically, is that the uses approved could not be changed without an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. If it is rezoned R- 30 and a iproposal comes forward and it meets the criteria for special approval under the Zoning Ordinance, then the applicant is entitled to have it. In the future if the applicant comes forward with another use that is an educational use, they would be entitled to it. The Town is working on revising the Zoning Ordinance. This area may be rezoned into something more appropriate for University uses. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the only reason that it would be appropriate to rezone from MR is because of the parking lot. If one were to consider having the parking lot in the City, then the area would not need to be rezoned. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board could also recommend another zoning. The Town it Board has asked the Planning Board to make a recommendation from MR to Recreational District, The Planning Board needs to take a vote on that recommendation. Attorney Barney stated that the board could phrase it in the form of a motion that the Town Board referred the Recreational zone to the Planning Board. In review, it is the Planning Board's determination that instead of a Recreational zone it would be more appropriately rezoned to R -30. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board might decide in discussions that it is not necessary'dto rezone the area. Attorney Barney stated that would be the recommendation to the Town Board. Board Member Hoffmann asked why they could not make a recommendation after going through the findings and going through the site plan. If the parking lot were to be moved to the City, ii then a rezoning would not be necessary. Attorney Barney stated that if that is a concern, then the decision should be made before the rezoning. „Before the decision is made on approving a site plan, the board needs to know what set of rules theyl!iare operating under. That is not known until a recommendation is made and the Town Board acts upon it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would be appropriate to discuss these items at once. If the board decides one thing, then they lock themselves into looking at it in that way only. Attorney Barney stated that he does not have a problem with the board discussing anything. He suggested that the end result of the first discussion however long and comprehensive it may be, should be 'a recommendation of rezoning. Board Member Mitrano stated that the major issues are the parking lot, playing.fields and the Moore House. The zoning will then fall into place at the conclusion of that discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she feels that the win -win situation would be to leave the Moore House and fit the fields into the site. Staff and members of the public have shown that it is possible. Cornell University has only made verbal statements that it cannot be done. She would like to explore I'that option. Board Member Mitrano asked for staff to give their opinions on the fields. Mr. ! Kanter stated that staff has looked at a number of the alternative layouts that have been suggested by various entities or people. Mr. Frantz has prepared alternatives as well. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frantz stated that the board asked that they be given possible alternative configurations of the fields.'!', The big problem is the lack of grading plan. There is not enough space between the various fields to have the ideal slopes. Board Member Mitrano stated that the Town's position is that the preference would be with the original plan that Cornell University proposed. This would include moving the Moore House and maintaining the parking lots. MrJ Frantz stated that he is specifically addressing the proposals presented by Bruce and Doug Brittl'ain. There is the lack of a connection for the bikeway. The proposal that he made shifts the northerly field southward. The retaining wall allows the Moore House to remain on site with the fields and' the parking lot. This proposal does force the shift of Sission Place and the parking lot westward., The purpose of this exercise was to prove that it is technically feasible. One issue is if it is an appropriate layout to have a 12 -foot high retaining wall 35 feet from the Moore House. There is a loss of vegetation in this area. There is the question of whether this creates an attractive residential situation. Another question is if it is possible for Cornell University to use the Moore House for academic Purposes, Board Member Mitrano asked Ms. Wolf to give Cornell University's position on this proposal. Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf, stated that the corner of the field is 3 feet from the arkin p 9 lot. Safety standards for playing fields require 10 to 15 feet run off space. This is 10 to 15 feet of flat area around the perimeter of the fields. The run off space in this location is 12 feet into the parking lot. There' is no run off space on the south end in terms of having a flat area. The students would be running into the sidewalk and field below. Board Member Hoffmann stated that neither is true of plan L3 that is being proposed by Cornell University. It also has a drop off in the grading in the same area. Mss Wolf stated that on the north end the 10 -foot high wall is on the 10 -foot line from the fields. In the end zone there would be a retaining wall. The current grading shows a 6 -foot drop across the length of the field. This would mean that one of the teams would be playing up hill. This would be I', an unfair disadvantage. It is o.k. to drop grade across the field so that it is evenly distributed. It could be corrected on this plan. The result is that the retaining wall is higher. The biggest safety hazards are the location of the field 3 feet from the parking lot and 10 feet from the retaining wall. There would need to be a fence or shrubbery on top of the wall so that people in the yard of the Moore House would not fall over the wall. Their interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance has been that MR views the field as an accessory use. Board Member Mitrano asked if Cornell University's position at this point is that they could accommodate keeping the Moore House there, but they would prefer the original plan. Ms Wolf stated that Mr. Frantz's scheme shows that it is possible to put the field there. They have always acknowledged that. They have not seen anyone come up with a scheme and they were PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED not able to come up with a scheme that allowed the field to co -exist with the Moore House, The 3 fields are a ''replacement in kind. It is essential to the educational mission of achieving the goals of the North Campus project. They have not seen a scheme that allows the program that is required to accomplish that mission to co -exist with the house. Board Member Mitrano stated that Cornell University would prefer the board to go with the original plan. Board Member Conneman asked what co -exist meant. The parking lot could be eliminated. If parking lots„ are built, people park in them. Do not build them. Mr. Wendt has done that on Central Campus for, many years. Mr. Wolf stated that almost 75% of the parking that is being built are a replacement for existing parking. It is not all -new parking. More than 50% replaces what is currently at Helen Newman Hall. It has been strongly acknowledged that it is a high demand lot. It is not a new parking program. It is relocating parking. Helen Newman Hall is a very popular place. This is where the concern of off - peak traffic is generated. There are metered spaces because it is a very heavily used facility throughout lithe day. The additional parking services the new Community Commons. The University feels that for this to work properly there needs to be parking associated with the buildings. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the number of parking spaces that exist now west of Helen Newman are proposed to be reduced. drastically. If they could remain there, then the proposed parking lot would not need to be as large. Ms. Wolf stated that there is not a lot of space to reconfigure what is present and eliminate the existing safety problem. People stop to wait for a space to free up. The cars end up backing up onto South Balch Drive. The entire reason for reconfiguring the parking lot is to eliminate that safety issue. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not think the way to eliminate the behavioral problem of,, the drivers is to reduce the number of parking spaces. Ms. Wolf stated that she would disagree. It is a dead end lot. There is no way to get out of the parking lot. There needs to be 2 driving lanes instead of one. The additional space eliminates a bay of parking. If the space were there, the University would put the spaces in. