HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-03-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002
FILE
DATE
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, in Town
Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member;
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of
Engineering (arrived @ 7:50 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning (8:40 p.m.); Mike
Smith, Environmental Planner,
EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner,
ALSO PRESENT: George Blanchard, 165 East King Rd; Mary Brock, 409 Campbell Ave; Karen
Edelstein, 377 Salmon Creek Rd; Stan Geyers, 1328 Slaterville Rd; In Shik Lee, Freeville NY; Brian
Helstley, 309 Saranac Way; Tom Eddy, 1 Woodland Rd; John Yntema, 993 Danby Rd; Tye Wolfe,
Ithaca Times; Pauline Layton, 1029 Danby Rd; Bruce Layton, 1022 Danby Rd; Susan Shefter, 145
Pine Tree Rd; Joel Lamson, 170 Yaple Rd; Sean Ker, 619 Hudson St; Al Sleeger, Ithaca; Joanne
White, Eastwood Commons; Chandra Nash, 1032 1/2 Danby Rd; Kim Dunnick, 10 La Grand Ct; Joel
Harlan, Dryden; Stephen Nicholson, Tompkins County EMC; Don McPherson, LA Group; Hollis Erb,
118 Snyder Hill Rd; Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University; Catherine Milnor, 925 Mitchell St; Kathryn
Prybylski, 847 Dryden Rd #1A; Barbara Kretzmann, 117 Brandon Rd; Amy Noel, 1552 E. Stone
Drive; Mary-Lynn Cummings, Trumansburg NY; Steve Wright; Cornell University; John Gutenberger,
Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Chris Tessaglia - Hymes, Etna New York; Robert
Wesley, 541 Ellis Hollow Creek Road; Andy Nowell, Director of Athletics; Harry Ellsworth, 152
Honness Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37 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 March 11, 2002, and March 13, 2002, 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 March 13, 2002. (Affidavit of
Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York
State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - The first item on this evening's agenda, as always, is Persons to be Heard. If
there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
issue or an item, which is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please come to the
microphone, give us your name and address, and we will be very happy to hear what you have to
say.
John Yntema, 993 Danby Road - Mr. Yntema read from a prepared statement. Please see
attachment #1.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, John.
Board Member Hoffmann - Can I ask you a question? Are you going to be able to stay and be here
when we have the public hearing on this?
Chairperson Wilcox - It is not a public hearing.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm sorry, when we are talking about this.
Mr. Yntema - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - Because, it would be useful if you would be able to point out on the map
what you are talking about.
Mr. Yntema - I just wanted to get up and say it right now because there isn't any public hearing for it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, John. We appreciate it. Is there anybody else this evening who
would like to address the Planning Board?
Pauline Layton, 1029 Danby Road - I'd like to speak in support of Mr. Yntema 's idea of where the
runoff, that the waters in that particular ditch should go. At the present time, when they are not
flooding people's neighborhoods, they do go into the retention pond at Ithaca College. I think they
should continue to go there, which means they should not be going through a pipe down to the road
that involves cutting down a bunch of trees. I think they should still go to the retention pond.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else this evening? There being none, I will move onto the
next item.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Family Room Addition, 309 Saranac Way.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is Bruce here this evening? Sir, would you please come forward? Let me
guess, you are Brian.
Brian Helstley, 309 Saranac Way - Yes, sir.
2
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - Good evening. Welcome to the Planning Board. I would ask you to provide a
brief overview of what is being proposed. And if you could, provide us with any environmental
implications that you might be aware of.
Mr. Helstley - Certainly. My wife is Ann Hoffman. She couldn't be here tonight. We've lived at 309
Saranac Way for 12 years. We have two children, ages 10 and 13. We enjoy our home, our view,
our neighborhood, but the rate of which we are all getting larger and needing more space has forced
us to the point where we want to make an addition to our home. With the help of our designer In Shik
Lee of LeeMer Construction, we looked at the various options available to us given our lot, given the
construction of our home. The only viable option ended up being this family room addition off the
southeast side, corner of the house. My understanding is that the only reason I need to be here is
that the proposed addition impinges on the 30 foot between dwellings rule that applies to the Deer
Run single family community under which it was approved as. In your packet you have all the
drawings. You also have a letter from my neighbor whose home will now be closer to ours; ours will
be closer to his. He has no objections. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you aware of any environmental impacts?
