HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-01-04TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2000
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 4, 2000, 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 (7:43 p.m.); Larry Thayer,
Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning (7:34 p.m.); John
Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:40 p.m.); George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner; Mike Smith,
Planner.
EXCUSED: Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering.
ALSO PRESENT: Alphonse Pieper, Historic Ithaca; Stan Seltzer, 228 Forest Home Drive; Nancy
Brcak, 228 Forest Home Drive; Isabel Peard, 214 Forest Home Drive; Sharon F. & Robert C.
Petrillose, 166 Pleasant Grove Road; Bruce & Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road; DP Loucks, 116
Crest Lane; David Bouldin, 208 Forest Home Drive; Kyllikki H. Inman, 110 Halcyon Hill; Hal Craft, 3
Sunny Slope Road; Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Ave; Brian Lowe, WVBR; Dick Walker, 929 Coddington
Road; Joel Harlan, Dryden; Scott Whitham, Historic Ithaca; Peter Eliason, Cornell University; Jean
Reese, Cornell University; Andrea Dutcher, Cornell University; Chris Furst, Ithaca Times; Joni Carroll,
Cornell University; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Darrell Wilson, 205 Muriel Street; Rachel Doan,
101 Eddy Street; Christine Van De Mark, 507 East State Street; Ruth Mahr, 103 Judd Falls Road;
Susan Murphy, Cornell University; David King, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University;
John Gutenberger, Cornell University; Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Rachael Donn, Eddy Street;
Mary Russell, 950 Coddington Road.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:32 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 December 27, 1999, and December 29, 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 December
29, 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 stated that he would like to welcome Rod Howe to the Planning Board. He
is the new Planning Board member. Mr. Howe is from Forest Home. Chairperson Wilcox stated that
he is glad to see a representative from Forest Home on the Planning Board.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:33 p.m., and asked if any
members of the public wished to be heard.
With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed PERSONS TO BE HEARD at
7:34 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Walker Two -lot Subdivision, Coddington Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Dick Walker, 929 Coddington Road, stated that he has received a purchase offer for land that
he owns on Coddington Road. The land is located between 955 and 1001 Coddington Road. It has
approximately 300 feet of road frontage. It is 7.8 acres. They are seeking approval from the Planning
Board in order to proceed with closing procedures.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if there are any environmental issues.
Mr. Walker stated that he is not aware of any environmental issues.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was confused about the location of the land when
she went to look at it. She does not know where it is located in respect to Mr. Walker's house.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if she knew where Councilwoman Russell lived. She lives in an
older white house with a red barn.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not know where Councilwoman Russell lives.
She drove to the Town of Danby line.
Mr. Walker showed Board Member Hoffmann the location of the land on an area map.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the information that the board received, it states that
the land is to be subdivided to build one house now, but it could be subdivided further in the future.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if one owner is buying the parcel.
Mr. Walker responded that it was being sold to one owner.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the new owner at some point in the future might want to further
subdivide the parcel.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. Smith could tell the board about the Tompkins County
Inventory of Unique Natural Areas.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Michael Smith, Planner, stated that it is located on the map. The area has been extended to
the border of the Walker property. It has not been officially adopted.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the text, it sounded as if the Unique Natural Area would
be in Danby and come to the Town of Ithaca line.
Mr. Smith stated that it currently starts at Burns Road and comes up to this parcel.
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, stated that it would reflect the location of the
Conservation Zone.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it would come close to the subdivided parcel, but would not
overlap it.
Mr. Kanter stated that this is a large single building lot.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the County points out that the revised boundary would border
the northern boundary and the western boundary of Mr. Walker's lot.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:41 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -1 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Walker 2 -Lot
Subdivision Coddington Road Tax Parcel No. 47- 2 -6.5.
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 2 -6.5, consisting of 56.6 +/- acres in area and
located on the north side of Coddington Road between 955 and 1001 Coddington Road, into
two lots, 48.8 +/- acres and 7.8 +/- acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in the R-
30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District. Richard L. and Ruth S. Walker,
Owners /Applicants.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on January 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, a plat entitled, "Survey Map, A Portion of Lands of Richard L. and Ruth S.
Walker," prepared by Michael Reagan, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated November 24, 1999,
and other application materials, and
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOL VED.
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, neither a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Mitrano.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 2 -6.5, consisting of 56.6 ± acres in
area and located on the north side of Coddington Road between 955 and 1001 Coddington
Road, into tow lots, 48.8 ± acres and 7.8 ± acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in
the R -30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District. Richard L. and Ruth S. Walker,
Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m., and asked if any members of the
public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the
public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the proposed resolution has a condition that a deed restriction
be applied so that there is not a parcel subdivided without the appropriate frontage. It is like the
subdivision that occurred during Lake Source Cooling around the location of the heat exchange
facility. At one point a parcel was subdivided in the Town and the Planning Board asked that it be
consolidated with a parcel in the Village of Cayuga Heights. Therefore, a deed restriction was applied
to the parcels so that they were always sold together.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is legal access from Danby.
Mr. Kanter stated that as long as the deed incorporates the piece in Danby as the parcel,
which is what the deed restriction does, they have legal access to the parcel. The County
Assessment Office does not recognize tax parcels as crossing over municipal boundaries.
Mr. Kanter stated that on the survey map a gas line is shown that runs through the corner of
the property. It was brought to staff's attention, that the gas line is something to be avoided when and
if a house is built on the property. Hopefully, the perspective buyer is aware of the condition. This is
a propane gas line.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the easement might preclude the buyer from building near the
gas line so that the company has access.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -2 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Walker 2 -Lot Subdivision
Coddinaton Road Tax Parcel No. 47- 2 -6.5.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 47- 2 -6.5, consisting of 56.6 +/- acres in area and
located on the north side of Coddington Road between 955 and 1001 Coddington Road, into
two lots, 48.8 +/- acres and 7.8 +/- acres respectively. Said parcel is located in the R -30
Residence District and the CD- Conservation District. Richard L. and Ruth S. Walker,
Owners /Applicants.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on January 4, 2000, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate, a plat entitled, "Survey Map, A Portion of Lands of Richard L. and Ruth S.
Walker," prepared by Michael J. Reagan, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated November 24, 1999,
and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47- 2 -6.5, consisting of
56.6 +/- acres, into two lots, 48.8 +/- acres and 7.8 +/- acres in size, as shown on the plat
entitled, "Survey map, A Portion of Lands of Richard L. and Ruth S. Walker," prepared by
Michael J. Reagan, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated November 24, 1999, subject to the
following condition:
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
a. Prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission of a deed
restriction or an amended deed, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town,
limiting the future conveyance or subdivision of the remaining lands of Walker within the
Town of Ithaca independent of the remaining lands of Walker within the Town of Danby,
thereby retaining proper road frontage for said lands.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by this proposed
subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation at this time.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Attorney Barney administered the Oath of Office to Board Member Mitrano and Board Member
Howe
Chairperson Wilcox stated that members of the board received a letter from Councilwoman
Russell and Councilman Klein. See Attachment #1. He explained it reminded him of a situation with
Burger King. Planning Board members received information in the mail at the very last minute.
There was a question about that letter coming to the board not in a public forum and the applicant not
having a chance to see it.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there need to be copies provided to Cornell University and
staff
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Old Hundred Site Plan Modification, 704 Five Mile Drive.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Richard Thaler, Attorney, stated that the modification is asking that the library be changed to a
bedroom. In this community, his clients have provided a need that very few other communities have.
It is an alternative living situation for seniors. They have found that there was a greater demand than
anticipated. It necessitated the need to change the library into a bedroom. They ask the indulgence
in the fact that they were before the board in October. At that time it was not recognized. They are
trying to come into compliance.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if there are any environmental issues with respect to a conversion
of a library into a bedroom.
Mr. Thaler stated that there are no environmental issues.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -4 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Site Plan Modification to
Old Hundred 704 Five Mile Drive Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by James Ainslie.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification of the previously approved site plan for housing for the elderly at Old Hundred,
located at 704 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2, Residence District R -30.
Said modification would increase the number of elderly residents from six to seven, using the
former library as a bedroom. Denmark Development, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Patricia and
Elizabeth Classen, Agents, and
2. This is an Unlisted 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
3. The Planning Board, on January 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE I T 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, neither a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification of the previously approved site plan for housing for the elderly at Old Hundred,
located at 704 Five Mile Drive on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2, Residence District R-
30. Said modification would increase the number of elderly residents from six to seven, using
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
the former library as a bedroom. Denmark Development, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Patricia and
Elizabeth Classen, Agents.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and asked if any persons wished
to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at
7:56 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the drawing shows four bedrooms downstairs and an
additional fifth one was wanted. She was unable to find the fourth bedroom. She does not remember
having bedroom number 2 on the left -most side of the site plan on page 18. What happened?
Mr. Thaler stated that these plans are from the October meeting.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she knows that they are not new plans. When this was first
approved, they approved a certain number of bedrooms. She does not remember approving the
space beyond the kitchen as a bedroom.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not worth speculating about. The plans were approved on
October 19tH
Board Member Hoffmann stated that this might be the bedroom that Mr. Frost referred to as a
storage area being changed to a bedroom without a building permit.
Andrew Magre, 215 North Cayuga Street, stated that it is in fact what Mr. Frost was talking
about. The space was built in without a building permit. They are getting a building permit
retroactively to deal with it.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the space was not planned as a bedroom and bathroom
when they were before the board previously.
Mr. Magre stated that it was not initially planned to be a bedroom.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the library is now being used as a bedroom.
Mr. Magre stated that Chairperson Wilcox is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the library was being used as a bedroom on October 19th. The
Classen girls are usually present.
Mr. Thaler stated that one of the Classens is visiting a university with her daughter. The other
is visiting family in Arizona.
Richard Classen, Old Hundred, stated that he thinks that it was.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he feels that it is unfortunate. There are also code violations.
He is not happy that in the proposed resolution, the applicant is given 3 months to bring the building
up to code.
Mr. Thaler responded that the work has been started to bring the building into compliance.
The one area that will not be able to be completed by April 1, 2000 is the outside second story
stairway. The reason is that there needs to be concrete footers. It would be better to do that after
winter. The interior code improvements will be done by that date.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that they have had plenty of time to bring it up to code. Ninety days
is excessive.
Mr. Kanter stated that staff picked a date. It was felt that the code issues have been going on
for a while. There needed to be a deadline.
Mr. Thaler stated that the fire alarm and the direct access to the Fire Company would be
installed by the end of the month.
Board Member Hoffmann asked which stairway they are talking about. Is it the stairway in
back of the columns facing Seven Mile Drive?
Mr. Classen stated that it would be an enclosed stairway for fire protection.
Board Member Hoffmann asked why has it taken so long.
Mr. Classen stated that they have had difficulty with communication. It is not because they do
not want to comply. The parking lot and parking spaces for the handicapped have been set aside.
They have started the basement ceiling. The fire escape can be done now. It is not a big factor.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the fire escape should have been put in to ensure the safety of
the residents instead of waiting for the Town to tell them to put it in.
Mr. Classen stated that they do not want to get out of it the cheaper way. They do not want to
do something two or three times. For instance, they put a bathroom up and it is 3 inches to narrow.
Now they have to move the bathtub. These factors are things that they would like to avoid. The
communication between the architect and the Code Enforcement Officer needs to be improved. They
are both busy people. He is not trying to point a finger at anyone, but they are willing. They would
like to ask a lot of questions. When they started to ask questions, the Code Enforcer told him that he
was not there to design their project. It is understandable. If it were done for everyone in Town, there
would not be time for him to do his job.
Mr. Kanter stated that it sounds as if there are implications that the Town had involvement in
why these delays happened. He stated that it is not an accurate reflection. This was originally
approved in 1996. It has been quite some time. There is no excuse for these types of delays. He
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
recommends that a very short -term deadline be established. Everything has to come up to code. If
they do not meet the deadline, then they have to come back to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he was thinking the deadline should be 30 days. He is
concerned for the safety of the senior citizens. There should not be anyone living there now because
the fire escape does not exist.
Attorney Barney stated that the bedrooms are on the first floor. They do not rely on the fire
escape to get out.
Mr. Classen stated that there are two on the second floor.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not see the floor plan for the second floor. Are
there only two rooms on the second floor that can be used as bedrooms?
Mr. Classen responded that there are two bedrooms and a bathroom. There is not room for
another bedroom on the second floor.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the issue is safety. There is no frost in the ground.
Concrete can be poured at this time.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if they could pour concrete at this time of year.
Board Member Ainslie stated that it stays above 35 degrees during the day. It has been in the
sixties the last few days. There is no frost. It should not be a factor.
Board Member Mitrano asked if there is a reason that Mr. Thaler was retained.
Mr. Thaler stated that he is familiar with the situation. One of the reasons he was retained was
to clean up the act. He assures the board that as long as he is their attorney, the building would be
brought up to code. He asks that if the board feels that 90 days is to long, could they have 45 days.
The delivery of the fire alarm takes 30 days.
Mr. Classen stated that they have a contractor lined up. He is waiting for a building permit.
Board Member Mitrano asked Mr. Thaler if he is confident that the work could be done in 45
days
Mr. Thaler responded yes. The plans are ready. They are waiting to pick up the building
permit and they have been unable to do so.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there might be other conditions imposed by the building code
that are not addressed in the resolution. The Code Enforcement Officer will do his job as he sees it
should be done.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney stated that there is an uncomfortable history from the Town's standpoint.
Their patience has been exhausted. If it appears that the 45 -day deadline cannot be met, they can
come back before the board and request an extension.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -5 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Site Plan Modification to Old
Hundred 704 Five Mile Drive Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2.
MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification of the previously approved site plan for housing for the elderly at Old Hundred,
located at 704 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2, Residence District R -30.
Said modification would increase the number of elderly residents from six to seven, using the
former library as a bedroom. Denmark Development, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Patricia and
Elizabeth Classen, Agents, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on January 4, 2000, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate the application materials submitted by the applicant.
NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOL VED.
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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed modification to the previously approved plan for Old Hundred,
located at 704 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -2, said modification to
increase the number of elderly residents from six to seven, using the former library as a
bedroom, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of a revised "Proposed 1St Floor Plan" drawing, sheet A -2, showing the
labeling of the new bedroom in place of the library;
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
b. Submission of one (1) original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan,
sheet S -1, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca;
C. The existing building be brought into compliance with all applicable codes, including the
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and that the appropriate
building permits and certificate of occupancy for use of the building as a senior citizens
residence be obtained by the applicant prior to February 19, 2000. Otherwise, all
previous Planning Board approvals relating to said use shall expire.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 19, 1999.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that after the public hearing was closed, the board discussed
how they should proceed. There must not have been a definite decision because it does not appear
in the minutes.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the public hearing was closed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thought that something else had to be done.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that they adjourned the discussion of the matter.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -3 - Approval of Minutes — October 19, 1999.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the October 19, 1999 as
the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer.
NA YS: NONE.
ABSTENTION: Howe.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for Cornell
University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative, and adoption of a Statement of
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Findings pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 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, in the R -30 Residence District, 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 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 stated that Mr. Frantz has pointed out that each of the Planning Board
members who has an affiliation or a spouse with an affiliation to Cornell University should disclose it.
Board Member Howe stated that he works for Cornell University.
Board Member Thayer stated that he does not have an affiliation with Cornell University.