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the throughway could be made one -way. It would eliminate the problem of having space for two -way traffic. There are ways of dealing with it. Board Member Conneman stated that there are a lot different schemes that appear to be possible. Ms. Wolf stated that she has made xerox enlargements of the plans that were submitted at the October 19th meeting by Doug and Bruce Brittain, Figure 3 eliminates the parking. It is not the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED i Moore House versus any single component. Each one of the elements is integral to achieving the overall educational mission. Schemes have been looked at that had buildings located where the Pleasant Grove Apartments were located. Alternative 4 is dependent upon moving the proposed location of the intersection between Pleasant Grove Road and the new road further south. There was extensive engineering analysis done to determine the safest location for the new intersection. Mr. Costage is the engineer that analyzed several alternatives for the location of the intersection. Mark Costage, Costage Engineering, stated that they were responsible for looking at the various alternatives. First they look at existing driveways. Most municipalities encourage the utilization Pof existing driveways. They use the DOT handbook for entrances to State highways. There are'six areas that they look at when doing so. The most important is sight distance. Access management, pedestrian crossings all come into play. Two types of sight distances are evaluated when looking at an intersection. The first is the intersection sight distance. The cars at the entrance need to be able to see in order to pull out. The other is the ability for an automobile to look forward and make',, the left in. They found that there was no problem in the sight distance to the left. To the right it was measured to be 178 feet where 260 feet is required. The sight distance in this location was a problem. The other criteria looked at were the points of conflict. Access management needs to be looked at anytime they do an entrance. There are 3 points of conflict that would exist. The idea is to," those: An aligned driveway is the best thing to do. They always try to put pedestrian crossings in the same proximity as the intersection. Grading was not a problem. There are not significant grades in either direction. The problem with the driveway is the short sight distance. It goes from horizontal curvature in the road to vertical curvature.li They did look at the existing driveway to the observatory. They looked at the sight distance to the right and left. They meet the requirements. To the right you can see down the hill. To the left it meets the requirements based upon the observer and the object being at full height. The sight distance that bothers them the most is the left turn that is required when coming up the hill. It is 178 feet when it should be 260 feet. The slope is a problem on slippery pavement conditions. They did analyze what grades would be there. Mr.l Costage stated that they then looked at the proposed location. There is no problem with sight distance. To the right of the intersection they meet the minimum requirement. There is not a problem with the left turn. The pedestrian crossings could be located immediately adjacent to the intersection. The grades are not a problem and they meet all requirements. They are able to eliminate a: n intersection and they are able to align the intersection. The geometry of the intersection is 90 degrees. There is clear sight distance both ways. They felt that this location was most desirable. They have a turning radius that works. This was discussed with the County and they concurred llwith the results. Ms. Wolf stated that the point was that it is not feasible to relocate the location of the intersection. If the intersection is reinstated at the recommended location Alternative 4 no longer becomes possible. There is not enough grade to include both tennis courts and the fields. Alternative 5 shows that Pleasant Grove Road would continue on into the site. A new intersection would be created to traffic calm the road that goes directly into Forest Home. It is their position that PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED this is not the appropriate place to do this. The University has suggested this idea and has suggested that it could happen as part of the north entrance to the campus. The thought being that perhaps near A -Lot Pleasant Grove Road could potentially be configured to have the main thrust of traffic onto Cornell University property. The goal is to traffic calm Pleasant Grove Road. Traffic would then be directed to the A -Lot. This would capture a lot of vehicles. Board Member Conneman stated that the northern entrance to the campus was proposed 30 years ago, Nothing has happened. How soon would that happen? Ms.: Wolf stated that they couldn't answer how long it would take. The University does not have the 'power to make it happen on their own. There are multiple jurisdictions involved. The County owns the road. The University has demonstrated an effort to proceed with it. There has been a formal request to Fernando de Argon. He has agreed to take leadership in coordinating the effort. There have been discussions held with each of the municipalities regarding that. The conversations have begun. It is not possible for Cornell University alone to make it happen. Mr. de Argon supports it and thinks that it is a good idea. He feels that it reinforces the goals of NESTS. He is eager to pursue it himself. Board Member Conneman asked if there have been any sketches. Ms.'l, Wolf stated that there were a couple of diagrams suggested in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. They were not designs. They were concepts. These ideas were discussed and explored with each of the municipalities. The intention is to get each jurisdiction's input as to what they would agree to. Then they would move towards a scheme based on that. Ms' ! Wolf stated that Alternative 6 is dependent on relocating the new intersection further south. They have addressed why they believe it is not appropriate given the safety issues. 11 Board Member Conneman asked Bruce Brittain the difference between Alternative 6 and 8. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to hear the reasons from the Brittains for proposing ',the roads in the way that they did. Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road, stated that the grading scheme slopes to the west. It is relatively uniform. They have taken the same fields and tennis courts and rearranged them north and south. If there is this much slope, it might not be the appropriate location for level fields. They did try several different road layouts. Alternative 3 is the University's proposed road eliminating the parking lot. This makes the grading much easier. There are fewer items to try and arrange. There is a concern of eliminating the parking lot. Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road, stated there is an elevation drop. There are 2 playing fields and tennis' courts. They are proposing 2 playing fields and tennis courts in the same location. There is the sam',e distance, same elevation drop and the same width of flat space. Therefore, on average, PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, NOVEMBER 2, 1999 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Alternative' 3 is identical to their slopes. If their grading is okay then the grading in Alternative 3 is o.k. Mr. IIB. Brittain stated that Mr. Costage looked at the sight distance of the existing intersection. There is a!Problem coming up the hill and turning left. They attempted to address this by making the left hand turn farther north and to come around the corner to where the sight distance is okay. This then allows a safe left hand turn. Making it an all -way stop can further reduce the sight distance. Sight distance is a rough way of measuring time. Requiring a stop sign would allow the required sight distance to be smaller. Board Member Hoffmann asked if he was saying that there should be a stop sign for cars coming upl,the hill going north. Mr. !'B. Brittain stated that there could be, but then you are getting into the grade problem. It does not need to be moved as far north as proposed. Mr. D. Brittain stated that Cornell University would like the intersection further north. The intersection is wasting as much space as their parking lot or the Moore House. If they want the parking in addition to the house they have been provided an alternative. for how it can be done. Mr. I'iB. Brittain stated that the major concern with Alternative 5 is that the predominant traffic flow was from Pleasant Grove Road down into the new road. It does make sense that the new road will serve as the entrance to campus until such time as a north entrance is built. This will work for now and when a new northern entrance to campus is put in, that will stop the traffic that is heading to campus. The residual traffic that is left should not be left going into the site. Mr. 