Mr. Helstley - No, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Questions?
Board Member Howe - It's straightforward.
Chairperson Wilcox - One environmental impact is slightly more impervious surface, slightly more for
the record. Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Talty - I will.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Kevin Talty. Do I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. Any
further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye ".
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. We're halfway home. Have a
seat.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -21 - SEQR, Helstley- Hoffman Addition -Deer Run Subdivision Phase
IIIA, Modification of Condition, 309 Saranac Way, Tax Parcel No. 444408.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Rod Howe,
WHEREAS:
3
1. This action is Consideration of a request fo r
Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
a waiver from Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the
modification of the condition on the Final Plat of
the approved Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA & Teton Court, which requires a thirty foot
minimum distance between structures, to permit the proposed addition located at 309 Saranac
Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -108, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes
a 336 + 1- square foot addition to the south side of the existing home that will extend within thirty
feet of the adjacent home at 307 Saranac Way, thus violating the cluster subdivision
requirement of no less than a thirty foot distance between structures. Brian K, Helstley and Ann
L. Hoffman, Owners /Applicants; LeeMer Design and Construction, Agent,
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 the proposed waiver
and Modification of Condition,
3, The Planning Board, on March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, drawings including sheet A -O, entitled "Site Plan, Hoffman / Helstley
Addition, 309 Saranac Way, Ithaca, NY, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, 14850,"
sheet A -2 entitled "Proposed Family Room Plan," sheet A -4 entitled "Proposed Elevations, " all
dated 2115102 and prepared by LeeMer Design and Construction, and other application
materials.
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed waiver and Modification of Condition;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning
environmental significance in accordance with
for the above referenced action as proposed,
not be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Board hereby makes a negative determination of
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty,
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the
Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and modification of the condition on the Final Plat of
the approved Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA & Teton Court, which requires a thirty foot
minimum distance between structures, to permit the proposed addition located at 309 Saranac
Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -108, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes
a 336 +/- square foot addition to the south side of the existing house, which will extend within
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
thirty feet of the adjacent building at Saranac Way, thus violating the cluster subdivision
requirements for a distance between structures of no less than thirty feet. Brian K. Helstley
and Ann L. Hoffman, Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - This is a public hearing. If there is a member of the audience who wished to
address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please step to
the microphone. Once again, we ask for your name and address and we will be very interested to
hear what you have to say this evening. There being none I will close the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.,
and bring the matter back to the board. Discussion?
Board Member Mitrano - What is going to change in this photograph?
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I ask you to come back to the microphone now?
Board Member Mitrano - Photo "b ", sir?
Mr. Helstley - In that view, the addition will come out from the right towards the left. It will come out
from about halfway to the house toward the viewer.
Board Member Mitrano - Are you 307 or 309?
Mr. Helstley - We are 309.
Mr. Kanter - Which photo label are you looking at?
Board Member Mitrano - I'm looking at "b ". So you will come out... How close will you be to this tree
here?
Mr. Helstley - The tree in the foreground is actually quite a distance away.
Board Member Mitrano - I meant what is the rear ground, background.
Mr. Helstley - That other tree, the base of it will be 3 or 4 feet from the foundation. It is not 100
percent clear to me whether that tree will survive the construction or not. I have to talk to my
landscaper and we have to see what happens. I'm certainly committed to replacing that tree and any
other landscaping around the foundation, preserving the character of the lot.
Board Member Mitrano - And your lot is somewhere, maybe, around this tree, the divider line?
Mr. Helstley - It is about 6 feet to the left of that tree is the...
Board Member Mitrano - Which way is left to you?
30 feet and places like Chase Farm have 15?
Going that way, okay. And is it that Deer Run has
5
Mr. Kanter - Well, Deer Run was approved through the Town's cluster
the only reason that it is different from something like Chase Farm.
like Chase Farm. It would have to meet the 15 foot side yard setbacl
yard setback specifically, but the 30 foot between building provision.