Board Member Mitrano stated that she and her husband work for Cornell University.
Board Member Ainslie stated that his daughter -in -law works for Cornell University.
Board Member Conneman stated that he and his wife work for Cornell University.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does occasional volunteer work at the Johnson
museum and she has a spouse who works for Cornell University.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is not affiliated with Cornell University.
Attorney Barney asked the board members who have an affiliation with Cornell University, if
the affiliation would the position they would take on this proposal.
The board members each responded no.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board is holding a second public hearing. At the time of the
first public hearing, it was advertised with a proposed zoning recommendation from this board from
Multiple Residence to a new proposed Recreation District. Since that time, the Town Board has
rezoned the land in the area to R -30. Chairperson Wilcox asked that the applicant and the public
restrict their comments and remarks to information that is new and changed information.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf, stated that the board is considering the Statement of
Findings, recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval. They are
requesting that the board consider both Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval.
There are a number of changes that are being proposed directly in response to comments that
were heard from members of the Planning Board and staff. They also have the preliminary concept
plans if the Planning Board is interested. They are the early schemes that included the Cradit -Moore
House. It demonstrates that it was part of the early planning. It was not a given that the Moore
House be relocated as part of the project. They do not plan to show the plans.
Ms. Wolf stated that they heard a couple of comments at the last Planning Board regarding the
parking lot. There was a comment made about a reduction in the amount of asphalt in the parking lot
east of the community commons. There was also an interest in increasing the size of the parking lot
to the west. In response to the comments, they are proposing changes.
The parking lot west of Helen Newman Hall has been reconfigured. The entrance and the
islands have been reconfigured so that there is one entrance in and one exit out. They minimized the
island. This allowed the size of the lot to be increased by 50 %. It was 12 spaces. They are
proposing 18 spaces for the lot west of Helen Newman Hall. This lot is located within the City of
Ithaca. They have discussed this with the planning staff at the City of Ithaca. They support this
proposal. This would require site plan modification at the City. They are tentatively scheduled to
appear before the next City Codes Meeting.
The parking lot east of the community commons has been modified. They have reduced the
size of the lot by 16 spaces. By eliminating 8 spaces in the center of the lot, they have created large
islands in the center of the lot. This is much better for the trees. There is a much higher probability
that there will be healthy large trees. It allows them to create an informal grouping of trees in the
center of the lot. It will have a much greater visual impact in terms of breaking up the expanse of the
asphalt. At the last presentation, she described how the demand for parking was calculated. That
was the basis for the size of the lots. They calculated what they believed the demand would be and
then they added ten spaces. They are bonus float spaces. They are offering not to construct the ten
float spaces. It is indicated with a dashed line where 8 of the spaces could be put back in the future if
the demand exists. Two parking spaces are given up permanently to create the islands in the center.
Six parking spaces are relocated west of Helen Newman Hall. They would like to have the option of
building the extra parking spaces if the demand is there. It gives them a total count of 122 parking
spaces in this lot, 18 west of Helen Newman Hall. This totals 140 parking spaces. Of the 140
spaces, 100 are replacement of existing parking spaces. Forty are to meet peak use of new users.
There have been some changes to the roadway. The road is from Thurston Avenue to the
west side of Helen Newman Hall and from the east side of Helen Newman Hall to Pleasant Grove
Road. That roadway is 30 feet wide. There are two 10 -foot travel lanes and two 5 -foot bike lanes
outside of that. The portion of the roadway in front of Helen Newman Hall is 22 feet plus 3 feet of shy
space. There is 22 feet of asphalt, flush granite curb and a brick paved zone. It is a 25 -foot roadway
in front of Helen Newman Hall. This compares with Forest Home Drive, which ranges from 23.5 feet
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
at a maximum and down to 18 -feet wide at its narrowest. They are exceeding the width of Forest
Home Drive. The traffic calming that was originally proposed has been almost completely eliminated
through the City site plan review process. This was in response to concerns from the community.
Originally, the proposal was to have all brick in front of Helen Newman Hall. This has been
eliminated. It is now an asphalt roadway. There is one brick crosswalk in front of Helen Newman
Hall. There is one set of stop signs west of Helen Newman Hall. Traveling from Thurston Avenue
towards Helen Newman Hall, cars will stop at the crosswalk. It is viewed as the primary collection
point for pedestrians.
Originally the bus stop was intended to stop in the roadway. There were community concerns
that this would slow down the traffic. In response to that, a bus pull off has been created. The bus
pulls off the road. People tend to enter in front of the bus and exit in the back. In general people will
exit the back and use the crosswalk. The posted speed limit for the length of the road will be 25 mph.
There are three light fixtures proposed. There will be 20 -foot high sharp cut -off roadway fixture
that will line the roadway and be located in the islands of the parking lot. There will be 12 -foot high
sharp cut -off walkway light that will be located in the Town along the major walkway. It is a shared
pedestrian walk and bike path. The 10 -foot gothic cut -off fixtures will be used in the City.
Ms. Wolf presented a drawing to the board that was prepared on September 27th. It is a
survey of existing conditions at the Moore House. At that time the trees shaded green were proposed
to be preserved. As a result of the more detailed grading plans, two additional sugar maples will be
saved. They are now saving all the sugar maples except for the last two. Mr. Frantz was concerned
about the grading under the canopies of the pine trees on the south side of the access road. They do
want to save the trees. They are currently investigating how best to accomplish the plan without
trading under the canopies. There will be either a retaining wall or tree wells at the drip line so that
they do not have to grade under the trees.
There was a concern stated at the last meeting that this project not preclude a new north
entrance. There has been some movement on the development of the new north entrance.
Fernando de Argon has established an intermunicipal committee to develop concepts for the north
entrance. Mr. Kanter and Mr. Noteboom are representatives on the committee. They have met once
and will be meeting again in January. Mr. de Argon has reviewed the plans and has prepared a letter
indicating that he does not believe that this project precludes a north entrance. See Attachment #2.
Ms. Wolf stated that they have new information regarding the relocation of the Moore House.
They have conducted research on deeds at the Tompkins County Courthouse. They determined that
the Cradit -Moore House was part of a farm. Isaac Cradit's father, Benjamin Cradit, owned the farm
and the house. Benjamin Cradit's farm was 827 acres. The map provided to the board shows most
of it. See Attachment #3. The map shows approximately 700 acres. The area marked in yellow
definitively was part of the original Cradit farm. The proposed site for the relocation of the Cradit-
Moore House falls within the original farm. The deeds show that Isaac Cradit's father owned the
house. There has never been a deed that demonstrated that Isaac owned the house. It is likely that
Isaac built it because it was his trade. At the time of Benjamin Cradit's death in 1823 he had 11
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
children as shown on the map given to the board. See Attachment #4. He deeded portions of the
farm to the children. Some of the farm was sold off. The existing house was deeded to Henry Cradit.
The site outlined in yellow was deeded to Isaac Cradit. Isaac Cradit was deeded a 152 -acre parcel
per the will of Benjamin Cradit. The relocation of the house to this site preserves the association of
the house with the historic farm. The house was a farmhouse in a rural setting. They believe that by
relocating the house to the location on Pleasant Grove Road it preserves the historic preservation
and rural setting.
Ms. Wolf stated that she has a letter from Carl Stearns to Joni Carroll that she would like to
read to the board. See Attachment #5. Ms. Wolf presented a sketch to the board with the house
relocated on the Pleasant Grove Road site. They are proposing that the Cradit -Moore House be
relocated in line with Homa House. They believe it would be the best appearance along Pleasant
Grove Road. They are able to have a site that is equal in size to the existing site. There is a
hedgerow south of the Homa House that replicates the northern most hedgerow that currently exists
on the Pleasant Grove Road site.
Board Member Ainslie asked if this house would be as high as the Petrillose House.
Ms. Wolf stated that there is a drainage area where the vegetation is located. It does go up to
the Petrillose site.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Whitham is a member of the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board and is the chair.
Scott Whitham, Historic Ithaca, stated that he would like to reiterate their comments to the
Town Board of December 13th. He would like to read that letter addressed to Supervisor Valentino.
See Attachment #6.
Joel Harlan, Dryden, stated that it is going to go the other way any way, so the board might as
well say yes to the project. It is going to look bad for the local community members. It is a
communist town run by a bunch of democrats and Cornell University is the dictator. They dictate
what is done. Money talks, the community does the walking. The community goes without. The
board is going to approve the project. There is no equalization for the local people compared to the
campuses. The County and City should be handed over to Cornell University and name Ithaca
Cornell. It is obvious that money talks.
Don King, Associate Director of Campus Life, stated that there has been some discussion
about the use of the Moore House in relationship to having a faculty residence in the house. Jennifer
Gerner, a past faculty and resident member, has written a letter and she was not able to attend the
meeting. She asked that I read the letter to the board. See Attachment #7.
Mr. King stated that he has worked closely with this program for the past 5- years. The idea of
the Moore House being a faculty residence was dismissed because it was difficult to create
interaction between students and faculty by having them separated out. The residence halls have
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
lounges and various places for students to interact. It makes a significant difference having the
faculty member in the residence hall. It deters itself if you are separated out. The location of the
Moore House in relation to the residence halls would be difficult to create that connection.
Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road, stated that he thinks that the Cradit -Moore House would
make a great bed and breakfast. The Hotel School could run it or a member of the public could run it.
Mr. Brittain handed out an outline of his discussion to the board. See Attachment #8.
In the packet given to the board, there is material regarding signage on the end of the new
road that directs people to the community commons. This is supposed to be a major through road
that carries a lot of traffic. The draft Environmental Impact Statement states that this is to be a major
through road, "...assuming the majority of the east /west traffic flow on George Jessup Road and
Forest Home Drive is diverted to the new two -way connector. It is noted that this is a maximum
estimate and assumes that the majority of the traffic along these routes will divert to the new link." It
is not good enough to make it about the same as Forest Home Drive. It is supposed to be big
enough that it takes most of the traffic from Forest Home Drive plus most of the traffic from Jessup. It
is going to be a real effort to make people take the road. The sign on the road should indicate the
direction of Cornell University. Not everyone is going to take it.
The rationale for the size of the parking lot has been explained before. They need to replace
some of the parking that is no longer next to Helen Newman Hall. They are taking the 60 -space R-
Lot next to Helen Newman and moving the parking. This is not what is stated in the draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzed traffic. They
stated in the draft Environmental Impact Statement that the 60 -space parking lot, R -Lot, only had 50
people with permits to park in it. Of the 50 people, 38 cars come at rush our. Of the 38 cars, 8 will go
to the new lot and the other 30 will go to places north and west of the site. They will not use the new
lot. It was stated that 11 cars would drive to the new lot during rush hour. After rush hour there are
an extra 12. Of the 12, 3 will go to the new site. The total number of current employees that park in
R -Lot and would park now park in the new site is 11. The parking lot is 49 spaces too big. It is 49
spaces too big or the 11 cars are too big or there will be 60 cars parking there. If it is 60 cars, they
should have modeled 60 people driving to and from.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzed traffic for parking lots of 35 plus 58
spaces. This means the current 35 spaces to the west of Helen Newman. There are 58 parking
spaces to the east. They have been asking for 12 parking spaces to the west of Helen Newman. This
is 138 in the new lot. They are now willing to increase the size of the parking lot to the west of Helen
Newman. It will be half as big as it is now. It would be even better if the parking lot was just as big as
it is now. It could be. They could keep 35 parking spaces west of Helen Newman by reconfiguring
the parking lot. This would be preferable for the people using them because it is next to Helen
Newman. Otherwise, they will need to drive farther, park in a lot, walk farther including crossing the
new road to get into Helen Newman. This is better for the parking. It is farther away from Forest
Home. It is less apt to attract traffic through it. He prefers that the 35 parking spaces remain. It is
feasible.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
The traffic model assumed that the 35 metered parking spaces would remain. The draft
Environmental Impact Statement states that in the morning 38 people show up, only 8 will go to the
new lot. There are 30 new employees going to the new lot. They state that 10 facility users will use
the new lot. It seems high because it is for freshmen. This comes to a total of 48 spaces. All the
traffic that they modeled during peak hour could be accommodated in a 48 -space lot in the Town of
Ithaca. This is all that they need. There might be other times of day when they need the parking.
There are 8 existing employees during off -peak hours. There are also 3 others. Not all the
employees will come at one time. If all the employees need to be present at once and if there are
space for new facility users, it calculates to be 58 spaces. This is all that is needed. All cars can be
accommodated.
They assume that one third of the people using R -Lot in the evening will find new parking to
the west and south of the site. They assume that two thirds will use the new parking lot. They feel
that they will have 8 employees in the evening. The multi - purpose room will rarely be programmed
for the evening. If it were it would be for freshmen that will walk. Occasionally it might be
programmed for someone else who will have to drive in the evening. They do not need a lot of
parking spaces in the Town.
Mr. Brittain stated that they think they need 122 parking spaces. Either they are mistaken on
how many spaces they need, or they were mistaken on what they modeled. They do not agree.
They cannot agree. The request is not to approve any more than they modeled. If they want
everyone to believe their traffic modeling, then they need to believe it themselves.
It is stated that the fitness component of the new community commons does not represent an
expansion of the fitness program. Rather, existing facilities in Helen Newman Hall that are congested
will be giving more space. Some increased usage is anticipated as a result of the increased
population on North Campus. Most of the users will live on North Campus and will walk. Currently,
they say that the fitness program will need will 20 spaces, but afterwards they say that it will be 30.
It is also stated that there will be no change in traffic and parking related to use in the existing
fields that are being relocated. If there is no change, why have 30 spaces been added? Thirty
spaces do not need to be added if there is no change. They are keeping two books. One says no
change in traffic and another says that they need big lots. It is inconsistent. It is also estimated that
one third of the 44 vehicles per hour that are currently entering the permit lot during the night time off
peak will take advantage of parking options west and south of the site.
Mr. Brittain stated that the Town could grant a smaller number of parking spaces and if Cornell
University feels that they need more parking, they can come back before the Town and request more
parking spaces. Until there is a northern entrance, 58 should be their limit.
Rachael Donn, 101 Eddy Street, stated that she is a student at Cornell and a member of the
Cornell Women's Rugby team. Cornell University is in the middle of their winter break and it is the
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
reason that more students are not present. She would like to ask that the petitions that were
submitted at a previous board meeting be resubmitted.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that they are part of the public record.
Ms. Donn stated that she played sports throughout high school. In her first semester at Cornell
University she did not play sports. That was her hardest semester. People who are able to go
outside and get fresh air tend to do much better. Part of getting students to be able to do this is
allowing them access to fields. She is also a student that does not have a car. Having fields in close
proximity to the campus is important. They have used other fields in the past. It significantly hurt the
turnout. People who wanted to come were not able to make it. They need to have goal posts. They
have not been able to use them in other areas. They have had to drive to Lansing to play games.
This was a safety hazard. There are no facilities or phones. Fields close to restrooms and
telephones is essential. They compete at a national level. In order to do that, they need to have
regulation length fields and they need to be in a north /south direction.
Board Member Conneman asked how the petitions were put together.
Ms. Donn stated that it was facilitated through the athletic office. Leaders of various club
sports were asked to attend a meeting and they were given the petitions to be brought back to their
teams. Individuals within the teams collected signatures.
Board Member Conneman asked if they were left in Sorority and Fraternity Houses.