'IiB. Brittain stated that Alternative 6 uses the existing Fuertes Drive intersection. There are problems with this design. Alternative 7 was similar to Alternative 4, but with a connection from the top end of!'the parking lot to Sission Place. It will not have an effect on traffic. It should help with on site circulation. Alternative 8 was to take that one step further and eliminate the parking lot as a parking lot and extend the parking lot along the Sission Place. It would not be a thoroughfare with parking on it. It would be a long linear parking lot. The advantage is that it fits in better. It is less of an intrusion. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. B. Brittain could show the split intersection. Mr. 113, Brittain stated that the sugar maple would remain. The outbound traffic could stay in the same location. Sight distance is excellent. Inbound traffic intersection would be further north. The sight 'distance would be good. The old Pleasant Grove apartment intersection does not have as good sight!„distance down. Mr. I'D. Brittain stated that sitting in a car at the Pleasant Grove apartment intersection you are able to sere down around the corner. Looking to the left allows the person to see to the Cayuga Heights line. There is a dip in the road, but the roof of the car could be seen. The split does make a PLANNINGIIBOARD PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED nice grand entrance to the campus. The numbers mentioned in the draft Environmental Impact Statement for parking show that there are 35 metered parking spaces next to Helen Newman. They are leaving twelve. Twenty -three spaces are moving east to the new parking lot. There are currently 60 spaces) in front of Helen Newman. In the draft Environmental Impact Statement they state that they are being eliminated. They say that 30 of these people will find other parking lots. The other 30 will park in!I the new lot. The total replacement is 53. The other 85 parking spaces are new. Chairperson Wilcox asked Doug and Bruce Brittain to state their qualifications. Mr.'j B. Brittain stated that he has a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, a Masters in Agricultural Engineering, a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Human Factors and Safety Engineering. He has been doing transportation planning and engineering for a number of years. He was involved in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, NESTS study and a variety of transportation related issues. Mr. D. Brittain stated that he has a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering and a Masters in Technology and Policy. He has a transportation major within the Technology and Policy field. 0 Ms.' Wolf stated that there are 60 spaces existing in the lot north of Helen Newman Hall. There are) 35 existing in the metered lot. This is a total of 95 spaces. The proposed lot is 155. Twelve spaces are retained in their existing location west of Helen Newman Hall, The 60 spaces that currently exist north of Helen Newman Hall are replaced in the new lot, as are the 23 metered spaces. This totals 83 replacement spaces. There are 60 new spaces. It appears that they are going to loose additional spaces along Sission Place to make the grading work for the field. There is no increase in the parking. Ms.' Wolf stated that the draft Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that the Alternative 1 mitigates the impact of the project. In their original comments about the draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Brittains wrote and stated that they would prefer to see circulation'' Alternative 1. They have put forward circulation Alternative 1. It mitigates the impact of the project and has the potential to further reduce traffic. It was the finding of the City that that is the responsibility of the project. It is not the responsibility of this project to mitigate some other existing condition.'' Board Member Mitrano asked Ms. Wolf what she has degrees in. Ms, ''� Wolf stated that she has a Bachelor in Horticulture, Masters in Landscape Architecture, and course work towards Masters in Historic Preservation. Board Member Ainslie stated that two sites have been offered by Cornell University to house the Moore House. The board has visited both sites. Cornell University would provide the money to move the house. If the Moore House is to remain on its current site, what will happen to it? Ms Wolf stated that there is no use that has been identified. There is no plan if the house is to remain ',on its current site. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ainslie stated that Cornell University is not going to give $40,000 to have the house remain on site. Would the house be given to Historic Ithaca if the house remains in its current location? If not, what will be done with the house? Who is going to keep the Moore House in an attractive state? Ms. Wolf stated that the University has not been able to find a use for the house. There is no identified tenant for the house. There is no plan. It is difficult to know what would happen if the University were forced into that situation. They have not been able to find a tenant for that space. There are many departments at Cornell University that need space for different reasons. Facilities Planning keeps a list of all available spaces on campus and people looking for space. They have been through that process. There was not a match found. Board Member Thayer asked if it would be possible or practical for Cornell University to give the property to Historic Ithaca at that point. Shirley Egan, University Counsel, stated that they have had this discussion at the highest levels of the University. It has been a policy that for lands that are very close to the campus that the University would not deacquisition it. It would retain it. There might be a ground lease. This is done on a number of properties. A ground lease was authorized for the site further north on Pleasant Grove Road, Cornell University is going to be here in another 300 years. It is not known what this area would look like. Cornell University would not want to give up ownership of a piece of land in that location. Board Member Conneman stated that part of the North Campus Residential Initiative is to include students in small group learning. Susan Murphy, Vice President at Cornell University, stated that it is true that they do intend to increase their academic linkages to the residential program. They would intend to do that within the building that the students are living in and not have them walk across fields in winter to get to the location. They are looking to open up the public rooms within the residence halls. The design of the facility would require enormous changes to the building. Board Member Mitrano asked if the house remained in its location, could Cornell University demolish it. Ms. Egan responded that it is her recollection that at the time the board authorized the demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartments it made a condition of that motion that nothing be done to the Moore House. They feel it is good historic preservation to move it a short distance away. Forty -eight different apartment houses, dormitories and residence halls surround the Moore House. Another single family house cannot be seen from there. It would be in the house's best interest if it could be near other single - family houses. Anytime you try to turn a house into something that it was never intended to be it is a make -do. It harms the house. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Mitrano stated that if the house remains on site and the house becomes a problem, Cornell University could ask that it be demolished. Ms. Egan stated that realistically Cornell University would be asking the board to move the house. There is plenty of interest in the house in the community. It would not lack for someone to take care of it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is enough interested faculty that would be interested in living in the house. The board has already seen that this house has been recognized as a historic property that is worth preserving regardless of who owns it. This house was here long before the University. This house is an old house for this area. Board Member Mitrano stated that she is a historian. The house could move and she feels that it would be happier in another location. She might be one of the faculty that might live in a faculty house. She would prefer to live up the street in the house. She will vote for the Cornell University plan as it is. The board has looked over the plans and heard both sides of the project. She is prepared to vote. Board Member Ainslie stated that the owners of the property next to the property north on Pleasant Grove Road have been trying to get aged trees out of their front yard. The trees would need to be removed if the house were to move to this site. The neighbor would be very gratified if the trees are removed. If this house were in the center of campus, no one would want the house changed. This house is on the perimeter of Cornell University. Board Member Conneman stated that it could be the center of campus. Board Member Mitrano stated that it is not an original campus building. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is a building that has a strong connection to another part of this community that is not closely connected to the University. It is closely connected to Forest Home. Board Member Thayer stated that it would not work as a single - family dwelling. It will have a 12 -foot wall in its backyard. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board just looked at a proposal that showed it was possible. It may not be the happiest solution. There are many advantages and disadvantages. It is possible to have the fields and the house. The solution that Mr. Frantz showed might not be the best solution. Board Member Thayer stated that it is definitely possible. The practicality is questionable for the house. It is not practical for the Moore House. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 1 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Ainslie stated that he is concerned about the maintenance of the house. Who would maintain the house? Board Member Conneman stated that Cornell University would be responsible. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Board Member Ainslie has read the letter from the New York State Preservation Office. Board Member Ainslie stated that no one has come up with an idea of what will happen to the house. Board Member Conneman stated that if he had a program on campus and he was offered the Moore House, he would take it. If one takes half of one percent of the $65 million that Cornell University will spend, and it is put into some innovative ways of doing things for the Moore House it could be beautiful. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the letter from the State Historic Preservation Office said that typically 3 to 5% is used for mitigating measures. The $40,000 is closest to 1/20 of 1 percent. There is a lot of money that could be available for the house. Board Member Ainslie asked if Board Member Hoffmann could visualize a single family living in the house in that environment. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she could envision it just as easily as seeing a faculty member living in one of the houses. It could be a residence for faculty in a separate building. Board Member Ainslie stated that someone is going to have to put money into the house to maintain it: The house is going to be given to Historic Ithaca. They would sell the house. They might make $200,000. Historic Ithaca could use that money for something very productive. Board Member Mitrano stated that if she were to move her children into the house, they would need to remove all the lead paint and asbestos. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would need to be done for a private family as well. Cornell University does not need to rent the house to a family with children. Board Member Thayer stated that the house would need to be completely renovated to come to any practical use. It would ruin its appearance as a single family home. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the University could use the house as a residence. Visiting faculty or faculty advisors could use the house. Mr. Kanter asked if Cornell University would be willing to follow SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) commentary that whatever it takes to move the house to ensure the impacts are PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED properly mitigated. If it is more than $40,000 is Cornell University willing to pay more? Is Cornell University willing to follow the guidelines set forth by SHPO? Ms. Wolf stated that Cornell University is willing to meet the guidelines set forth by SHPO. The way it is executed would be worked out between Cornell University and Historic Ithaca. Cornell University is responsible to make sure that it is executed consistent with what SHPO has laid out. Historic Ithaca is interested in taking leadership in doing any renovations and preservation work. They would, then recover that cost as part of the resale. If Historic Ithaca were to back out, Cornell University would still be responsible to make sure it happened. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Cornell University has agreed to provide the lot. She thought that Cornell University agreed to donate the land in Forest Home, but the lot on Pleasant Grove Road would be retained by Cornell University, Ms. Wolf stated that the lot on Pleasant Grove Road would be a long -term lease. Ms. Egan stated that Cornell University generally charges rent for their properties. This would be provided for $1.00. They are providing the land. Ordinarily they would appraise the lot to get a fair rental value and then charge rent. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not know if he has decided his position. In the Town of Ithaca there are soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, parking lot, the Moore House, walkways, bikeways and a road. There is a plan that fits them all in except the Moore House. There could just as easily be a plan that keeps the Moore House and eliminates one of the other features. Each board member has to decide which of the various puzzle pieces that Cornell University would like to put on this property can be removed. Mr. Frantz has pointed out that it can be done, but is it a reasonable thing to do. He would not want a retaining wall 35 feet from the Moore House, Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has said that he favors keeping the Moore House there. To keep the Moore House there because it preserves its historical context means that it needs a lot of yard around it. He has thought about the basketball courts on the far northern end of the property. This is a great corner piece of property for the Moore House. If this is going to be a livable unit where it is currently located, then it needs to have a lot of room around it. That means that one item needs to go. He would love to have the Moore House remain on site. He would be deeply concerned about the potential for the house to deteriorate if the house remains on site. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he could count on Cornell University not allowing that to happen because of the wrath that they would take from the community. It would be a bad public relations move to let the house sit and deteriorate. Part of the reason the house is important to the community is because of who built the house and what he meant to Forest Home. The house was turned into a Greek revival this century. If it is moved, he prefers it be moved to Forest Home. There may be issues with moving the house to Forest Home. It is the surroundings of the house that help make it important. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the house was turned into a Greek revival in the 19th century. It was originally a federal style house. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has not come to a decision. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Frantz retained everything in place. With the constraints of the walkway, he showed how the fields could be located. What is the possibility of having the road aligned the way the Brittain brothers suggested. Mr. 'Kanter stated that he would recommend strongly against moving the intersection anywhere near the curve in the hill. It would be creating an unsafe condition. He does like the idea of consolidating the intersection with the Hasbrouck intersection. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she feels having one road in and one out is possible. This will not be the main throughway for traffic when the northern entrance is constructed. Mr. Kanter stated that the total realignment of the intersection would require a different process. Board Member Mitrano asked what the standard is by which they evaluate these plans. Attorney Barney responded that there are 3 standards in the Zoning Ordinance. One is a need for the proposed use, the second is the existing and probable future character will not be adversely affected by the proposal and that the proposed use is in accordance of the Comprehensive Plan. The "site plan criteria are laid out better and there are more of them. Board Member Mitrano stated what if the board felt that Cornell University meets the criteria. Attorney Barney stated that it is more of a guide for the board in making the recommendation. It does not limit the board. In order to make a recommendation the board must find at least these three items. Board Member Mitrano asked if the board did an approval that kept the Moore House on site, could Cornell University demolish the house. Is there anything preventing them from demolishing the house? Attorney Barney stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to prevent them. He does not know if there are restrictions with the State Historical designation. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the house at the present time is eligible for inclusion on the National Register, Mr. Kanter stated that it triggers the SHPO review. There is funding proposed that would make use of State Dormitory Authority Funds. It gives SHPO some involvement. His interpretation of the letter is that they have found that the proposed move of the house is a good opportunity for long term preservation. They actually say that if this board finds some other solution that is more PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED appropriate than moving it that they would also support that. They would also then try to find a way to ensure the house's long term preservation. Board Member Mitrano stated that the Moore House is on Cornell University property. It is their house. There have been reasonable proposals to accommodate the house. If it is between the items, the house is the item to go. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Historic Ithaca has in principal agreed to the proposal put forth by Cornell University. He is interested in understanding why they agreed to it. If a member of the board who could speak for Historic Ithaca could say that they would prefer to see it there, but realizing the realities of the situation, moving it is the best alternative. Board Member Thayer stated that Ed Franquemont did address it. Board Member Hoffmann asked how SHPO deals with these items. Nancy Brcak, 228 Forest Home, stated that once the building is designated as eligible it is protected. Historic Ithaca laid out its position in a letter to Supervisor Valentino dated September 21, 1999. It should be clear that Historic Ithaca was always thinking about the historic building and not about any cash prize. Historic Ithaca is not looking to make a profit from the house. It further states that Historic Ithaca decided it could not trust Cornell University to value the building. Truly valuing the building would mean leaving the house on its current site and allowing it a proper value. They decided it would not happen. Ms. Brcak stated that she has looked at a lot of campuses and historic buildings on or near campuses: Many institutions find a way of preserving the heritage of the community and University. It is hard to present yourself as a community member when you state the building is in the way and it is not part of Cornell University. It is part of the Ithaca Community, Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are many older buildings on modern campuses. They are used in various ways. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board needs to discuss traffic. The board has talked about the site. Parking also needs to be discussed. Board Member Thayer asked if they could suggest a four -way stop be put at the new intersection. Attorney Barney stated that it is a County Road, Cornell University does not have the authority to install the stop signs. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this board has previously made a recommendation to the Town Board that they write a letter to the State or the County requesting a reduction in speed limit. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ainslie stated that asking for a speed reduction is less of a problem than asking for a °complete stop. Board Member Hoffmann stated that many times people do not obey speed reduction signs. It is more likely that people stop at stop signs. Board Member Ainslie stated that the stop signs might cause a pile up of traffic at certain times of the day. It will be a hazard in bad weather. Chairperson Wilcox stated that someone suggested putting a stop sign at the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road and the road to Fuertes. It would be a stop sign for people coming up the hill. It would be impossible for people to make it up the hill in the winter. Chairperson Wilcox stated that someone mentioned moving the parking lot to the City of Ithaca. The City of Ithaca has given Final Site Plan Approval. This board can approve something that does not align with the City. This board needs to do what is best for the Town. There needs to be sound reasoning before the board suggests an alternative that causes problems. Board Member Ainslie asked if the City's approved plan goes along with the Cornell University plan. Chairperson Wilcox responded that the plans before the board are consistent with what the City has approved. Ms. Wolf stated that there was one condition that a bus pull -off be added in front of Helen Newman. Mr. Frantz stated that there has been concern about the reduced speed in front of Helen Newman Hall. The concern is that it might be too restrictive. It may discourage new traffic. Board Member Ainslie asked if the area in front of Helen Newman is raised. Mr. Frantz responded that it is not raised. They have changed it to look like a street with a definite crosswalk. It will not discourage anyone from driving through. Board Member Hoffmann asked where the tops of the light fixtures would be with respect to the trees. Mr. Frantz stated that the tops of the light fixtures are going to be below the telescope lens of the Observatory. They are going to be below the rooftop decks on the western wing of the Observatory. The 20 400t high lights that Cornell University is proposing are in the range of 6 or more feet below this elevation. The lamps are going to be well below the eye level of anyone using Fuertes. They are going to be down cast with no upward spillage into the atmosphere. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked if this would also be true of the lights along the footpath between the fields. Will they be the same height as the parking lot lights? Ms. Wolf stated that all footpath lights are 16 feet high. Mr. Frantz stated the footpath lights are a distance from Fuertes. There are trees that block the lights from Fuertes. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is looking at the letter addressed to Ms. Wolf from SRS Associates. It states that all impacts to peak and off peak traffic flow surrounding north campus are less than in comparison to the originally proposed plan. The last paragraph states that all impacts to peak and off peak traffic flow surrounding north campus are less than in comparison to the originally proposed plan. It also states that as a result of Circulation Alternative 1 resulting peak and off peak traffic volumes are actually less than existing isolated traffic flows in the roadway network surrounding the site. Ms. Wolf stated that she is referring to a diagram showing the alternative routes of traffic flow. The 3 colors show the 3 alternative routes to get from Pleasant Grove Road to Central Campus. The traffic analysis has indicated that the new South Balch Drive provides an alternative to George Jessup and Triphammer Route. It provides an alternative to the Forest Home route. The traffic analysis projects that in addition to reducing traffic impact from the original scheme, it will in the future cause a slight reduction in the other routes. Counts were taken at each of the intersections. Some of the intersections show a decrease. Not every intersection showed a decrease. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this letter is not part of the draft Environmental Impact Statement or Final Environmental Impact Statement. Attorney Barney stated that the if the board wants to use the letter it should be amended into the Environmental Impact Statement. The board should not rely on this when it is not part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. D. Brittain stated that he was concerned with the same sentence as Chairperson Wilcox. He interpreted the sentence as meaning that the traffic flows on Circulation Alternative 1 will be less than existing isolated flow. There is nothing in the draft Environmental Impact Statement that supports that the traffic will be reduced all day. There was no off peak analysis with Circulation Alternative 1. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is an issue with the amount of traffic calming measures that are implemented along that route. He is concerned about traffic in Forest Home. It may take a while for people to realize that there is an alternative route. Board Member Conneman stated that during the public hearing there was a question raised about how much traffic the special events would generate that would take place in the Community Commons. Would there be special events while school is out of session? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Wolf stated that there was an allegation that the third floor on the Community Center would be a convention center. It is not the intention of the third floor. The space has been designed for student "use. The predominant use will be physical education classes. It may be used for aerobics, ballroom dancing, and rehearsals of performance groups. The new residence halls will house summer conference attendees. It is also anticipated that some conference activities would occur there 'as they currently do. Anyone attending the conference is required to park in the CC Lot. They will not be using the new lot. Board Member Hoffmann asked if only undergraduates would use this facility. Ms. Wolf stated that Helen Newman is cramped. There is an increasing demand for weight lifting equipment. The intention is to move some of the programming from Helen Newman into the new Community Commons. This allows expanded space for the existing programs. Some of the programs may be geared towards the North Campus residents. Nothing will change at Helen Newman Hall. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thought the new Community Commons would also have dining. Ms. Wolf stated that dining is on the second floor. The third floor is the large space that will have the physical education. Board Member Hoffmann asked if this would be only for first year students. Jean Reese, Cornell University, stated that the dining units are predominantly used for students. They do not advertise to the outside community. If someone from Forest Home or Cornell University Heights wishes to have a meal at the Community Commons it is allowed. Upper class students might also use the facility. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the people who drive would park in the parking lot with meters. Ms. Reese stated that the students would not drive. The metered parking lot is available for parking. Ms., Wolf stated that all freshmen are going to be on North Campus. Upper class students do not try to mingle down. It will be predominately freshmen. Board Member Ainslie asked if it was optional that freshmen live on campus. Ms. Wolf stated that no one is required to live on campus. If a freshman requests to live on campus, h °e or she will be located on North Campus. They can live off campus. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frantz stated that he has looked at the floor plan of the Community Commons and compared it to Robert Purcell, Noyes, and Emerson Suites at Ithaca College. It is a student union building. The dining hall of 624 seats is a two -level dining hall. This is part of the confusion where some members of the public believe that it is a separate facility. The dining hall is a bi -level facility. There are two large stairwells between the second floor and the third floor. The third floor has a large program room. It can be divided into three separate rooms. These are common facilities in any student union. The ground floor has the mailboxes and fitness center. It could be used on occasion for conference purposes. This is already happening at Cornell University and institutions of higher education. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this board has in the past approved site plans with reduced parking than what has been asked for. The site plan then shows the area reserved for parking lot expansion. He is not convinced that Cornell University needs as many spaces as they have asked for. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want to have more asphalt than necessary. He is inclined to reduce the parking spaces and have an area reserved for additional spaces. Fewer parking spaces also discourage people from driving there. They may be inclined to walk or park in a different lot. Ms.''Wolf stated that she has been involved in many meetings to determine how many parking spaces are needed. Cornell University is not interested in building more parking spaces than needed. If they do not build enough there is a potential for cars to drive until they find a parking space. The hope is to have the right balance. Eighty -three of the proposed spaces are replacement - parking spaces. Twelve parking spaces remain on the west side. The balance is 60 new parking spaces. It °was determined that there will be approximately 56 new employees that come on a regular daily shift. Not all the employees are anticipated to park in this lot. They looked at the record of all the employees. There is a certain percentage that park in perimeter lots and take the bus. This parking lot requires the purchase of a parking permit. Some people may take the bus from home. Others carpool. The same distribution was applied to the number of new employees. The net affect is that 30 11employees will park in the lot. They also estimated that there would be 20 new users generated by the facilities. This gives a total of 50 parking spaces. The ten additional is for surge demand. There needs to be a buffer for special events. The grading for the third field means that they are going to lose additional spaces along Sission Place. Board Member Hoffmann asked how many parking spaces are expected to be lost along Sisson Place, Ms. Wolf stated that the current count is 12. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there would be some metered spaces. Joni Carroll, Cornell University, stated the parking lot west of Helen Newman Hall. the new lot. that there are currently 75 metered parking spaces in The proposal is to have 40 metered parking spaces in PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked if the remaining parking spaces were open to people with parking permits. Ms. Wolf stated that a permit is required to park in the remaining spaces. Board Member Hoffmann asked what type of permit and how much it would cost. Bill Wendt, Cornell University, stated that the permit category is an "R Permit ". It is about $250 per year. It is mainly faculty and staff parking. Student parking for residence halls is in the "CC Lot". Board Member Hoffmann asked since the majority of the 56 new employees are custodians and kitchen staff, would their salaries allow them to afford to buy the permit. Mr. Wendt stated that they have good counts for their employees. There are many that park in A -Lot, ride the bus and carpool. When you carpool to Cornell University, the R Permit is issued at no cost to them. Many employees carpool because they are on the same shift. Mr. Frantz stated that the number of spaces in the parking lot has fluctuated over the last few months. The last count by staff was 138 parking spaces. That is a total of 150 parking spaces. Ms. Wolf stated that it is a 150 -space parking lot. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the first item the board must look at is a recommendation to the Town Board to rezone. Based upon what the board has heard from the public, and the board's deliberations and discussions, what does the board think the zoning in this area should be? Does the board want to recommend it be left MR, rezone it to a Recreational District or R -30? Board Member Hoffmann asked how much of this area would be rezoned R -30. Is the Observatory in the MR zone? 30. Mr. 'Frantz stated that it is zoned R -30. Mr. Kanter stated that the area zoned MR west of Pleasant Grove Road would be rezoned R- Board Member Hoffmann stated that the area north of Jessup Road is already built on. Mr. Frantz stated that area is the Cornell Townhouses, Attorney Barney stated that Cornell University owns the area as a school use. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Larry Thayer. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED BE IT RESOLVED: 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board finds that the development of a new Recreational District in conjunction with Comell University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative is premature at this point, but that such a zone may warrant review in conjunction with the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance revisions that are currently underway, as to whether and where such a zone may be appropriate in the Town of Ithaca, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby further finds that: a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected by the original proposed zoning from MR Multiple Residence to R -30 Residence, and c. Rezoning the North Campus area from MR Multiple Residence to R -30 Residence District would be in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993), which designates the project site and surrounding area as "Public /Institutional," and educational uses are permitted by special approval in the R- 30 Residence District, subject to the criteria specified in Section 77 (7) of the Zoning Ordinance, and 3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact a proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by rezoning those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67-1 -1.1, 68- 1-11.1, 68 -1 -11.2, 68-1 -12.1, 68 -1 -12.2, and 68 -1 -13, proposed to be rezoned from MR Multiple Residence to R -30 Residence District as more specifically described in "Schedule A" which is included in a proposed local law dated 1112199. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSENT None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there are any changes that anyone wishes to make to the Statement of Findings. The board should make the changes and then move for adoption of the Statement of Findings. Attorney Barney stated that this relates to site plan approval. He suggests that the board postpone site plan approval until the Town Board has decided to rezone the area or not. It might be appropriate to defer action on this and let staff rewrite the Statement of Findings with the rezoning being R -30. The entire matter needs to come back before the board for site plan and a PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special approval. The board may want to defer this action rather than try to go through the Statement of Findings and change the reference to the Recreational Zone. Mr. Kanter asked if there are sections of the Statement of Findings that the board feels work is needed. Board Member Hoffmann stated that on the first page, the preamble, it occurred to her that the descriptions of the action refers to tennis courts and basketball courts. It does not state how many. The plans show a certain number of courts. Should the number be specified in the text also? Mr. Frantz stated that it could be done. There are four tennis courts and two basketball courts. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are at least two references on the first page to the Recreational District, Attorney Barney stated that he would narrow the description of the action down to considering site plan approval. Chairperson Wilcox stated that on page 2, first paragraph, there is a minor typo with a double comma on the fourth line. There is a reference to the public hearing held on October 161h, which should be October 19th Board Member Hoffmann asked if they need to repeat the findings that they agree on from the City of Ithaca's Statement of Findings. Attorney Barney stated that it could be incorporated by reference. Mr. Kanter stated that they tried to do that in the wording. Mr. Frantz stated that they went through the City Findings and pulled out what was relevant. Chairperson Wilcox stated that under A2, alternative 1 for the design at the proposed entrance is described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and not the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chairperson Wilcox stated that on page 3, B4 states that it would be possible and practicable to construct the three proposed athletic fields in a manner to allow Cornell University to maintain the Cradit Moore House. Based upon the discussion earlier, "and practicable" should be removed. The sense of the board is clear that it would be possible, but not practical. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she feels that it should not be removed. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is stated that "it would be possible and practicable to construct the three proposed athletic fields in a manner that would allow Cornell University to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED rnaintain the Cradit Moore House in its current location along with a large portion of its surrounding landscape lawns". He does not think it is practicable. It is possible. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if Chairperson Wilcox is only thinking about the proposal that Mr. Frantz presented, then she could see his point. There are other possibilities. Board Member Mitrano stated that she would leave "practicable" and remove "large". Board Member Hoffmann stated that this talks about how this could be accomplished. She would like to add "or other alternative" within the text. This suggests only one way of accomplishing it. There may be other alternatives that have not been seen or discussed. Board Member Conneman stated that Cornell University stated that there was no alternative. The Brittains demonstrated possible alternatives. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he feels that there is not a reasonable alternative that includes all the puzzle pieces. The question is what needs to be removed. There is more than one alternative that would allow all the elements to be located on the site. In the same paragraph, third line up, it mentions eleven. Twelve is used in the drawing. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the first paragraph of page three, it would be appropriate to strengthen the last sentence about the northern connector road. The board feels that it is a necessary way to improve North Campus, Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to see as a condition of site plan approval a map that shows how the northern entrance to the campus could be done and the proposed plan does not preclude it from being built in the future. He would like to see a feasible way in which the northern entrance route can be built given the current site plan. Everyone agrees that it is good idea. There needs to be a map showing it can work with this site plan. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the last paragraph talks about adverse impact on the structure due to the elimination of its historic surroundings and the context that they provide. It is an adverse impact on the surrounding landscaping as well. Chairperson Wilcox stated that some trees would need to be removed to relocate the Moore House. Mr. Frantz stated that number 5 mirrors the language of the City and the State Historic Preservation Office. The impact on the landscaping is on page 5, E. It notes the removal of approximately 17 mature trees as a result of the project. It would have a significant adverse impact on plants other than rare or endangered species. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that the third line up in the same paragraph talks about location to either of the two proposed sites. She feels that the Forest Home site is not suitable. She would prefer the Pleasant Grove site. l Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are two proposed sites offered by Cornell University. Chairperson Wilcox stated that on page 4, item c has a reference to the new Recreational District. 11 1 Mr. Kanter asked if the section referencing the Recreational District could be removed. Mr. Frantz suggested that numbers 1, 2, and 4 be removed. Number 3 could remain. Attorney Barney stated that the entire section could be removed. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board's jurisdiction is over site plan approval. The Statement 'of Findings does not apply to the recommendation for rezoning. Therefore, section c can be removed since it is related to rezoning. Chairperson Wilcox stated page 5, E, needs to mention the number of plants that will be replacing the mature trees around the Cradit Moore House, Mr. Frantz stated that it could be made a separate sentence. Board Member Ainslie stated that he is always interested in the term mature trees. Mature trees have a life expectancy. The one large maple should be removed. It was a beautiful large tree at one time. There is a hole in the base of the tree and it should be removed. Board Member Hoffmann stated that filling it in with concrete could repair the hole and help the tree to!11live. Board Member Ainslie stated that he does not agree with filling the tree with concrete. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is concerned about noise. Will there be a public address system? The recently built fields near the Reis Tennis Center have a public address system. Mr., Frantz stated that the softball field was built for NCAA league softball games, and does have a public address system. Ms: Wolf stated that there would not be a public address system. The fields are a replacement of current fields without public address systems. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it should be included in the Statement of Findings. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -DECEMBER 21, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that could be discussed in the site plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that a sentence could be added to d, which deals with noise. Chairperson Wilcox stated that noise impacts are not expected since there will be no public address system in use on the site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that bleachers can be included in the site plan because it would be R -30. Attorney Barney stated that the Recreational Zone needs to be discarded at this juncture. Chairperson Wilcox stated that on page 6, item 3, line 3, with needs to be changed to will. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to discuss where they are going next. He does not like making decisions at midnight. The next couple of meetings have a lot of agenda items. Mr. Kanter stated that the recommendation on the zoning would go before the Town Board on Novemberp4th. They will consider setting a public hearing date to consider the rezoning.. The Town Board might discuss holding a special Town Board meeting on November 18th. The next step is to set a date' to come back before the Planning Board. It could include a recommendation of special approval ifs;! it is rezoned to R -30. It would also include preliminary site plan approval. The Statement of Findings would need to be adopted prior to site plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that the board needs to decide if they want to hold a public hearing and if preliminary and final site plan approval should be considered at the same meeting. It may be conditional on special approval. A public hearing has been held. It was initially advertised as a site plan public hearing. However, the statue the board is operating under is now a different statue. The question is whether or not to have a public hearing once it has been rezoned to R -30. This would allow people to comment on the applicability of the criteria of R -30. The board could then choose to deal with !,:preliminary and final site plan at that meeting. The board would then need to do a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a special approval. Mr.' Kanter asked what date the board would like to have the special meeting. The schedule for the next couple of meetings is full. This could take an entire meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are 5 Tuesdays in November. The board is scheduled to meet November 16th. Then there are 3 weeks before the next meeting on December 7th. Mr.!, Kanter stated that holding a meeting on November 23`d might be a problem. If the Town Board holds their public hearing on November 18th it would not give staff enough time to prepare for the 23`d or to advertise for a public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox stated that they could hold the special meeting on November 30tH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter asked if the board would like to advertise that meeting for preliminary and final site plan. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if it is advertised as a public hearing for final and preliminary, could it be changed at the meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that if it is advertised as preliminary and final, then the board could just give preliminary approval. If it is advertised as preliminary, they cannot give final approval. This board is scheduling a special meeting for November 30th. It will be advertised as both preliminary and final site plan approvals. Board Member Ainslie asked if the meeting should be held in another room. Chairperson Wilcox stated that a public hearing was held for preliminary site plan with a rezoning to Recreational District, The Planning Board is recommending to the Town Board that it be rezoned R „30. He would hope that the public limit their comments to what is different based upon the fact that it is R -30 instead of Recreational District. It was decided to hold the November 30th meeting in the Town Hall Board Room, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 11:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone has anything to report on the East Hill Plaza parking lot stop sign issue. Attorney Barney stated that it takes an application or request from the owner of the Plaza to the Town. The Town can then install the stop signs. The Town would need to encourage the owner to request.them. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is a safety issue. The Town should be able to force them to install the stop signs. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Kanter will speaking to the Tompkins County Planning Federation Meeting on November 9th about the Burger King process. Mr. Kanter stated that there is a possible site visit to PRI. It is scheduled for sketch plan review on November 16th. The Conservation Board has gone on a site visit. It would be helpful for the board to be familiar with the site plan layout. Mr. Kanter stated that they did have Planning Board candidate interviews. They were good interviews and there are recommendations to pass on to the Town Board. It will be scheduled for the H PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - DECEMBER 21, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Town Board meeting. There is a current vacancy to be filled. Board Member Mitrano's term expires December 31, 1999. Board Member Mitrano stated that she is going to write a letter saying that she would like to continue. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 2, 1999 Meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:16 p.m. Prepared by: (Ihw 0 Carrie L. Coates, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder .d f TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday November 2, 1999 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard(no more than five minutes). 7:35 P.M. Continuation of consideration of(1) adoption of a Statement of Findings pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act regarding Cornell University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative,(2) a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning from MR Multiple Residence to a new Recreational District for Cornell University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative, and(3)Preliminary Site Plan Approval regarding the North Campus project,located on the west side of Pleasant Grove Road and south side of Jessup Road on all or parts of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 67-1-1.1, 68-1-11.1, 68-1-11.2, and 68-1-12.2, comprising approximately 14.1 acres of land. The overall project in both the City and Town of Ithaca is proposed to consist of new dormitories to house up to 560 new students, a new "community commons"dining hall/student activities center,a new road connecting the existing South Balch Drive to Pleasant Grove Road,a new 138 space parking lot,three new soccer fields, tennis courts and basketball courts, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant;Kathryn Wolf,Trowbridge and Wolf,Landscape Architects, Agent. 3. Persons to be heard(continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). - 4. Approval of Minutes: (None available at time of mailout). 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter,AICD 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.) Y TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE SHEET DATE, November 2, 1999 PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS/AFFILIATION (Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in officio/minutes) cp 94 4*vn �m k D Val ', e;s E41m� jc F bunv` 11„1c� uYnaQ 2.2 � +U,,,e�j /47 D. ►- (3S- T Y 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE SHEET DATE: November 2, 1999 PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS/AFFILIATION (Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes) 1/ `"= J f' ! •Q Jnr \! 10 �'�1 ' f �� �C f.s l80 � 9�a k414 1Z - ! Z �s co k n '� f 4� If M�_d OKI, I {