Board Member Mitrano - And cluster subdivision means condominium
cluster category description about Deer Run?
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
subdivision provisions. That is
Otherwise, it would be exactly
c. In this case there is no side
setups or what constitutes the
Attorney Barney - Cluster is a way that you can modify what are the normal provisions with respect to
side yard and lot sizes. Usually, we compensate for them in requiring a certain amount of open
space to be dedicated permanently. So instead of having 6 houses on 100 foot lots, you put 6
houses on 50 foot lots and require 300 feet of open space. Deer Run, as I recall, had a number of
houses that actually the party wall was the lot line. So they were right on it. So that rather than say
you have a 15 foot side yard, which obviously you wouldn't have where you have the party wall, we
made it 30 foot between buildings. It meant a 15 foot side yard, basically, from building to building.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay. I'm good.
Mr. Kanter - In this case it's interesting. The neighbor's house is closer to the lot line than the subject.
Board Member Mitrano - It looks very close to it
Mr. Helstley - 307 is 9.5 feet from the boundary. The other side of my house, which is not in the
picture, has a 5.5 feet to the property line, which is why I couldn't go out on that side.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think what makes the addition you want to make less objectionable from
the neighbor's point of view and from the way I see it too, is that the neighbor's wall facing you is the
wall of a garage and just a very small space of a living space. So it is not something that would
interfere with their use of the house very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tracy, are you all set?
Board Member Mitrano - Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Any other questions,
conditions that we have in our draft resolution?
Mr. Helstley - About the landscaping, yes.
discussion, comments? Sir, are you aware of the
Chairperson Wilcox - About the tree and then the condition that the addition will be closer than 25 feet
from the neighbor.
Mr. Helstley - Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the motion for modification of condition?
Board Member Conneman - I'll move it.
0
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved. I have a seconded...
Board Member Hoffmann - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tracy was first of the three. Mr. Barney, you have no comments on the...
There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye' .
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. Motion is passed. Thank you,
sir.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -22 - Helstley- Hoffman Addition -Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA,
Modification of Condition, 309 Saranac Way, Tax Parcel No. 444408.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of a request for a waiver from Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the
Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and modification of the condition on the Final Plat of
the approved Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA & Teton Court, which requires a thirty foot
minimum distance between structures, to permit the proposed addition located at 309 Saranac
Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -108, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes
a 336 + 1- square foot addition to the south side of the existing home that will extend within thirty
feet of the adjacent home at 307 Saranac Way, thus violating the cluster subdivision
requirement of no less than a thirty foot distance between structures. Brian K, Helstley and Ann
L. Hoffman, Owners /Applicants; LeeMer Design and Construction, Agent,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead
agency in environmental review has accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment
Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II, prepared by the Town Planning
Department, and has on March 19, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental
significance,
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate materials presented by the applicant, including sheet A -O, entitled "Site Plan,
Hoffman /Helstley Addition, 309 Saranac Way, Ithaca, NY, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York, 14850," sheet A -2 entitled "Proposed Family Room Plan," sheet A -4 entitled
"Proposed Elevations," all dated 2115102 and prepared by LeeMer Design and Construction,
and other application materials.
NO W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED.
7
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants approval of the request for a waiver from Section 32,
Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and modification of the condition
on the Final Plat of the approved Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA & Teton Court, which
requires a thirty foot minimum distance between structures, to permit the proposed 336+/ -
square foot addition to the south side of 309 Saranac Way, as shown on drawings prepared by
LeeMer Design and Construction entitled "Hoffman /Helstley Addition, 309 Saranac Way, Ithaca,
NY, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, 14850," including sheets "A -0 ", A -2 ", and "A-
4," dated 2 115 102,'subject to the following conditions:
a. replacement of the 8 -10 foot tall conifer with a tree of similar evergreen or coniferous
species, as well as the addition of foundation plantings along the new building addition,
subject to approval of the Director of Planning, and
b, the addition shall not be closer than 25 feet from the adjacent home at 307 Saranac
Way.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Blanchard 3 -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is Mr. Blanchard here this evening? Good evening, sir. Once again, we ask for
your name and address, brief overview of what you are proposing and any environmental implication
you might be aware of.