Ms. Donn stated that they were clear in making sure everyone knew what the petition was for.
Board Member Conneman stated that it was not done for all of them. One of his advisees
signed the petition. He asked her how it was done. She explained to him that they were handed out
and people just signed them.
Ruth Mahr, 103 Judd Falls Road, stated that she made extensive comments at the October
19th public hearing and they are part of the record. She stated that she would like to respond to the
student that just spoke. She wonders if in their meetings they were informed that if the Cradit -Moore
House were to remain, they would not necessarily have to lose the playing fields. It is the purpose of
Town Government and the Town Planning Board to promote and protect the public interest. There
are two outstanding issues. One is historic preservation and the other is traffic in neighborhoods.
Ms. Mahr read from a prepared statement. See Attachment #9.
The board has the power to grant permission conditional upon a new entrance to north
campus that would take the traffic away from Forest Home Drive. If the board fails to exercise that
power, it seems to her that the confidence of town citizens in the Comprehensive Plan as a
meaningful document is going to be undermined.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Kyllikki H. Inman, 110 Halcyon Hill, stated that her main concern with the project is the parking
lot. Cornell University has gone out of its way to say how attractive they are going to make the large
parking lot with landscaping. It is too large. If Cornell University does insist on having it so large and
attractive, then they should put it in the open green space in front of Helen Newman Hall. If it is that
attractive, they can have it by the buildings it will serve. People are not going to want to walk a far
distance. They can leave the 35 parking spaces. They have worked fine. The parking lots will not be
close to the Observatory. The soccer fields could then be moved down to preserve the Moore House
in its location. Forest Home residents have been telling Cornell for two years that the parking lot is
too large and they did not want the Moore House moved. They have fiddled a little and have not
done much at all. Forest Home is older than Cornell is. People in Forest Home live there year round.
Cornell will be serving freshmen that will live there 9 months a year. They do not pay taxes. They do
not live there with children and pets. It is not a neighborhood. It is a transient population. Forest
Home residents should not be inconvenienced by the parking lot.
Ms. Inman stated that it was mentioned that faculty residents would not want to live in the
Moore House because they could not supervise the students. It could be used as the Heller House is
used. It is used for visiting professors that come for a short amount of time. It could also be used as
a bed and breakfast. If Cornell University is bound and determined to move the Moore House, it
should not be moved into Forest Home. The lot is not large enough. There is too much traffic to
have a driveway exiting at that location. There are two heron nests on the back of the property that
are a protected bird. Forest Home does not have any green space left. The location on Pleasant
Grove Road has cattails growing in it. It is a big bog. It might be a wetland. Everyone is tired of
Cornell not bending on these issues. She hopes that the board will speak to the residents instead of
allowing Cornell to steam roller everyone.
Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road, stated Ms. Wolf mentioned that most of the traffic calming on
the road has been eliminated; only the stop sign remains. The road would be similar to West Ave.
West Ave is straight through road and it has several brick crosswalks. If Cornell's proposal were to
make the new road look like West Ave he would support it. Instead, when looking at the submitted
site plan, there is a road that narrows from 30 feet to 22 feet. At each end of the narrow section there
are brick crosswalks. The road goes from being crowned to being sloped one way. The brick
sections are not going to be in the plane of the road. Lighting goes from being street lighting to
pedestrian lighting. These are traffic calming features. Mr. Brittain stated that he supports traffic
calming. He thinks that it is a great idea. The problem is that the road as it was modeled was to be a
maximum use road that would divert most of the traffic from Jessup and Pleasant Grove Roads. If
this road is traffic calmed to the extent that it looks like it is, there will be more traffic going through the
residential communities of Forest Home and Cornell Heights. He would be less concerned if the
proposed northern gateway were a sure thing. If approval of this project were contingent on that, he
would feel much better. The site plan that has been submitted is a calmed site plan.
Mr. Brittain provided a revised site plan to the board. See Attachment #10. The base map is
the grading map from Cornell's proposal. It has both the existing and proposed contour lines. The
outside of this map is existing conditions and the inside is the new proposal. This plan preserves the
Cradit -Moore House, the yard, trees, side and rear yard. The corner of the field that is closest is less
than 100 feet from the corner of the garage. The field is lower. The house should be able to have a
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
view out over the field. The three fields are present with 2% cross slope. The tennis courts are level.
It preserves on site parking and Cornell's preferred road alignment. There are no retaining walls.
The typical maximum slope is 1 and 3. The maximum slope is 1 and 2. This is the same of Cornell's
proposal. He does not endorse the plan. He wanted to show that it is possible. It could be better.
He guessed when he laid them out. Raising the community commons building would help. He kept
the loading dock at 866 feet above sea level. Raising it a few feet would help. Shifting the
community commons would help. Cornell's proposed road alignment wastes a lot of space. It is
possible to tie in at the existing Fuertes Drive intersection and make it safe. It would free up a lot of
space. The plan includes as much parking as Cornell has requested. It is much more than they
need.
He would feel much better if Cornell University said that they do not value the house and they
want it to disappear. It would be an acceptable reason. If they said that they have big plans for this
site in 10 years and they want to clear it now, he would not be happy, but he would accept it as a
reason. To state that you cannot have the fields and the house is not true. Several people have
mentioned possible uses for the house. One of the statements that Cornell has made is that it is not
suitable for a single family right now due to the fact that the campus has encroached on it so much.
That statement bothers him because that encroachment occurred while the Moores were living in the
house. The draft Environmental Impact Statement states that Cornell has been a great neighbor to
the Moores while they were living there. It cannot be both ways. If this encroaching campus was a
good neighbor to the Moores, it is better with the Pleasant Grove Road Apartments gone. Playing
fields are better neighbors than apartment houses. It would be a great place to live. The proposal
that Cornell has made with Historic Ithaca for the site further north could be made on this site.
Mr. Brittain stated that there are a few statements in the Findings Statement that they were not
clear on. He provided a copy of his recommended changes to the board. See Attachment #11. Mr.
Brittain read his changes to the board.
Mr. Brittain stated that he is not opposed to the North Campus project. It is the specifics of the
site plan that are irritating. He did hear someone say that the plans should be approved as is
because the benefits outweigh the costs. The problem with a statement like that is that the costs and
the benefits accrue to different parties. Cornell reaps the benefits. The residential communities that
surround the site absorb the costs and impacts. All concerns could be easily addressed without
affecting the programmatic goals of the North Campus project. He would consider it to be a major
victory if they could have everything that they asked for. They would have prevented the unnecessary
relocation of the Moore House and kept traffic impacts from getting worse.
Stan Seltzer, 228 Forest Home Drive, stated that as others have stated, this is not a very good
plan. This plan was before the Town Board about one month ago. Several members of the public
interpreted the board's action of tabling the zoning issue as a statement to Cornell to make at least
one honest effort of retaining the Moore House on site. It could not be clearer that retaining the
house on site is preferred to moving it. There has been an enormous amount of evidence that there
has been an enormous amount of research into how to move it. The board has not seen any
evidence that there has been an honest good faith effort to put the Cradit -Moore House on equal
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
footing with the athletic fields and oversized parking lots. Cornell should make an honest effort at
looking to see whether it can be done. They showed their notes. There are 15 earlier plans. There
were no subsequent plans. It reminds him of something that is frowned upon in teaching and that is
when the student says that they do not understand; you just say it louder. When the plan is not very
acceptable, Cornell comes back with the same plan and brings in one more Vice President.
The proposed location is a bog. Despite efforts to make sure that they site the house higher
than the road, the view is that the house is sitting at the top of a hill. It is sitting in a dip. Nothing has
been done about the north /south elevation. The location of the house is significant. The comment
that the relocation site is Cradit property is irrelevant. He is tempted to say that they could move the
soccer fields on Cornell property.
Mr. Seltzer stated that Cornell has spared no expense in terms of providing rationalization for
why the Moore House will be happier in the new location. He wishes that they would devote a little
effort in trying to incorporate it into the plan. Do not approve a bad plan simply because it is not as
bad as the first plan. There have been improvements along the way. It is still not a good plan. The
board should hold out for a reasonable plan.
Nancy Brcak, 228 Forest Home Drive, stated that the board has heard emotion well up in the
voices of people who have spoken here and on other occasions. This is not simply a hot button
issue. It is an issue that seems to be one that needs to be weighed very carefully. It means that
Preliminary Approval may not occur. It is not a thought that most of the board likes to contemplate
because the board has been thinking about this for a long time. She has heard a number of telling
comments and persuasive arguments. The remarks about the parking lot were extremely persuasive.
It needs to be resolved. The board as public servants need to look into that issue some more. The
notion that has been presented in the past is that there is going to be less traffic through Forest
Home, not more. It simply does not add up. The parking spaces have a lot to do with that.
Ms. Brcak stated that she has spoken at the City of Ithaca Planning Board, Town of Ithaca
Town Board and Planning Board meetings. She stated that she is a specialist in Greek Revival
Architecture. It might be possible to move the Moore House to the Pleasant Grove site. However,
the issues that have been raised such as wetlands being disturbed, is something that has not been
investigated and would need to be. She stated that she does not agree with Mr. Stearns who said
this is going to be like a rural site. It is a suburban site. The drawing that Cornell University has
presented the board is one that is problematic. Even as the building is pictured, a great deal of fill
would have to be brought in. At the recent Town Board meeting, they were concerned about the cost
involved. At that time Mr. Kiefer stated that Cornell University was willing to contribute $80,000 to the
project. It broke down to $40,000 for the removal of the building. Mr. Kiefer mentioned $30,000 in
relation to the site, she assumed that he meant that Cornell University would improve the site and
bring the land up to street level. It needs to be built up more than street level. The $30,000 they
stated that they were contributing was the market value of the lot. The lot which they intend to retain
possession of. It is an interesting $30,000 contribution that is being made. The final $10,000 was for
an archeological excavation. Law would require this, but most likely an internal transfer of funds
would be done in- house. If this house were kept on site, Cornell University might be expected to
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
contribute about $200,000 to $350,000 to the maintenance and the refreshening of the house for a
new use. They do get off easy if the house is moved up the road. She would like to see a good faith
effort made by Cornell to contribute far more than the $40,000 that they would actually be
contributing. There should be some guarantee that the site is modified. Cornell paying for the
modification of the site could provide this guarantee. There are a number of issues that have been
left unstated.
The community has from the beginning supported the North Campus Initiative in its concept.
They have been trying for three years to provide helpful and relevant suggestions. The response did
not come from community suggestions. It came from the instructions of the City Planning Board and
the Town Board to improve the plan. There are some improvements that still need to be made to
insure that the North Campus will be a good neighbor to Forest Home. Forest Home has been a
good neighbor to Cornell. The community does a lot for Cornell. They provide a safe and friendly
community, which makes Cornell University extremely attractive as a residential campus. They would
like to have that acknowledged. If the traffic becomes worse, it will be very difficult to continue to say
that the area surrounding the campus will be safe. They have a tremendous traffic problem and the
board is aware of it.
Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Avenue, stated that she works for Cornell University as an instructor
in Historic Preservation and Planning. It annoys her to have to speak about an issue of historic
preservation regarding a building that Cornell University owns and has owned for long enough that it
should know how to take care of a historic building. It has deferred maintenance on this building. It
has allowed it to become what it is currently. It is not as bad as anyone might allege.
The board can make a statement about historic preservation for the Town. The board can put
its foot down and draw a line in the sand on this property. Everyone needs to think about what are
the real needs of the University. That should be the overwhelming decision making element. Is this
the need, or is it a desire? Cornell is asking for much more than they need to accomplish their goals.
The building is asking for the board to consider other things besides what Cornell wants. She
encourages the board to ask Cornell to reconsider the moving of this building. It will not benefit
Historic Ithaca. It will not improve its new site. It will not do anything but cause the loss of a historic
building in its historic site.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if any other members of the public wished to address the board.
With no other persons to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:58 p.m.
The board took a brief recess from 9:58 p.m. until 10:03 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Whitham if he had a chance to look at the maps of the
Cradit lands.
Mr. Whitham responded that it is interesting that the relocation property is actually the property
that was willed to Isaac Cradit and it is part of the same farm. It is more the characteristics of the site
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
that would be an issue than the fact that it was owned by the family at one time. The site does have
characteristics that make it a suitable site.
Board Member Conneman asked if Mr. Whitham had stated that the University would not
maintain the house.
Mr. Whitham stated that he did not state that. He does not have any idea what the University
would do.
Board Member Ainslie asked if there is a chance of a wetland.
Mr. Whitham stated that he has been on site. It is low. He has not done any tests and Historic
Ithaca has not done any tests to see if it is a wetland. He did not suspect that it would be since there
is a swale that runs along the side of it where he assumes the site drains. He did not see any
indications of a wetland.
Mr. Kanter asked if Historic Ithaca is comfortable with the amount that Cornell has offered.
Would it be enough for site improvements? If not, does Historic Ithaca have other plans to get funds
to pay for site improvements?
Mr. Whitham stated that $40,000 was an early number that his predecessor had worked
through in early conversations with Cornell. They are not under any existing contractural agreement
with Cornell. The understanding is that Historic Ithaca would be covered fiscally for the move. There
were discussions with Cornell that they would be providing the fill. All these issues have yet to be
ironed out. Historic Ithaca is not in a position to do this themselves. They would be relying on Cornell
to make this fiscally possible.
Attorney Barney stated that there is no current agreement other than verbal communication.
There is no written binding agreement to cover the costs.
Mr. Whitham stated that they do not have a written agreement at this time. They are ready to
work with Cornell after approvals.
Mr. Frantz stated that early in the process once this site was identified as a potential location,
he did go to the site. He assessed it for basic things. He tested the site for sight distance on
Pleasant Grove Road and if there is a safe location for a driveway. He did look for indicators of a
wetland. He did not see any indication of a wetland. Based on the three criteria outlined in the
Federal Regulations - the presence of vegetation, wet soil conditions, and hydric soil conditions. He
did not see any evidence that would indicate that there are any wetlands that would be impacted by
relocating the house on that site.
Ms. Wolf stated that she has taken Wetland Certification Training. She also did an inspection
of the site for those criteria. There are no visible indicators on the site.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
The University is committed to insuring that the relocation does not cost Historic Ithaca
anything. They are committed to working with Historic Ithaca to do what they need to insure that
there is no cost to Historic Ithaca.
Attorney Barney asked if it would be an offensive condition in the resolution that they have a
written binding agreement before Final Site Plan approval.
Ms. Wolf stated that the attorneys for Historic Ithaca and Cornell University are in discussion.
She does not know why it would have to be dependent on Final Site plan approval. It could be
dependent on prior to relocation. The Memorandum of Understanding that was prepared by the State
Historic Preservation Office lists the conditions under which the house could be relocated. Historic
Ithaca was involved with those conversations as well. Cornell has agreed to that Memorandum of
Understanding. It is an agreed to document with the State Historic Preservation Office. The
University is committed to executing all of those conditions. It is the University's responsibility to
make sure that it is done.
Attorney Barney stated that he is concerned about seeing something in writing evidencing a
total commitment.
Shirley Egan, Cornell University Associate Council, stated that she sees it as not being a good
idea because they do not have such an agreement with Historic Ithaca. The agenda of Historic Ithaca
is not in their control. If the Board of Historic Ithaca felt that they were overcommitted with one
project, they should not take on any other projects. Cornell is then obligated because of its
commitment to the Dormitory Authority and SHPO that it would fulfill the conditions and make the
move themselves. She does not see this agreement as being a key ingredient.
Attorney Barney stated that he would like to see the agreement in writing. He wants Cornell to
understand that if there is approval it might be a condition that needs to be fulfilled in some fashion.
Ms. Egan stated that the commitment exists. The relationship is between the SHPO and the
Dormitory Authority. They do not get their funds if they do not carry out the requirements.
Attorney Barney stated that if approved, they would want that commitment to the Town as well.
They are being told that the mitigation measure for this is that it will be moved. The mitigation
measure needs to be put in to make in enforceable.
Ms. Egan stated that they could accomplish what the Town would want by stating functionally
what it is.
Attorney Barney stated that typically the Town would have as a measuring point the issuance
of a building permit or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The project involves site
improvements, but not structures in the Town; a Certificate of Occupancy would not be required. The
normal checkpoints will not be there. If approved, the University needs to be bound at a point where
the Town has the opportunity to say that they cannot go any further.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter asked if there is a permit to move the house.
Attorney Barney stated that there would need to be a building permit to move the building.
Mr. Kanter stated that the proposed relocation is in the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the board has not decided if they are going to allow the
house to be moved. They are doing a lot of talk about something that they have not decided upon
yet.
Attorney Barney stated that he was mistakenly under the impression that there was an existing
agreement between Cornell and Historic Ithaca. If the board choose to move the house, he would
like to have some provision in the resolution.
Board Member Conneman asked Ms. Wolf what is wrong with scheme 10 that was presented
to the board by Mr. Bruce Brittain.
Ms. Wolf stated that she has not had much time to evaluate the figure. Her first reaction is that
is seems undesirable to create a situation where you have the fields surrounded by roads. People
would need to cross a road in order to get to the fields. When you are undertaking a development as
extensive as this and it is a new development, it is precisely the type of thing you try to avoid. There
needs to be unimpeded pedestrian flow between the dormitories and the fields. It is not good site
planning to have the fields surrounded by roads. It isolates the fields and creates a safety hazard.
Board Member Conneman stated that the roads are not going to change.
Ms. Wolf stated that on the proposed site plan people could move from the dormitories to the
fields without crossing a road. They have taken Sission Place and extended it straight down. Ms.
Wolf stated that they tried this scheme. The grading did not allow this scheme to happen. A field
needed to be eliminated.
Mr. Frantz stated that he sees a few issues with this concept. It is similar to some of the ideas
that he has come up with. It takes out as much or if not more of the mature vegetation around the
Moore House. This was an issue with some of his proposals. The Moore House is being preserved,
but the site is not being preserved. The Cornell site plan has trees around and between the fields
breaking them up. Figure 10 does not have any opportunity to break it up with vegetation. It also
eliminates the bike path. It is an important linkage between the Hasbrouck Apartments and Central
Campus. It is also the western end of the bike path that is proposed in the Town of Ithaca Parks and
Open Space Plan. It appears to eliminate the red pine planting that protects Fuertes Observatory
from light spillage. The pines are very important and the Town would like to preserve them. Mr.
Frantz stated that it is not an attractive alternative. It has a number of problems.
Board Member Conneman asked if Mr. Frantz's original plan was better than Figure 10.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Frantz stated that the plans that he presented preserved the bike path and preserved the
opportunity for landscaping between the fields.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the plan could be tweaked further and further to get
closer to something that is a good plan for the fields and keeping the Moore House. This plan
includes the parking spaces that Cornell proposed. There could be an opening to allow for students
to cross to the fields without having to cross a road or parking lot. If there were a shifting of the
community commons then this could allow for more shifting of the grading that would be beneficial. It
is not an easy problem.
Board Member Mitrano stated that she would like to call the question.
Mr. Kanter stated that before the board can vote on the plan, the Statement of Findings needs
to be voted on.
Board Member Conneman asked if the board could discuss the new entrance to the University.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are issues that still need to be discussed. The size of the
parking lot needs to be addressed. The board needs to state whether this plan precludes the new
northern entrance or not.
Board Member Conneman asked why the plan did not include a north entrance. This concept
has been talked about for many years. Why is it not included in the plan?
Board Member Thayer stated that it couldn't be done by Cornell alone. Cornell is trying to
negotiate a northern entrance but they cannot do it without municipality involvement.
Mr. Kanter stated that it was evident from the first meeting that it is not as simple a matter that
it might at first seem. In order to satisfy Cayuga Heights, there might need to be more flexibility on
the Town of Ithaca or City of Ithaca side. There are a number of possibilities of how a north entrance
could be configured. It was clear that it is not necessarily a new entrance or new road. It might be
combinations of several types of things. It might include reconfiguration of how Pleasant Grove Road
currently goes past the campus. It might be channeled to go into the campus. This might also
include traffic calming measures on certain locations of Pleasant Grove Road.
Board Member Thayer stated that the north entrance road is in its initial stages. This project is
in its final stages. They cannot be tied together.
Mr. Kanter stated that it would take many more meetings. The committee has drafted the
goals. There are a lot of issues to be resolved before it can happen. It has been 30 years since
people have been considering it.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman stated that if it were part of the plan, it would take away many of the
arguments of the people in Forest Home who are concerned about traffic. It is the one thing that
could be done that would eliminate a lot of the problems.
Board Member Howe stated that there are contradictions between the modeled numbers and
the number of proposed parking spaces.
Ms. Wolf stated that Mr. Doug Brittain is blending the analysis that suggests that not all the
employees will park in the lot and some people in the evening will park in other locations. Her
recollection is that that analysis was for the original proposal which did not allow traffic to drive
through. Cars either had to enter off Thurston Avenue or Pleasant Grove Road. Under that scenario,
they projected that people coming from Central Campus and the west would choose to park in other
locations. They would not go around. There was a modeling of traffic flow for the alternative that is
being proposed based on the through traffic scenario. The two have been jumbled together.
Ms. Wolf stated that they did a very careful analysis of how to arrive at the number of parking
spaces. It was not an arbitrary decision. Cornell does not want to build more parking spaces than
they need. On the other hand, they feel that they need to build enough. This way people are not
driving all over looking for a parking spaces and creating more traffic. Finding the correct balance
was an important part of the process.
There are 80 new employees projected that will serve the community commons and the two
residence halls. It includes maintenance, kitchen staff, and other staff in the buildings. Of the 80
employees, 56 would have a regular daily shift. They would arrive at peak and leave at peak hour.
They then looked at a typical distribution across campus of how many employees buy permits, take
the bus, and carpool. Taking the 56 employees that will arrive in the morning and depart at the end of
the day, they applied the same percentages that apply across the board at Cornell. That resulted in
an estimated number of 30 employees that would actually park in the new lot. The balance would
either carpool or takes the bus. There is an estimate of 20 new users at peak times. It came up to a
total of 50 new users at peak hour. Eighty -three of the spaces are replacement spaces. This totals
133 spaces. It is included in Revision One of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Board Member Howe asked why so many spaces were taken away from the area near Helen
Newman Hall. Was there any reaction to the plan that Mr. Brittain provided for more spaces being
provided there?
Ms. Wolf stated that currently the lot next to Helen Newman Hall is a dead end lot. There is
parking on either side. There is high demand for that lot. If it is full, people tend to wait because it is
a metered lot. Cars are backed up on South Balch Drive. They have been asked to provide a through
road unimpeded that is going to allow anyone to use the road. This is not an acceptable condition.
This is why they studied it and came up with a solution that would solve that safety problem. The
proposal provides a loop around the parking area. It also provides a convenient drop -off. It is
believed that many people would come in this direction, drop someone off and exit again. They are
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 29 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
trying to facilitate that type of activity. This eliminates the safety hazard. The road is around the
perimeter of the parking lot. This causes there to be fewer spaces.
This leads to Mr. Brittain's proposal. Ms. Wolf stated that she studied the proposal. She
overlaid it over the grading plan. She did a grading plan for it and tried to work it out. The main
difficulty is the location of the road. It exits where everything comes together. It is unsafe to have too
many driveways in too close proximity. There is a stop sign, bus stop, and the major intersection of
pedestrian traffic. It is extremely difficult to figure out how to make that come out in a way that works
with every thing else. It is not a simple matter of shifting other things. They studied it to see if it was
possible.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if they could reverse the flow of traffic in the parking lot.
Ms. Wolf responded that there is a problem with that because there needs to be stacking
space behind a stop sign. This drive is going to have to be far enough away from the stop sign. The
whole unit has to shift.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if an extra turning lane to go into the parking lot would work.
Ms. Wolf replied that there would still be a stacking problem. There would be a conflict of
people trying to get into the turning lane. It then would hold up traffic.
Board Member Thayer asked why the road is narrowed at the center of activity.
Ms. Wolf stated that the centerline of the road carries through. The travel lanes widen in front
of Helen Newman Hall. The bike lanes do not exist in front of Helen Newman Hall. There is no
narrowing of the roadway width itself. From Thurston Avenue to just west of the stop sign, there are
5 -foot wide bike lanes. At this point the bike lane on the south side terminates forcing the bikes to
merge with the traffic lanes. The reason for doing this is that they do not want bikes flying by in front
of Helen Newman Hall where there are a lot of pedestrians. They want to minimize bicycle
pedestrian conflicts. The bicyclist could also dismount and walk their bikes in front of Helen Newman
Hall. They could also take the bike path at the crosswalk. Ten feet wide is the standard driving lane.
It is 11 feet wide.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she still has questions about the parking situation. She
has a number of questions about why the parking lot west of Helen Newman was changed the way it
was and why the number of spaces was diminished. She would have liked to see a greater increase
in spaces than what they have seen.
Mr. Frantz stated that in September and October he went through and looked at the proposed
changes in parking. There are 176 parking spaces currently existing. The overall plan as proposed
including the newest proposal, it would be a total of 202 parking spacing. It is a net gain of 26 parking
spaces. This plan eliminates 20 to 22 parking spaces along Sisson Place. This is after the University
extends the existing parking along Sisson Place northward about 20 spaces.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 30 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the problem still remains that it is very strange that the
parking spaces in a parking lot that was just described as a very desirable one is where the spaces
have been removed. She does not understand that. They should have remained if they are very
desirable. Removing parking spaces could have occurred elsewhere.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that comments were made with regards to whether what the board
is doing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue is historic preservation. He is
firmly convinced from everything that he has heard that reasonable people can come down on both
sides of the issue. It is historic preservation to keep the building there. It is historic preservation to
move it and site it properly. The board has letters from people of various levels of expertise who
seem to come down on both sides of the issue. Each board member will make their own decision.
The board is striving to protect the surrounding neighborhoods. The board has spent over 10 hours
discussing the issue.
The letter from Fernando de Argon, See Attachment #12, states that he has reviewed the
plans and does not see any issues that would preclude advancing the proposal for the north campus
gateway. Mr. de Argon is also a certified planner. Someone mentioned moving the parking lot to the
crescent. That is not a good idea. It is a wonderful feature. It is wonderful open space and is near
the proposed new dormitories.
The petitions were mentioned. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he feels that the petitions are
worthless. He apologizes to the people who took the time to put the petitions together. His job is to
make good land use decisions, and not to be swayed by petitions. Petitions do not affect the best
use of this parcel. Each board member must make a decision without regard to what certain
individuals may or may not want the board to do. The board must make a decision whether to grant
Preliminary and Final or just Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Given the scope and size of the project,
and if it is approved it needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the board should grant
preliminary with conditions. He would not be comfortable granting Preliminary and Final Approval on
a project of this magnitude.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has been struggling with what is best for the community
versus what is better for the house. What is best for the community is to leave the house on site in its
current location. What is best for the house is to move it. If he were the house, he would want to be
moved and have a family taking care of him. He would like to see the house remain on site. The
various elements of the plan need to be rearranged, eliminated or moved in such a way that not only
is the house retained on site, but also is buffered sufficiently. This is what is best for the community
and it outweighs what is best for the house. It also does not take away the fact that the house if on
site can be used in a way that preserves it.
The first order of business is the Statement of Findings. The board reviewed the Statement of
Findings at their November 2nd meeting. They have received it back with revisions. He suggests that
where it refers to 138 parking spaces be replaced with the new maximum 130 -space parking lot.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 31 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Frantz if he had reviewed the comments from Mr. Brittain.
Mr. Frantz responded that he did review them. See Attachment 11. In number 2, Mr. Brittain
refers to the draft Environmental Impact Statement. They are referring to the analysis in the
Environmental Impact Statement. There was a supplemental packet of information that discussed the
issue. It is part of the Environmental Impact Statement. The key thing is that the Planning Board
concludes that it is likely that there could be small to moderate increases in traffic through the
adjacent Forest Home area. It is important to leave night time off -peak hours because it was one of
the impacts identified in the discussion that were not covered in the draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Frantz if he had any other changes that he would recommend.
Mr. Frantz stated that the other suggestions made by Mr. Brittain are up to the board. The
language under B6 is the language from SEQR. They have been discussing social impacts on the
neighborhood. The economic benefits or disadvantages to the project have been discussed and
other considerations.
Board Member Conneman stated that there are contradictions in 1A, 2 and 6. They contradict
each other.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she feels that 1A should remain, but number 6 should be
eliminated.
Attorney Barney stated that is what the board needs to vote on fairly quickly. The
determination of the house determines the language.
Mr. Frantz stated that in number 6, either what is there or "the Planning Board finds it
preferable to maintain the Cradit -Moore House in its present location as a course of action that
mitigates impacts ". This is drafted in a manner that states moving the house is an appropriate
mitigating measure. The board could decide to change it to maintaining the house in its presence
location is a mitigating manner.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to see that language. It is also more
consistent with 1 A.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that 1A simply states preservation. It does not state on site. It just
says that preservation of the house should be an integral part of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he needs to know which board members are in favor of the
plan as proposed or with slight modifications.
Board Member Howe stated that Ms. Mahr called attention to the Comprehensive Plan. As a
new Planning Board member, he would like to rely on the work done in the past as a guide. There is
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 32 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
no right or wrong answer to whether the Moore House should remain on site. The other issue is safe
neighborhoods. There is a right answer on that. He is less concerned about moving the Moore
House than safe neighborhoods and traffic concerns. It does not sound like the north campus
entryway can be a condition here because it is going to take some time. The board should do its part
in moving it forward. It is a critical piece. There could also be some reduction in the number of
parking spaces. Traffic is more important than the location of the Moore House.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that you could fiddle with the layout in terms of increasing parking
spaces. When it comes to overall site changes, it becomes the crucial factor.
Attorney Barney stated that the board needs to deal with the Moore House issue. Traffic is
another issue. The board needs to decide whether the majority of the board believes that the findings
should reflect the fact that the Moore House should remain on site or be moved. The Moore House
issue is one that is basic to how it is written.
Board Member Howe stated that it is a package deal for him. If some other things were written
into the plan than he is not opposed to the Moore House being moved.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Board Member Howe if he preferred the Moore House to remain on
site or if it should be moved.
Board Member Howe stated that he couldn't say it any clearer.
Board Member Thayer stated that he is in favor of moving the house.
Board Member Mitrano stated that she is in favor of the plan as written, including moving the
Moore House.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the house should be moved.
Board Member Conneman stated that the house should remain on site.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the house should remain on site.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is in favor of keeping the house on site.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue before the board is to adopt a Statement of Findings.