George Blanchard, 165 East King Road - I am proposing the subdivision you have outlined in front
you. It is subdividing a 24 acre parcel to approximately 3 8 -acre parcels. The environmental
impacts ... a right -of -way on the westerly boundary would probably require a culvert to be welled for
that right -of -way. Other than that, I don't know any environmental impacts.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you in compliance today with all Army Corps of Engineers requirements as
laid out in their various correspondences with you?
Mr. Blanchard - Yes. That should've all been on file here with the Town.
Chairperson Wilcox - We have some of the correspondence between them and you. I just wanted to
make sure. Questions, comments from the board?
�001
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - I am confused when I look at the maps. We have one drawing that we
got...
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, this is confusing.
Mr. Blanchard - The second one you are looking at, the big one in front of you, which includes Chase
Farm, I believe. The highlighted area on that map is a proposed buyer who is buying the furthest lot
back, the southerly lot on the proposed subdivision.
Board Member Hoffmann - Is that the one that is described at Lot "c" or parcel "c "?
Mr. Kanter - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - Parcel "c" on this map does not look like the shape that's drawn in yellow
here.
Mr. Blanchard - No. That boundary would adjoin to their boundary. So if you look at the south...
Chairperson Wilcox - Hold off for a second. I'm going to do it this way. This is easier. That is his
property. This piece right here, is this piece right there, which is owned by... This owner owns that
piece and that piece right there, which is this piece right here. That yellow piece is this one.
Board Member Hoffmann - Which is it on this map?
Chairperson Wilcox - This is parcel "c" on that map right there. There is "c ". This lines up with this
over here.
Board Member Mitrano - Show us everything you just said.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm sorry, I still don't understand.
Chairperson Wilcox - This seems to be the confusing one. I have this little area map, if you will. This
yellow parcel right there is this sort of missing piece right there. It is that ownership that gives them
access to what would parcel "c" if the subdivision were approved.
Board Member Hoffmann - Sorry, Fred.
Mr. Blanchard - Their intent, I don't mean to speak for them, but I believe their intent is to consolidate.
They asked me when I did sell off the property, if I would give them an opportunity to buy a piece. It
was really the reason why the shape of the back piece is there, to increase their lot size.
Board Member Hoffmann - See, to me this line looked like it was the beginning of this line here. So I
thought this piece must be here.
Chairperson Wilcox - Nope. I had the same confusion going through this until I realized we had this
separate parcel there.
A
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - The purpose of this subdivision would be for development?
Mr. Blanchard - No. The purpose of this subdivision is that my wife and I are becoming empty
nesters. We need to down size to pay for college.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay, so you want to down size. I don't mean to pry into your personal life, I
was just curious about what was going to happen to the area. Is your property the one where you are
coming up King and then you see the pond and there is a driveway that is a little...
Mr. Blanchard - Yes.
Board Member Mitrano - So, there is an area back there you are looking to subdivide. The Dunnicks
will buy one of the three lots that you would like to...
Mr. Blanchard - Yes. As you look at the map, it would be the southerly lot. Lot "c ", will attach the
back ends perfectly from survey fold to survey fold.
Board Member Mitrano - Why a third lot then or why a second and third lot?
Mr. Blanchard - Again, the investment and to pay for college. We are selling off the third lot and our
home and downsizing to a smaller home.
Mr. Kanter- It would be a building lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - It would be.
Board Member Mitrano - It is a building lot? All right. Thank you, that is actually what I'm looking at.
Chairperson Wilcox - It would be suitable for a building lot.
Board Member Mitrano - What access would they have to any road there?
Mr. Blanchard - They would have about 300 feet of road frontage on King Road for lot "a ".
Board Member Mitrano - Why isn't that apparent?
Mr. Blanchard showed the road frontage to Board Member Mitrano.
Board Member Mitrano.- And you still have your home back here someplace sir?
Mr. Blanchard - My home is on parcel "b ", my existing home.
Board Member Mitrano - So you are selling the lot with the pond?
Mr. Blanchard - That would be one of the two lots, yes.