The Statement of Findings must receive 4 votes in order for it to be adopted.
Attorney Barney stated that Board Member Howe was meaning that if the findings would
incorporate some aspects relative to the traffic that he could accept a finding that would allow the
Moore House to be moved.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the findings should reflect the Moore House being relocated.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 33 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox asked if Board Member Howe could give the board a better idea of traffic
issues that should be addressed.
Board Member Howe responded that it relates to the north campus entryway. He does not
know how much they can say about it at this point.
Mr. Frantz stated the reason the north campus entry is not being included in the project is that
it is not seen as a mitigating measure. Whether or not it is included in this project would not affect the
traffic implications of the project. The primary reason why Cornell was proposing the entry was
because since the new road has opened up to through traffic, they see the new entryway to the
campus as benefiting them primarily. It will have some benefit for Forest Home also. It is not seen as
a mitigating factor in this project.
Mr. Kanter stated that A5 on page 2 of the Findings Statement does talk to the north campus
gateway. It states that it is a good idea and warrants the support of the Town of Ithaca. It does state
that it must be demonstrated that the North Campus Residential Initiative project will not preclude
construction of a north connector.
Board Member Conneman asked how long would the discussion go on before a decision to do
so is made. By the time the North Campus Residential Initiative is completed, would the
municipalities be prepared to build the gateway.
Mr. Kanter stated that by that time preliminary designs for some configurations might be
underway. He was optimistic that the entire group, including Cayuga Heights, was in favor of
supporting the reconfiguration as long as it would not have additional traffic impacts on other areas. It
will take a couple years of study.
Board Member Ainslie asked if a committee has been formed.
Mr. Kanter stated that they have met once. They have a meeting scheduled for the end of
January. It is a group being coordinated by the Ithaca - Tompkins Transportation Council. There is a
mechanism for bringing the different municipalities together.
Board Member Conneman stated that he is concerned because it took Cornell University a
long time to change the East Hill Plaza parking lot.
Attorney Barney stated that they came to an impasse with Cornell University. Cornell University
came in and wanted to reduce the number of required parking spaces. The Planning Board wanted
to reserve space in case the number turned out to be inadequate. Cornell has decided that they can
reduce the size safely. Most of the time when Cornell University commits to doing something that this
board wants to do, it gets done.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 34 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Thayer stated that until the north entrance is complete, he would be in favor of
some type of emphasis on people turning into the new road.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that portion is a County road. They could ask the County for
signage.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it should not be something that would be expected to last
100 years.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not up to the board to decide what it has to be. The board
can indicate that the board believes that something more needs to be there and have the experts
come back with their ideas.
Mr. Frantz asked if the board wanted to direct people to Cornell by using the new road, or is it
preferable to direct people on Jessup Road. People are naturally going to gravitate towards this road.
If they are headed towards the University, they are going to see the road leading to the University.
The intersection of Jessup Road and Pleasant Grove Road is within the Town.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are two different groups of users. There are the
people who do not know which road to take because they are newcomers. Then there are the people
who know where the best parking spaces are. They are going to choose the roads that are the best
ways to get there.
Mr. Frantz stated that people very quickly learn what the best routes are.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the language as it exists is consistent with the majority of the
board wanting to relocate the Moore House.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is mentioned the structure could be relocated to either
of the two proposed sites offered by the University in the Environmental Impact Statement. She does
not think that it applies any more.
Attorney Barney asked the majority of the board to look at item B4. On the one hand it is
saying it is possible to construct the fields. However, if the finding is acceptable mitigation to move
the Moore House, the basis of that action is that it is not possible to fit all the programmatic needs of
Cornell on the site plan and maintain the house. Attorney Barney suggested that it should state that
"it would be impracticable to construct the 3 proposed fields and other programmatic elements
needed by Cornell in a manner that would allow Cornell University to maintain the Cradit -Moore
House in its current location along with a portion of its surrounding landscape lawns ".
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she couldn't vote in favor of the Statement of Findings.
She does not agree with that statement.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are four votes in favor of the language.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 35 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Howe stated that he is in favor of moving the house if he feels that he is
gaining something by protecting a safe neighborhood quality in Forest Home. He is not sure that he
is gaining much on that end because some of it is out of their control. He is wondering if there is
something that they can bargain with Cornell to protect and prevent more traffic from going through
Forest Home.
Board Member Mitrano stated that if the board does not want more traffic then the board states
it. If they want to go with the house or not to go with house, they state it. It does not need to be
bargained. The board can be as strong as it wants on any issue.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there were changes made from the original plan as originally
proposed before the board. The most significant change to the plan is the through road. For
whatever reason, Cornell University proposed that as their original plan. Due to various input, it has
been made a through road. The findings talk about a small to moderate increase in traffic in Forest
Home. They have a document that states that traffic is likely to decrease in Forest Home. The
language the board is thinking about adopting says that they are not sure that it is going to decrease,
but the board is willing to say that there is a small to moderate impact. Work has been done to
mitigate the traffic. Some people may feel that not enough has been done to mitigate the traffic
problems.
Board Member Ainslie stated that no one would really know until it is in place. It is not until
then that anyone will know where the traffic is going. Board Member Ainslie stated that he thinks that
the traffic might decrease.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board received a letter in the past that stated traffic could
decrease. The language in the Statement of Findings states that there might be a small to moderate
impact on traffic in Forest Home as a result. It is a much smaller impact than what would have
resulted if the new road was not a through road. The City and community have convinced Cornell
that internalizing their traffic is a much better idea.
Board Member Howe asked the three board members that are in favor of keeping the Cradit-
Moore House on site, is the hope that Cornell University would find a use for it or that they would sell
it to a private family.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he hopes that Cornell finds an appropriate use for it.
Board Member Howe asked if the board would have any control over that decision.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board could insist on deed restrictions to ensure that the
house is kept up.
Attorney Barney responded yes.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 36 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want to tell Cornell what to do with the house.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the board is being very presumptuous to tell Cornell what to
do with the house. They could tear the house down.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Cornell could not tear down the house.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are going to be Dormitory funds used for this
project. The State Historic Preservation Office has to be involved because of it. It will help ensure
that the house is taken care of.
Attorney Barney stated that if the majority of the board feels that the house could be moved, he
would prefer not to have inconsistent findings. The duty of the board is to balance the programmatic
needs of Cornell with the needs of the community.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he proposed that A5 be changed to make it into a finding. "The
Planning Board further finds that documentation has been provided showing that the proposed North
Campus Residential Initiative project will not preclude construction of said northern indicator."
Attorney Barney stated that the findings could also state "The board further finds that the
proposed North Campus Residential Initiative will not preclude construction of a new northern
gateway ".
Chairperson Wilcox asked if someone would like to move the motion to adopt the Findings
Statement pursuant to SEAR.
Board Member Thayer stated that he would make the motion.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he would second the motion.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that under point h, it talks about the issue of whether impacts
of removing the vegetation on the site have been mitigated to the extent practicable through proposed
preservation of some existing vegetation on the site and the proposed planting of replacement trees
and other landscaping as shown on site plan submission. Where is this shown?
Mr. Frantz stated that it is on the landscaping plan.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if it refers to the trees in the Town of Ithaca or does it refer to
plantings that are specifically on the Moore House site.
Mr. Frantz stated that under d, it states that they are saving some of the landscaping on the
Cradit -Moore House site. The impact of removal of some of the mature trees on the Moore House
site and other shrubs are being partially mitigated by the proposed planting of approximately 150
deciduous canopy trees and approximately 50 conifer trees and some flowering trees.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 37 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann asked if that was over the whole site.
Mr. Frantz stated that these are within the Town of Ithaca. He looked at the site from the
dormitories and the Community Commons eastward. It does not include the project site within the
City.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that under point "d" it mentions the project area east of Sisson
Place, the proposed new dormitories, and the Community Commons building. They are in the City.
Mr. Frantz stated that some of the trees that he counted are in the City. The point is that the
trees on the west side of Noyes Building and Community Commons are not going to be mitigating the
impact of removing the mature trees around the Cradit -Moore House.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if they should be more specific in "h" about what they are
talking about. It was very unclear to her. One could refer back to "d" on the previous page and on
the site plan submission.
Mr. Frantz stated that there are other trees on the site on the location of the former Pleasant
Grove Apartments. There are mature trees that are also being cut.
Attorney Barney stated that it could state throughout the site.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that they should be included if they are in the Town or if they
are in the City also.
Mr. Frantz stated that it could state existing vegetation throughout the site. Some of it is in the
City of Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that they have a motion and a second to adopt the Findings
Statement as modified. He asked if the board had any other comments. With no further comment,
Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
Board Member Thayer stated "AYE ".
Board Member Mitrano stated "AYE ".
Board Member Ainslie stated "AYE ".
Board Member Conneman stated "NAY ".
Board Member Hoffmann stated "NAY ".
Chairperson Wilcox stated "NAY ".
Board Member Howe stated "ABSTAIN ".
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 38 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are three in favor, three opposed and one abstention.
Board Member Howe stated that he feels as if he is in a very awkward position. It is 11:30
p.m. He does not want to prolong this any more than anyone else does. He asked what the options
of the board are.
Attorney Barney stated that Board Member Howe has been put in a very unique spot. He
suggests that the board adjourn the matter. The board has heard information and talked about it. It
would give everyone a chance to think through the situation.
Board Member Howe asked if that would require another public hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the public hearing has been held and closed.
Board Member Howe stated that there are some other issues that he needs to sort through
that have been raised during the public hearing and discussions. He needs some clarification on
some issues.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he wanted to leave the meeting completing something.
Board Member Howe stated that even if he abstains when they take a formal vote, the board
would still need to revisit the issue. He was not expecting a split.
Attorney Barney stated that unless someone other than Board Member Howe is thinking of
changing their position, the board does not have any choice but to adjourn to give Board Member
Howe a chance to make a decision.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has been on the fence and he is still on the fence. He had
to make a decision and he decided that the house should remain on site. He is going to go back and
revisit his decision. He might come up with the same decision.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there are a couple of issues that a person like him cannot
digest. The parking is hard to understand. Ms. Wolf has done a reasonable job showing why it
should be. She has done her homework.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that his sense of the board is that the board is divided along the
lines of the house. He does not think that changing the parking lot to 50 spaces would change the
mixture of the votes. If he thought that it would, then the board would go another route.
Board Member Howe stated that it might.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board should adjourn the discussion until the next available
meeting.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 39 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter stated that there is room on the January 18th agenda.
Board Member Conneman stated that he would not be present at the January 18th meeting.
The board has sat here for hours.
Attorney Barney stated that without Board Member Conneman present, the board could have
another three to three vote. Is there another Tuesday night that Board Member Conneman is
available?
Board Member Conneman stated that he is available on January 11th
Board Member Mitrano stated that she would not be present January 11th
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it would be the first meeting in February when all seven
members will be available.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he would not change his vote. Cornell does not take care of
the house.
meet.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want to wait another month before the board could
Board Member Conneman stated that he would be back in the middle of the last week in
January.
Board Member Howe asked if there is another time this week the board could meet.
Mr. Kanter stated that they would not have enough time to announce a special meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that the board could adjourn the discussion to the next night.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board could meet the next night.
Mr. Kanter stated that he is unavailable the next night.
Board Member Ainslie asked what the board is going to accomplish with another meeting that
they have not hashed out that evening.
Attorney Barney stated that Board Member Howe would like a chance to think about it and look
things over. At that junction, he is prepared to vote. It would break the tie. It also gives the other
board members an opportunity to rethink the decision.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board could meet on Friday night.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 40 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -MARCH 7, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter stated that he does not know what staff would come to the meeting.
Mr. Frantz stated that the City Board of Public Works meets starting at 4:30 p.m. and goes until
about 7:30 p.m. It might be more convenient.
Board Member Conneman asked if the board could meet the next day at Noon.
Mr. Kanter stated that he does not know how he could advertise it as a meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that the board could adjourn the meeting for an hour and then come
back. If it is adjourned to a specific time it can be done legally.
Mr. Frantz stated that he could call Lauren Bishop at the Ithaca Journal.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board could meet Wednesday, January 5t" at Noon.
The board agreed to meet Wednesday, January 5t" at Noon.
RESOLUTION 2000 -6 - Adiournment of North Campus Residential Initiative Discussion.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the North Campus Residential Initiative Discussion until
Wednesday, January 05, 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 4, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:53 p.m. until January 5, 2000 at 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carrie L. Coates,
Deputy Town Clerk.
PLANNING BOARD PAGE 41 JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED-MARCH 7, 2000-APPROVED APPROVED-APPROVED
e 1
Carrie L. Coates,
Deputy Town Clerk.
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: David L. Klein, Councilman
Mary Russel, Councilwoman
Subject: Cradit-Moore House
North Campus Residential Initiative
Date: January 2, 2000
As you probably know, we have been very concerned about how Cornell has
approached the issue of the Cradit-Moore House. The Ithaca Journal's editorial of
December 15, 7999 concerning thp.regi . inaccurately construed-our, mataa�
As a response to that editorial, we have submitted an op-ed piece to the Journal, but
are uncertain of its publication date. Therefwre�a►ue have taken the unusual step of �. y
mailing to you a copy of our response, in which we have attempted to clarify the action
we took, which opposed the rezoning. This is beincL rovided as additional information
to he liber i ��
ATTACHMENT #1
For Op-Ed December 30, 1999
The Ithaca Journal Editorial on the Cradit-Moore House (12-15-99)
misses the point that we, as the dissenters on the rezoning, tried to make.
Dismissing our negative votes as "anti-CU sentiment" was most unfair and is
dead wrong. Furthermore, we are both firmly suMortive of the goals of the
North Campus Residential Initiative (NCRI) and have stated so publicly. We
simply disagree that reaching these goals requires the removal of a building
that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The central issue
was to either accept the permanent loss of the historic site or oppose the
rezoning.
We wanted Cornell to develop a site plan with the Cradit-Moore House
on its "must have" list. There are many ways to shift or change elements of
a site plan this large to accommodate the retention of the house. This was
never done in any realistic way in spite of early input from the Town, the City
and Historic Ithaca which emphasized the importance of keeping the house in
its historic context. John Kiefer's presentation at the December Town
Board meeting certainly did nothing to dispel the nation that Cornell hasn't
listened to the public since the physical features of the site plan have
changed only slightly since its unveiling in July 1998, but instead confirmed
that the Cradit-Moore House has always been considered expendable
throughout the project's planning. The house appeared on early versions of
Cornell's plans for the NCRI but only because it had not yet been crowded off
the site by the addition, expansion or relocation of other site features, such
as parking lots. A serious effort to ensure that the plan preserved the
house was never made.
The "search" Cornell perform' sible- uses for the house
consisted of reviewing a list of current space needs that yielded no matches.
There was, apparently, no creative thought devoted to integrating the house
into the NCRI plan nor was the availability of the house plus funding for
restoration advertised to the Cornell community. Renovation of the house
for meeting space was evaluated, according to Kiefer, but was dismissed.
The Journal Editorial states that the plan to move the Cradit-Moore
House was endorsed by the State Historic Prewvation Office (SHPO) but a
letter from Richard Lord of that office makes clear that SHPO initially
"advised that involved agencies should explore prudent and feasible project
2.
alternatives" to the adverse effect of relocation. Cornell never explored
this route, but pressed its case for relocation. We understand that only 2
historic buildings under the jurisdiction of SHPO have been moved since 1994.
That letter also states that, "mitigation generally equals 3-5% of a project's
total cost". Cornell's commitment of $40,000 is approximately f'.as% of
$75,075,000 in Dormitory Authority bonds.
The Journal states that the Cradit-Moore House would have been
"wasted" if it remained in place. We strongly disagree. We feel very
strongly that the historic preservation strategy of "adaptive reuse" which
saves most historic buildings would be very appropriate. Are all the
wonderful older homes that have-been converted to offices in downtown
Ithaca wasted? Are Faneuil Hall in Boston or the A. D. White House on the
Cornell campus wasted? Of course not, they add texture and historical
context to their environments. More historically accurate surroundings for
the house are actually being restored by the NCRI, since it again will be
surrounded by open fields as it was in the time the Cradit family built it.
Cornell is missing an important opportunity in dismissing the Cradit-
Moore House. It should have been an integral part of the NCRI and could
perform a host of pivotal functions while firmly anchoring each freshman
class in our community's and Cornell's shared history. Its presence on North
Campus would help Cornell combat a perception that plagues all large
universities-- that they are impersonal places. It could be the "home away
from home" for the freshman class while functioning in the role of the
freshman resources center mentioned in the Ithaca Journal article (11 -17)
on the recommendations � it mittee. It could
function as a very special place for facia a kith freshmen,
another Committee recommendation, that no institutional setting could ever
emulate. Or it could function as a visitor's center, an easily recognizable
place close to the proposed new main campus gateway for prospective
students, their parents and other campus visitors to be greeted and
oriented to the campus. We feel certain that many other adaptive reuses for
the Cradit-Moore House would be brought forward by publishing its availability
to the Cornell community along with an allocation of funding for renovation.
A fall back position would be to keep it available for visiting faculty or
graduate student housing.
3.
The minimum test for any rezoning is-- would the proposed use comply
with the comprehensive pian? In our view, the Cornell proposal violates our
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan's provisions on protection of historic
sites and structures. It does not create the win-win solution the Cornell
administration seems to think it does, but instead creates a situation where
Forest Home, the Town of Ithaca and the Cornell community all suffer a loss.
To press their case for the relocation of the Cradit-Moore House, Mr. Kiefer
actually argued that they have a "poor track record" when it comes to
historic preservation and that they would simply let the house rot if forced
to keep it on site. This was, indeed, in spite of what the Journal Editorial
said, one of those situations where Cornell came off like a Bigfoot.
Town of Ithaca Board Members Mary Russell and
David Klein
a ® Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
121 East Court Street
® Ithaca, New York 14850
�--�� Phone: (607) 274-5570 / Fax: (607) 274-5578
E-Mail: ITCTC@rnaiI.co.tompkins.ny.us
PoAcv Committee: Dfnectnr Planning Committee:
Stuart W.Stein,AICP, Chair Fernando de Arsgdn,AICP John Gutenberger, Chair
Ronald E.Anderson, Vice Chair James W.Hanson,Jr., Vice Chair
Jon P. Edinger,P.S. Secretary D
November 17, 1999
Nov 1 8 M9
Mr.Fred T.Wilcox,III
Chair,Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street TOWN OF ITHACA
Ithaca,NY 14850 PLANNING,ZONING,ENGINEERING
Dear Mr.Wilcox:
This Ietter is in response to concerns raised about the Cornell north campus gateway idea during the Town of Ithaca's review of the
North Campus Residential Initiative (NCRI) proposal. I have evaluated the latest NCRI plans and see no issues that would preclude
advancing a proposal for a north campus gateway.Early discussions place the gateway near the A-lot and Pleasant Grove Rd., outside
the project boundaries for the NCRI. In addition, the latest NCRI plan has not diminished the available options for routing traffic from
the gateway area into the university.
Preliminary discussions between staff from Cornell,the Town and City of Ithaca, Tompkins County and myself resulted in identifying
some interesting opportunities in association with a north campus gateway idea. In particular, there is the potential of directing traffic
to the A-lot where visitors can be offered information about the campus, and be provided with a transit option to reach their final
.festination.
The ITCTC was asked to coordinate the meetings of a conunittee that will develop the north campus gateway concept into a set of
proposals. I am currently scheduling the initial meeting of this committee for the first week of December 1999. The committee will
include representatives from the Village of Cayuga Heights,Town of Ithaca,City of Ithaca,Tompkins County, Cornell and the ITCTC.
I expect that at first, the committee will work on developing goals for this proposal, followed by the presentation of concept ideas and
identifying what data will be needed to analyze the ideas. Details of procedural/jurisdictional responsibility and timing of the project
are yet to be determined.
I hope this letter is useful in clarifying the status of the north campus gateway initiative.Please call me at my office if you would like to
discuss this issue any further.
Sincerely,
oe
Fernando de Aragon,AICP
Staff Director
CC: Jonathan Kanter,Town Planner,Town of Ithaca
William E.Wendt, Director of Transportation Services,Cornell University
M:UTCi'CIMPOWORKNCorrespondenec99W CGateway-FWilcox-let-1 199.doe
ATTACHMENT #2
Tompkins Coonly-Cily of Ithaca-Village of Cayuga HeightseVillage of Lansing-Town of Caroline-Town of DanbyoTown of Dryden-Town of Enfield-Town of Groton-Town of Ithaca
Town of Lansing-Town of Newriefd-Town of Ulysses-Comell UniversilrNew York State Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration
limill
nor
uu � . . •. � � - � 'moi --'
te. 4A
Dlb �.
�4411
r
dol
LA
,3 << •
Ilk
tv
Is
ru
� �-
l 1 r
c�
3 �
o
n
d
a
5-4
e�7
LA70
w4 C14
10
Ui lo
oil/3`
\ fi p
IN
LP
n7-
LAN
ATTACHMENT 114
l..RA Y r ORD & MA11NS
AVJMUE=AND FRESERVAMEN rL+ra+Rs
30 December 1999
Ms_Joni Carroll,Project Manager
Planning,Design and Construction
Facilities&t Campus Services
Coineu udmTsity
Humphreys Service Building
Ithaca,New York 14853-3701
Re: Analysis of Alternate Sites
Cradit Moore House
DearJoni:
This lett=is in response to your question regarding haw each of the sifts for the Cradit Moore
House examined over the past year measures up to historic preservation cdreria The most
important criterion for retaining eligibility for the National Register when relocating a historic
structure is to re-establish the historic contexT of the building as closely as possible. In the case of
the Credit-Moore House,this means re-establishing its rural context,ectal niag its aricnration to
Picasant Grove Road,and replicating the adsting site in terms of sine,topography,and plantings.
Over the past year it has become increasingly clear to me that the site north on Pleasant Grove Road
best meets this cri=ion. This site is big enough to recreate the wdsting adjacent"doory�.ion
spaces. It is an undeveloped parcel with.a few neighboring 19th century houses sprinkl g
the road at low density. This makes an almostrural con=with adjacentpmpesdes screened by
existing trees and hedgerows. The site would regwe filling in older tobring grade up to the level
of the road,so typical of the Classical Revival house sites in the countryside in the second quaroer
of the 19th century_ Such regrading would duplicate the current site.
Although the site located in the Forest Home hamlet stands witness to C radif s historic connection
with that early settlerneat on Fall Cheek,the house was never physicaIly or aesthetically a parr of
the enclave. in fact,as the prosperous farmefs home,it was deliberately set apart from the hamlet
where the mill workers lived and worked. The Forest Home site was either open or industrial in
use historically,not residential or agricdzu al. This is not to say brat the Cradit-Moore House
cannot be physic0y established d=r,but it fa-Us to meet the criteria because the creek limits the
depth of the back yard,and it has two strew farms instead of one. Like the Pleasant Grove Road
site,the Forest Home site would require filling m order to bring grade up m the level of the mad,
however the narrowness of the lot would result in an undesirably severe slope at the rear of the
yard.
Other relocation strategies were examined eady in the process,but also faz7ed to meet the goal of
re-establishing the hismric context of the CYadit-Moore House. For example,the F.nvi ronmental
Impact Statement(p 14$and fig.67)looked at relocating the house to the corner of Pleasant Grove
Road and Jessup Road This or other schemes that involved moving the house within the North
Campus Residential Initiative sits,robed=a few feet or a few hundred feet,did not meet the
Randall T-Crawford,AIA/Carl D.St=Ts,ALAI Ted Barrlerr.Associate!Elizab I..Crawford.Associate
134 Walton Street-ArmorySgoare-Syracuse,New York-13 .02.315/471-2162-FAX 315/471-2965
ATTACHMENT #5
I&=m Ms.Joni Carroll • 30 Dem 1999 - page 2
critmia of reestablishing its rural context,retaining its orientation to Pleasant Grove Road,and
replicating the existing site in terms of size,topography,and plantings. In preservation terms,this
is the worst scenario:the house is relocated with reduced potential for retaining eligt`bt7ity for the
National Register. In my experience,none of these other altercatives would be as likely as the
Pleasant Grove Road site in gaining approval as accept mitigation by the State Historic
Preservation Off ce.
Relocation of historic resources can be goodprese varion particularly when the site of the resource
has long been impacted by adjacent development The Pleasant Grove Road site has maximum
potential for allowing the best possible preservation mitigation in terms of an historicaIly
compatible site plan_
Sincerely yours,
e"4�"
Carl D.Stearns,AIA
CDSjr
, R I W Elm
DEC 2 2 1999
HISTO RIC � P SOWN OF17'HAcA
IT-14ACA PLANNING, ZONING, ENGINEERING
Dedicated to the Preservation of Tompkins County Landmar
k6ecember 13, 1999
Ms. Cathy Valentino
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Cathy,
Here, for the use of your board, is a very brief reiteration of where Historic
Ithaca, Inc. stands regarding any potential relocation of the Cradit- Moore
House as part of Cornell University's North Campus Residential Initiative
Project. Our position remains unchanged from previous correspondence
with your board, and can be summarized succinctly as follows:
• The Cradit-Moore House is a significant structure, both architecturally and historically.
• Retaining the structure on its original site strengthens this significance,and provides the
opportunity to create a site plan of greater meaning, quality, and sense of place. It has
always been Historic Ithaca's wish that Cornell accommodate the building on site, as part
of a positive and sustainable program.
• If, in balancing Comell's stated programmatic requirements, the Town of Ithaca approves a
site plan that allows the removal of the Cradit-Moore House to another site, Historic
Ithaca remains ready to work with Cornell in providing whatever technical advice or
partnering necessary to insure that this structure is moved with the best preservation
practices.
• The preservation of the structure is of primary importance. Having the house occupied by
owners actively engaged in its preservation may be preferable to its ownership by an
institution with little track record in preserving structure of this type.The site now under
consideration,on Pleasant Grove Road,is very suitable for this structure,and is in many
ways Iess impacted than the landscape context in which it now sits. There is a long
tradition of moving frame houses.;s this age in Tompkins County,and we will work within
this tradition.
• Historic Ithaca will depend on Comell to make the move fiscally possible, and will sell
the property for residential occupancy after the restoration. This organization sees this
work as fulfilling its mission, not as a source of extra revenue.
Best,
4 <at-r,
Scott Whitham
Executive Director
Historic Ithaca, Inc.
ATTACHMENT #6
The Clinton House • 120 North Cayuga Street - Ithaca, New York 14850
Tel: (607) 273-6633 Fax: (607) 273-4816 • e.mail: hi®lightlink.com - http://www.lightlink.com/-hi/
776 Ringwood Road
Ithaca,New York
January 3, 2400
Fred T. Wilcox
Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Dear Chairman Wilcox and Members of the Town Planning Board,
I am writing in regard to the suggestion that the Moore House be used as part of the
Faculty-in-Residence program. I am a Professor in the Department of Policy Analysis
and Management and was a faculty-in-residence for four years from 1993 to 1997. For
two years I was located in Sperry Hall on West Campus in an apartment but physically in
the residence hall. I was then moved to the house at 319 Wait Avenue, across the street
from Balch Hall where I Iived for two years. So I can describe the two different
situations--one where the faculty-in-residence is located in the residence hall itself, and
the other where the faculty-in-residence is in a separate house, although close to the
residence hall. In terms of the quality of the experience with students, there is really no
comparison. When you are physically located in the residence hall you are actually part
of the residence hall life itself. Students see you all the time; they recognize you as
belonging there; they adopt your family as part of the residence hall community. When
you live in a separate residence, both you and the students have to make a strong effort to
find ways to connect. Walking across the street to a separate house is like going off
campus. Students have little informal, unarranged contact, so when they see you they
don't recognize you as part of the community. My family never became a clear part of
the Balch community in the same way that they had as part of the Sperry community.
I was a faculty-in-residence when discussions of turning the Moore House into a Faculty-
in Residence location were active in 1996. At that time it seemed to be a very bad idea,
since the Moore house is not oriented to any residence hall, and is not on "the beaten
path" to anything students regularly go to. The Balch house has the advantage of at least
facing Balch Hall. Even so, getting students to come across the street is difficult. And
since the very act of coming and going doesn't bring the faculty-in-residence into daily
contact with students,joining students in the residence hall for events there is often
awkward. I would expect the difficulties to be even greater with the Moore House, which
has no natural locational relationship with any residence hall, and which is in the opposite
direction from that which most students regularly walk. So,the Moore would be an
extremely difficult place to be a good faculty-in-residence.
Jennifer Gerner �--�
4AAZv11
ATTACHMENT #7
NCRI Road and Parking Considerations
Road and Signage
Achieving maximum usage of the new road (as modelled) will require a major effort.
Parking
DEIS analyzed traffic for parking lots of 35 + 58 spaces, not 12 + 138, not 18 + 122
(not 18 + 1.30)
Peak Hour:
8 existing employees
30 new employees
10 new facility users
48 spaces total
Da 'me off-Peak:
8 existing employees (peak-hour)
3 existing employees (off-peak)
30 new employees (peak-hour)
13 new employees (off-peak)
4 new facility users
58 spaces total
Evening Off-Peak:
40 from R-Lot
8 employees
10 new users of multi-purpose room
i-8 spaces total
Parking lot size should not exceed that used for modelling traffic impacts.
D B Brittain 114100
ATTACMENT 418
III.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NORTH CAMPUS RESIDENTIAL INITIATIVE D.E.I.S.
MITIGATION MEASURES CORNELL UNIVERSITY,rI`HACA,NY
Existing traffic flow patterns were modified to reflect the changes in routes and move-
ments possible under this alternative by assuming the majority of east/west traffic flow
on George Jessup Road and Forest Home Drive is diverted to the new two-way connec-
tor. It is noted that this is a maximum estimate and assumes that the majority of traffic
along these routes will divert to the new link. Detailed diagrams, which illustrate the
anticipated peak hour trip diversions, are included in Appendix Ve: Trip Distributions,
Trip Diversions,Estimation of Future Traffic. It is anticipated,that this east/west con-
nection would have the following net effect on existing traffic using the surrounding
network:
Divert 36 eastbound trips and 55 westbound trips(A.M.)
Divert 40 eastbound trips and 25 westbound trips(P.M.)
These diversions would result in corresponding reductions in directional traffic flow on
portions of George Jessup Road, Forest Home Drive, Pleasant Grove Road and
Triphammer Road. Table XVI illustrates the potential reductions in traffic flow on the
surrounding system.
Table XVI
CIR C ULA TION AL TERNA TYPE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC-POTENTIAL,REDUCTIONS
STREET A. M.PEAK P.M. PEAK
Triphammer Road - 16 northbound - 4 northbound
-25 southbound - 3 southbound
George Jessup Road - 16 eastbound - 4 eastbound
-25 westbound - 3 westbound
Pleasant Grove Road -20 northbound -36 northbound
-30 southbound -22 southbound
Forest Home Drive - 15 eastbound -26 eastbound
-25 westbound - 12 westbound
Referring to Table XVI, it is noted that the magnitude of these directional volumes is
similar to typical traffic fluctuations that would be observed on a daily basis.
Il8
March 1999
Trowbridge&Wolf Landscape Architects
Metered Parking Lot Layout
e esman Zone
a� 14
Existing Condition: 35 Spaces
a>
JP/
• — ��� !4r
41
OFF
xrer
ray s
Cornell Proposal: Spaces with Drop Off
1?—
Brittain Proposal: 35 Spaces with Drop Off
III.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NORTH CAMPUS RESIDENTIAL INITIATIVE D.E.I.S.
MITIGATION MEASURES COKKELL IJNIVERSFFY,ITHACA,Ny
Helen Newman Hall (access tO/from Thurston Avenue)will be relocated east of the
community commons as part of the new parking lot. The new parking lot provides
replacement spaces for the existing spaces north of Helen Newman Hall, as well as 60
additional spaces to serve the new facilities for a total of 120 spaces. (The demolition of
99 spaces at the Pleasant Grove Apartment Buildings is not included in any of the park-
ing counts). The parking lot is not expected to reach capacity except during special
events,which do not coincide with the peak hours analyzed.
The net effect of these parking modifications is two-fold: 1. employees currently arriving
from and departing to Thurston Avenue(via South Balch Drive)for permit use will use
other parking locations or access the new lot from the proposed access point off of Pleas-
ant Grove Road, 2. additional trips generated by the new facilities on North Campus will
arrive and depart from origins and destinations throughout the County, and will access
the parking lot from Pleasant Grove Road.
Existing Employees
Existing employees are already a part of the traffic flow coming to the site on a daily
basis, and as such,represent re-directed rather than additional trips to the site. The effects
of re-directing the existing permit parking trips ding the combined Cornelllnon-ComeIl
commuter traffic peaks are illustrated in Appendix V.e: Trip Distributions, Trip Diver-
sions,Estimation of Future Traffic and summarized below. Some of the trips are directed
to the new parking lot; some existing employees will choose to park at other,more
immediate permit lots. The numbers that follow reflect combined arrivals and departures
during the respective peak hours:
Re-directed trips to other permit parking locations: 30(A.M.) 30(p.M.)
Re-directed trips to new parking,east of
community commons: 8(A.M.) 8 (P.M.)
New Employees
The new residence halls and community commons will require approximately 80 new
employees and 60 part-time student employees. In addition, employees currently working
at the dining facilities at Balch Hall will be relocated to the new community commons.
Part-time student employees are already on campus and will not add vehicular trips to the
peak hours in question. Of the 80 full time employees,56 will work a daily shift that
could potentially add trips during commuter peak hours. Based on current operations
and existing commuting habits, these employees are anticipated to access North Campus
as follows:
14 (25%)will participate in Cornell's progressive Transportation Demand Manage-
ment Program(a conservative estimate of 25% is projected; current participation is at
98 March I999
Trowbridge&Wolf Landscape Architects
P .`zd�x ve
SRF & ASSOCIATES
Traffic Engineerin & Planning Consultants TM
3495vnton Place °F
ROCHESTER NEW YORK 14623 CAUX&ATM DATE
(7165 272.4660 CHECKIM BY
CA=
srm r
110
��",+_L.._.....y____�"_'•........ y.
�,_.y._l r. .���l�I✓_ _ L•�u I --f— - ,IPi-.. ..I1.,.,. ,_ .-�..
��
f
`-�_ _lz,.._�_ - 5 �;•' ` / =_ + .- , f-, Imo_-� - +. . -N Ems.?'
Llv
_,.. _._.. XILSpZv
1 �
E i I'�r. J am„ 1 -
I f is I -- . i L.. ,f�[�S L�F�. i� ` kkuu
� � �-+ ._ _-, .,N rte_ ,ss
„
' A►c
q
!r7-
"Pill� .iQ 1`t�•��,� -�o .�Fi�o�• rl,ups yooi
ITW,�
71EOOIr,TAHpYMl�r1�1/lerq � ,.I-.
The P.E. classes are comprised of 100%students who do not drive to the facility.
Combining the balance of the other noted activities,including the fitness center,
generates a total of 84 facility users per hour during the daytime off-peak. Since most
users during the day are students,faculty,and staff, and most either walk or use transit to
access North Campus, approximately 25%of this number will actually drive to the
facility. This equates to 21 vehicles per hour. Most of these drivers will continue to
maintain their current driving and parking patterns, and park in the existing 35 space lot
to be maintained.
New Da a Off-iDeak Use
Use of the community commons during the daytime off-peak will consist of users of the
dining and fitness facilities. It is anticipated that these users will overwhelmingly be
freshmen who reside on North Campus and who walk to the facility.it is expected that
very few users of the community commons will drive to the facility during the daytime
off-peak.However, a conservative estimate would be 5 to 10 vehicles per hour,with
approximately 2 to 4 of these vehicles using the new lot.
Existing Nighttime O_ff-Peak
The nighttime off-peak period is defined as the interval following the P.M. commuter
peak; specifically,it extends from 5:30 P.M. to I2:00 A.M. Activities at night center
around the fitness center, gym,pool,and bowling lanes. The existing lots north(60
spaces) and west(35 spaces)of Helen Newman Hall are generally full during the evening
hours.Use of the lot is generally distributed as follows.
Fitness: 20 cars(turns over 3 times)
gym: 20 cars(turns over 2 times)
bowling: 40 cars(turns over 2 times)
pooltdance: 10 cars(turns over 1 time)
Staff: 4 cars
Total 94 spaces
New Nighttime Off-Peak Use
New nighttime off-peak uses generated by the community commons include dining,use
of the new fitness center,and use of the multi-purpose room.The dining facility will be
used predominately by freshmen who live on North Campus. Cornell deliberately does
not compete with local restaurants.Rather,programs and service are targeted to students.
As a result, it is not expected that people will drive to the community commons for
dining.
The fitness component of the new community commons does not represent an expansion
of the fitness program. Rather,existing facilities in the Helen Newman Hall that are
congested will be given more space. Some increased usage is anticipated as a result of the
2
Revision one 427/99
Off Peak Trafc and Impact
increased population on North Campus,but again,most of the users already live there
and will walk.
The primary generator of new traffic will be the multi-purpose room located in the new
community commons. The room will be programmed predominately for use by North
Campus residents who live there and will walk. The room will be programmed for other
uses from time to time,and this represents the worst case for traffic generation.During
some weeks, additional programming would not occur at all,during other weeks, it could
occur on several evenings.
There will be no change to traffic and parking related to the use of the existing fields that
are being relocated. Users currently park in the metered Iot, along Sisson PIace,in the lot
at the Pleasant Grove Apartments, and the Fuertes Observatory. Use of the fields during
the academic year is limited to the eight weeks in the spring and the eight weeks in the
fall that the fields are programmed. The fields are not used from November to April.
It is estimated that the proposed 155 parking spaces,including the 35 space lot west of
Helen Newman Hall,and the new 120 space lot located east of the new community
commons will be utilized during the PM off-peak approximately as follows:
Fitness(HNH and CC): 30 cars(will likely turn over 3 times)
gym: 20 cars(will likely turn 2 times)
bowling: 40 cars(will likely turn 2 times)
Multi-purpose room/pool/dance: 20 cars(will likely turn 1 time)
Fields(in season) 30 cars
Stafff 16 cars
Tom 15-6 43-2�spaces
Special Events
Special events are interspersed in the college activity schedule throughout the year. They
may or may not attract a substantial influx of additional traffic to campus,depending on
the individual and unique nature of each event. Some of the noteworthy events that occur
during the year include Commencement,Reunion Weekend, Sports School and Summer
Sessions. Special events are scheduled during times when classes are not in regular
session and therefore employees are not on-campus.
As part of Cornell's progressive Traffic Demand Management program,these events are
given serious consideration,and each event is planned to suit the traffic demand unique
to each. For each event a special traffic management plan is created by a committee that
includes Cornell Transportation Staff, Cornell Police,and other stakeholders of the
event(s). The process provides information on transportation routes on and around
campus,directions and maps to parking lots designated for each event, and shuttle
information, if applicable to the event.
3
Revision One 4/27/99
Off Peak Tragic and Impact
Existing Ni httime Off-Peak
A review of the existing traffic count during the existing night time off-peak at the
Thurston Avenue/South Balch Drive intersection indicated that 50 v.p.h. (66%)and 26
v.p.h. (34%)entered South Balch Drive from the south and north respectively. Of these,
44 vehicles entered and 29 vehicles exited the permit lot during this time frame. 21 v.p.h.
entered and 16 v.p.h. exited the metered parking lot during this same time fine. The
metered lot will be retained and use Of this lot is expected to remain the same.
Existing traffic during the nighttime off-peak at other locations where counts were taken
are illustrated on Figure III.D.8.A—3: Off-Peak Hour Traffic Counts and is summarized
as follows:
Judd Falls Road/Forest Home Drive Intersection
• eastbound on Forest Home Drive east of Judd Falls Road: 260 v.p.h.
• westbound on Forest Home Drive west of Judd Falls Road: 60 v.p.h.
• southbound on Judd Falls Road: 174 v.p.h.
Forest Home Drive/Warfen Road Intersection
• northbound on Forest Home Drive north of Warren Road: 167 v.p.h.
• southbound on Forest Home Drive south of Warren Road: 174 v.p.h.
• northbound on Warren Road: 257 v.p.h.
Forest Home Drive/Pleasant Grove Road Intersection
• northbound on Pleasant Grove Road north of Forest Home Drive: 243 v.p.h.
• southbound on Forest Home Drive south of Pleasant Grove Road: 260 v.p.h.
• westbound on Forest Home Drive: 264 v.p.h.
Proposed Nighttime Off-Peak
The improved bus service to North Campus and Helen Newman Hall is Iikely to result in
a reduction in vehicular trips in the nighttime off-peak-However,for the
analysis, a worse case scenario is presented, assuming no reduction in vehicular traffiof cas
a'result of bus service in the nighttime off-peak.
The existing 35 space metered parking lot located Off Of South Balch Drive will remain
and will continue to be the preferred parking location for most users of Helen Newman
Hall. Due to the relocation of 60 existing permit parking
Hall to the new lot,users of this relocated lot will require parking aaces teither the new lot or
alternative locations. It is anticipated that many users will attempt to park in the existing
metered lot to remain first since it is the preferred location. When the metered Iot is full,
users will seek available parking in other nearby lots west and south of the site.After
5:00 P.M., staff permit lots are open to the public, and viable parking alternatives are
available at Risley Hall, Balch HaII,Donlon Hall,Anna Comstock Hall,Alumni House,
Sisson Place and Toboggan Lodge. Metered parking along Thurston Avenue also opens
4
\6 R-Islon Tun S/1,09
Off-Peak Trq ft:and hnp act
Supplemental L{for=d0n
up after 5:00 PM.As a mitigating measure, a sign will be posted at the entrance to the
existing metered lot to remain stating that overflow parking for Helen Newman Hall is
available at the above mentioned locations after 5:00 PM.
It is estimated that one third of the 44 vehicles currently entering the permit lot during the
nighttime off-peak, or 15 v.p.h., will take advantage of the parking options west and
south of the site described above. It is assumed that in the worst case,the balance of 29
vehicles will be diverted to the new parking lot. Given the existing arrival pattern of
these vehicles, it is assumed that 66%(19 v.p.h.)will be diverted from the south and 34%
(10 v.p.h.)will be diverted from the north. Similar to previous discussion,users will
prefer the Thurston/Wait/Triphammer/George Jessup Road,and Pleasant Grove Road
route to access the new parking lot. Corresponding departures from the new parking lot
are similarly calculated as 19 v.p.h. (2/3 of 29).
Users of the community commons are projected to generate 20 v.p.h. during this time
period. It is assumed that one third of these vehicles will take advantage of the parking
options west and south of the site Q v.p.h.),and the balance of 13 v.p.h. will be diverted
to the new lot. Combined with the traffic diverted from the current permit lot, the total
number of vehicles accessing the new parking lot off of Pleasant Grove Road during the
hour of highest usage of the nighttime off-peak interval will be 42 vehicles.Again,
assuming the worst case, if 66%arrive from the south,then 28 v.p.h. would be added to
the existing traffic stream of 243 vehicles on Pleasant Grove Road.However,it is
anticipated that the number of vehicles actually arriving from the south would be less due
to the preference for the Thurston/Wait/Triphammer/George Jessup Road/Pleasant
Grove Road route described in the previous section.
Summary of Proposed Nighttime Off-peak:
• Although some reduction in vehicular traffic to Helen Newman Hall is
anticipated as a result of improved bus service, for the purposes of this
analysis,the worst case is analyzed, assuming no reduction in vehicular traffic
to Helen Newman Hall as a result of bus service in the nighttime off-peak.
• 29 existing v.p.h. will be diverted from South Balch Drive to the new parking
lot off of Pleasant Grove Road.
• 15 additional v.p.h. will be generated by new uses in the Community
Commons.
NESTS Traffic Co-
-----Daily/hourly traffic data information was also extracted from the NEST Study prepared
by Creighton-Manning Associates for the Ithaca Tompkins Transportation Council. As
part of that study,twenty-four hour counts were collected on Warren Road and Forest
Home Drive. The information from those counts was compiled and averaged for the
purposes of this study and is graphically illustrated on the following pages. A review of
these graphs indicates hourly traffic patterns that were similar on bath roads throughout
the day. The information portrayed in these graphs also confirms the following peaking
characteristics of area traffic:
5
Revtrlon Two 5114/99
OB-Peak Trac and Impact
Supplemental Aranwfion
January 4, 2000
To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Ruth Mahr
Re: North Campus Residential Initiative Public Hearing
Please refer to my comments from the previous public hearing on this
topic. In this I only wish to highlight the following major points.
1 . Historic preservation. The Craditt-Moore House. The Town of Ithaca
has a policy that promotes historic preservation:
Maintenance and improvement of the built environment, including
protection of historic structures and sites and adaptive reuse of structures
where appropriate. (p. III-8)
Both the Craditt-Moore House and its site are historic. Town policy
requires that both be preserved. Town planning staff and others have
shown that it is not necessary to move the Craditt-Moore House.
Moving the Craditt-Moore House is an avoidable cost of this
development.
2. Neighborhood preservation. The Town of Ithaca has a policy of
preserving and protecting neighborhoods. The Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that an objective of the Town is
neighborhoods that are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low traffic,
low vehicle speeds. . . . (p. III-3)
and that the Town should
strive to protect residential areas from the adverse effects of traffic: limit
through traffic, road widths, traffic volumes and speeds, , , (and) ensure
that new arterial and collector roads avoid residential areas. (p. III-22).
The present plan violates the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca
with respect to historic preservation and traffic in neighborhoods. These
ATTACHMENT #9
impacts can be mitigated and/or avoided. There have been numerous
suggestions on how this can be accomplished. The Board has both the
power and the expertise to require changes that will avoid or mitigate
these impacts. It should use this power. If it fails to do so, the
confidence of Town citizens in the Comprehensive Plan as a meaningful
document will be undermined.
loll
In. ..n
� ,� uuxaux���4"`��
the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). In addition the record includes a Findings Statement by the 2
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,minutes of public hearings held by the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board on October 19, 1999 and January 4, 2000, a discussion of the proposed action at a
regular meeting of the Planning Board on November 2, 1999,and other materials submitted as part of the
applicant's submission,provide an adequate basis to make the findings required by SEQRA.
Discussion
During the course of the review process and preparation of EIS the Planning Board identified a number
of issues of significance with regard to potential environmental impacts.
A. With regard to traffic impacts,the evidence presented indicates that:
1) The project as proposed would not have any significant adverse impacts due to increased
traffic on Pleasant Grove Road or Triphammer Road north of the proposed project;or the
residential areas north of the site and adjacent to those roads.
2) The project as modified to incorporate Alternative 1 for the design of the proposed
entrance to the project site off Pleasant Grove Road,as described in the DEIS,may result
in a small to moderate increase in traffic through the adjacent Forest Home hamlet.
While the analyses in the EIS describe the potential for small reductions in traffic on
surrounding roads during both peak hour time periods(commuter traffic)
)the Planning Board concludes that it is likely that there could
be small to moderate increases in traffic through the adjacent Forest Hom"realdwitg.
these time P" as students and other users drive to and from the proposed 138-space
parking lot intended to serve the proposed Community Commons and existing.Helen
Newman Hall.The Planning Board finds that these increases in traffic are expected to
have a small to moderate environmental impact on the Forest Home communit3r.
3) Traffic calming measures to be incorporated into the design of the new through road and
South Balch Drive are important safety elements for the protection of the relatively high
number of pedestrians which are expected to be crossing the street. Acknowledging that
most of the traffic calming measures proposed are located within the jurisdiction of the
City of Ithaca,the Planning Board nonetheless finds that it is important that such
measures be implemented in a manner that does not discourage vehicular use of the
street to the point that motorists opt to utilize routes through adjacent neighborhoods
such as Forest Home.
lmoee Acro aJec,Wa'�e
4) The location and size of the proposed parking lot is[ipptepFiaWJgivenl the intended use
7F and anticipated demand for parking in the area,as indicated in the EIS.
5) Although it is not a component of the proposed project,the construction of a northern
connector road identified as a variation of Alternative 5a and 5b in the DEIS or a new
gateway entrance to the campus is a desirable proposal in that it has potential for
- _reducing existing traffic volumes through certain residential areas. The Planning Board
finds that it is not a necessary measure to mitigate any identified environmental impacts
of the proposed North Campus Residential Initiative, but that it is a proposal that
ATTACIMNT 1111
3
warrants the support of the Town of Ithaca. The Planning Board further finds that
documentation showing that the vrovosed North Campus Residential Initiative pro iect
will not preclude construction of said northern connector or a new gateway entrance to
the campus must be arovided the Board and made Hart of the vublic record.
B. With regard to impact on historic and cultural resources,the evidence indicates that:
1) The Cradit-Moore House located at 128 Pleasant Grove Road, is a significant historical
and cultural resource for the Town of Ithaca,given its age, its significance as a
representative example of Greek Revival architecture,its state of preservation including
the relatively intact nature of its original interior and exterior design motifs,and its
connection to the history of Forest Home hamlet though its original owner Isaac Cradit.
la) Preservation of the Cradit-Moore House should be an integral part of the overall North
Campus Residential Initiative project.
2) The relocation of the Cradit-Moore House would have an adverse impact, as determined
by the State Historic Preservation Office,on a structure of historic and cultural
significance.
3) The layout of three proposed athletic fields,as proposed,has the adverse impact of
necessitating the removal of the Cradit-Moore House from its current location.
4) It would be possible and practicable to construct the three proposed athletic fields in a
manner that would allow Cornell University to maintain the Cradit-Moore House in its
current location,along with a portion of its surrounding landscaped lawns. This could
accomplished by shifting one or more of the fields in a westerly and/or southerly
direction,shifting the alignment of the University's Sisson Place and the parking spaces
along it in a westward direction,and the construction of one or more retaining walls
varying between zero and twelve feet in height and sited either in a location between the
proposed northerly athletic field and Sisson Place,or in a location between the proposed
northerly athletic field and the Cradit-Moore House,or other alternative la out than
those described above.
5) Relocation of the Cradit-Moore House would have an adverse impact on the structure
due to the elimination of its historic surroundings and the context which they provide.
The Planning Board finds however that,with proper adherence to standards promulgated
by the State Historic Preservation Office and other agencies,the structure could be
relocated to either of the two proposed sites offered by the University in the EIS, in a
manner that preserves its historic architectural integrity and eligibility for inclusion in
the State and/or National Register of Historic Structures.
6) While the Planning Board finds it preferable to maintain the Cradit-Moore House in its
present location, the Board finds that the University's proposed course of action
mitigates adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable,consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations.
5
G. The Planning Board finds that construction could begin at any time of the year if the project is
sequenced and mitigated properly. The construction sequencing plans will be reviewed by the
Planning Board during the site plan review process to ensure that no significant erosion or runoff
occurs during construction.
H. With regard to visual impacts associated with the removal of the Cradit-Moore House and
existing vegetation on the site,the Planning Board finds that such impacts have been
appropriately balanced with other project objectives, and social,economic and other essential
considerations. The visual impacts have been mitigated to the extent practicable through
proposed preservation of some existing vegetation on the site,and the proposed planting of
replacement trees and other landscaping as shown on site plan submission.
The foregoing findings provide the rationale for the decisions regarding Site Plan Approval to be made
by the Planning Board.
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE
Having considered the DEIS and FEIS,and the Hearing Record,and having considered the preceding
written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6NYCRR 617.9,this Statement of
Findings certifies that;
1. The requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617 have been met;
2. Consistent with the social,economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives thereto,the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids
adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects
disclosed in the environmental impact statement,and
3. Consistent with social,economic and other essential considerations,to the maximum
extent practicable,adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact
statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the
decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable.
q Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Agency
Fred T. Wilcox, ILII
Signature of Responsible Official Name of Responsible Official
Chairman
Title Date
rkI ® Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
121 East Court Street
® ® Ithaca, New York 14850
Phone: (607) 274-5570/ Fax: (607) 274-5578
E-Mail: ITCTC@mail.co.tompkins.ny.us.
EgLicy Committee: Director Plannino Committee:
Stuart W.Stain,AICP, Chair Fernando de Arag6n,AICD John Gulenberger, Chair
Ronald E.Anderson, Vice Chair James W.Hanson,Jr., Vice Chair
Jon P.Edinger,P.E,Secretary
D LS Ud i5 � L! E5
November 17, 1999
Nov 1 8 1M9
Mr.Fred T.Wilcox,III
Chair,Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street TOWN OF ITHACA
Ithaca,NY 14850 PLANNING,ZONING, ENGINEERING
Dear Mr.Wilcox:
This letter is in response to concerns raised about the Cornell north campus gateway idea during the Town of Ithaca's review of the
North Campus Residential Initiative (NCRI) proposal. i have evaluated the latest NCRI plans and see no issues that would preclude
advancing a proposal for a north campus gateway.Early discussions place the gateway near the A-lot and Pleasant Grove Rd., outside
the project boundaries for the NCRI. In addition, the Iatest NCRI plan has not diminished the available options for routing traffic from
the gateway area into the university.
Preliminary discussions between staff from Cornell,the Town and City of Ithaca,Tompkins County and myself resulted in identifying
some interesting opportunities in association with a north campus gateway idea. In particular, there is the potential of directing traffic
to the A-lot where visitors can be offered information about the campus, and be provided with a transit option to reach their final
Destination.
The ITCTC was asked to coordinate the meetings of a committee that will develop the north campus gateway concept into a set of
proposals. I am currently scheduling the initial meeting of this committee for the first week of December 1999. The committee will
include representatives from the Village of Cayuga Heights,Town of Ithaca,City of Ithaca,Tompkins County, Cornell and the ITCTC.
I expect that at first, the committee will work on developing goals for this proposal, followed by the presentation of concept ideas and
identifying what data will be needed to analyze the ideas. Details of procedural/jurisdictional responsibility and timing of the project
are yet to be determined.
I hope this letter is useful in clarifying the status of the north campus gateway initiative. Please call me at my office if you would like to
discuss this issue any further.
Sincerely,
Fernando de Aragon, AICD
Staff Director
CC: Jonathan Kanter,Town Planner,Town of Ithaca
William E.Wendt,Director of Transportation Services,Cornell University
ATTACHIKENT #12
M VTCTCIMPOWORK',Correspondence'99WCGateway-FWilcox-let-1 199.doe
Tompkins County-City of Ithaca-Village of Cayuga Heights-Village of Lansing-Town of Caroline-Town of Danby-Town of Dryden-Town of Enfield-Town of Groton-Town of Ithaca
Town of Lansing-Town of Newfield-Town of Ulysses-Comelf UnhwsilrNew York Stale Department of Transportation•Federal HighwayAdministration-Federal Transit Administration
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Tuesday.Janua4 2000
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard(no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Walker Two-Iot Subdivision,Coddington Road.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.47-2-6.5, consisting of 56.6+/-acres in
area and located on the north side of Coddington Road between 955 and 1001 Coddington Road,
into two lots,48.8+/-acres and 7.8+/-acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in the R-
30 Residence District and CD-Conservation District. Richard L.and Ruth S. Walker,
Owners/Applicants.
7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination,Old Hundred Site Plan Modification, 704 Five Mile Drive.
7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for housing for the elderly at Old
Hundred, located at 704 Five Mile Drive on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-2, Residence
District R-30. Said modification would increase the number of elderly residents from six to
seven, using the former Iibrary as a bedroom. Denmark Development,Inc.,Owner/Applicant;
Patricia and Elizabeth Classen, Agents.
8:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site PIan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for CornelI
University's proposed North Campus Residential Initiative,and adoption of a Statement of
Findings pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 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-I-11.1, 68-1-11.2, and 68-1-12.2,
in the R-30 Residence District, 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 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.
7. Consideration of nomination and election of Vice Chairperson of Planning Board for 2000.
8. Persons to be heard(continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
9. Approval of Minutes: ( eRe available at time ,.F..aileof October 19,1999 (in packet).
10. Other Business.
IL 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.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday,January 4.2000
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS 14EREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be
held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,January 4,2000,at 126 East Seneca Street,Ithaca,N.Y.,
at the following times and on the following matters:
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-2-6.5, consisting of 56.6 +/- acres in area and located on the
north side of Coddington Road between 955 and 1001 Coddington Road, into two Iots, 48.8 +/-
acres and 7.8 +/- acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in the R-30 Residence District
and CD-Conservation District. Richard L.and Ruth S. Walker,Owners/Applicants.
7:55 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the
previously approved site plan for housing for the elderly at Old Hundred, located at 704 Five Mile
Drive on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.31-4-2, Residence District R-30. Said modification would
increase the number of elderly residents from six to seven, using the former library as a bedroom.
Denmark Development,Inc.,Owner/Applicant; Patricia and EIizabeth Classen,Agents.
8:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site PIan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for Cornell University's proposed North Campus
Residential Initiative, and adoption of a Statement of Findings pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act 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, in the R-30 Residence District, 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 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.
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, December 27, 1999
Publish: Wednesday, December 29, 1999
The Ithaca Journal TOWN OF IYHACA
Wednesday, December 29, 1999 PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday
Janual b,
Tuesday,
as necessary, upon request
8 direction o f the Persons desiring assistance
Chairperson of the Planning must make such a request not
fSoord, NOTICE IS HEREBY less Moon 48 hours pprior4o the
GIVEN that Public Hearings time of the public heal�
wn
ill be held by the Planning Jonathan Kanter,AICD
Board of she Town of Ithaca Director of Planning
on Tuesday, January 4, 273.1 747
2000, al 126 East Seneca December 29 1999
Street, Ithaca, NY at the fol-
lowing times and on the fol-
lowing matters:
7:41] P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division A�ppproval for tho,pro.
ppoosed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Portal No
47-2-dkS Iconsistiriq of 56.61
acres in area and located on
the north side OECoddingfon
Road between 955.1001
Coddii'o�ion Road, into two
lots, 48.81 acres and 7,81
-titres in sizerespeclively.
Said parcel is located in Ifie
R-30 Residence District and
CD-Conservalion District.
Richard L. and Ruth S.
Walker, Owners/Applkants.
7:55 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Site
Plgn Approval for the pro-
posaf modification of the pris-
vicil appproved site plan for
housing for the elderlyy at Old
Hundred,'located at 704 Five
Mile Drive on Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 31-4.2, Resi-
dence District R-30 Said
ri6difkation would increase
the number of elderly resi-
'dents from six to sevon,using
the former library as a bed-
room. Denmark Devefap
merit, Inc.Owner/Applicants,
Patricia and Elizabeth
Clossen,Agents.
8:05 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval and a Rec-
ommendalion to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding
$Sqgeeeeial Approval for Cornell
llniversily s proposed North
Campus Residential Initiative,
and adoplion of a Statement
of Findings pursuant to the
New York Slate fnvfronmen-
toll Quality Review Act re-
garding the North Campus
project located on the west
side of Pleasant Grove Rgad
and south side of Jes3up
Road on all or parts of Tovvn
of hhoco Tax Parcel No's.
67.1.1.1, 68-1.11.1,
68.1.11.2, 68-1.12,2 In the
R-30 Residence District,
comprising approximately
14.1 acres of land.The over-
all project in both the City
and Town of Ithaca is pro-
pond to consist of new dol
motaries to house up to 560
new students,anew'commu-
nity
new'commu-
niy commons" dining hall/
student activities center, a
new road connecting the ex-
isting South Balch Drive to
Pleasant Grove Road,a new
parking lot,three new soccer
Fields, tennis courts and bas-
kelboR Courts, and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.Cor-
nell University, Owner
Applicant; Kathryn Wol,
Trowbridge and Wolf, Land
scope Architects,Agent.
Said Planning Board will at
sold times and said place
hear all persons in support of
such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by a Crit Or in person.
Indivi Boob with visuci impair-
ments, hearing impairments
or other special needs, will
be wovided will assistance.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
ATTENDANCE SHEET
DATE: January 4, 2000
PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRE55/AFFILIATION
(Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes)
Lowe— W VF(L K) 5
?M�fz— ELI So G S L
Av PC,, Lar l I
�a&c� 'Do BY-) U
` ,� A
Urf)�' CM-=�/V 5 v7 E L j�ete- 5f
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
ATTENDANCE SHEET
DATE: January 4, 2400
PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRE55/AFFILIATI0N
(Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes)
..-') $ F:o�- read f1
7.
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist 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 Iocal newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall. 126 East Seneca Street. Ithaca.New York. on Tuesday, January 4. 2000 commencing
at 7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board. Front& Entrance of Town Hall.
Date of Posting : December 27, 1999
Date of Publication: December 29, 1999
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of December 1999.
6Aoa,L WILu -
Notary Public
DEBORAH KELLEY
Notary Public,state of New libtic
No. Qi KE8025073
Qualified In S& ler Cou Q
Commission Expires(Nay i7.