10
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Right. Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - I was doing two things. I was trying to listen to the conversation and talk to Eva
at the same time. Is the ... you have a firm commitment from a gentleman to purchase lot "c "?
Mr. Blanchard - Yes, I do. I have a purchase offer.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kanter - I did point out in the environmental review the wetland area. You saw that mapped in the
Corps of Engineers permit material. There would be a question about if a driveway were to be placed
on the 50 foot strip going back to parcel "c ", it would have to cross a portion of the wetland. So, there
is an area, although it is fairly small, it is quite wet. It would have to get further approval from the
Corps of Engineers. That is what we wanted to highlight.
Mr. Blanchard - That is in the proposed resolution. I worked with Mr. Kanter to do that. I'm fine with
that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Interesting question ... why bother with that 50 foot strip down to East King Road
if the gentleman to the west, family to the west, person to the west is going to buy parcel "c" and
consolidate it?
Mr. Blanchard - I actually advised him to do that. When you buy a parcel of land, you always want a
right -of -way if you want to invest it later.
Kim Dunnick, 10 La Grand Court - I am the buyer.
Chairperson Wilcox - You may certainly come up to the microphone.
Mr. Dunnick - We have a purchase offer on parcel "c ". The reason we want the 50 foot right -of -way
for a driveway is at some point, although we have no intention to do so in the immediate future, at
some point we may want to sell that lot for someone who might want to put a house there. So you
need access to King Road since the access through the currently property off of La Grand Court is
not the best way to get to that area.
Chairperson Wilcox - You understand that that lot, the one we have considerations that Mr. Kanter
spoke of in terms of getting a driveway in there, the lot also, as you are both aware of, has less than
the required frontage on East King Road.
Mr. Dunnick - I do understand that it would require a variance. I think there is a meeting April to talk
about it. This is the first I've heard of a wetland that would require some Corps of Engineering
approval. I would certainly talk to them before the variance.
Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Would someone like to move the
SEQR motion?
11
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Conneman - I'll move.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George Conneman. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin
Talty. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye' .
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -23 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Blanchard
Three -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road, Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Tally.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7,
Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three
lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.592 +/- acres and 7.228 +/- acres and an 8.435 +/- acre
parcel which contains the existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard,
Owners /Applicants, 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 Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by
the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King
Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by R. James Stockwin,
Licensed Land Surveyor, dated March 10, 2002, and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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.
12
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary
proposed three -lot subdivision located at 165 East
44 -2 -7, Residence District 13-30. The proposal is t
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
and Final Subdivision Approval for the
King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into
three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.592 +/- acres
acre parcel which contains the existing residence.
Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
and 7.228 +/- acres and a 8.435 +/=
George and Dawn Blanchard,
Chairperson Wilcox - Again, if there is a member of the public who is here this evening who wishes to
address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please step forward to the
microphone, give us your name and address, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to
say this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m., and bring the matter
back to the board for any further discussion that might be necessary. All set? Nobody else? Staff?
Mr. Kanter - On the resolution?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah.
Mr. Kanter - Well, as you see, we've provided two alternate suggested conditions. The consolidation
one is a good immediate option for the perspective buyer of parcel "c" and would actually do away
with the need for a current variance. If they agreed to do that, that could be the condition. However,
if the perspective buyer of parcel "c" did want to subdivide that off again, it would have to come back
to this board for re- subdivision and at that point would have to obtain the variances. So if that is an
acceptable process for the parties involved, we could do it that way.
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Barney, do you have a preference either way?
Attorney Barney - No. I think it is really up to the board and the potential buyer.
Chairperson Wilcox - Board have a preference?
Board Member Mitrano - Say a tad more Jonathan.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there a preference on the part of the...?
Mr. Blanchard - I think Kim said he would like to pursue the variance.
13
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Dunnick - If the lot is a buildable lot, it is clearly a more valuable lot. I would like to proceed with
the subdivision and the variance procedure before closing on the lot because it changes the money a
fair amount.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Very good. Thank you. So the one that has been provided in the draft
resolution would be the one we go with, "a" as stated, not alternative condition "a ". Would someone
like to move the motion? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Eva Hoffmann. We've agreed that
condition "a" as stated is retained and alternative condition "a" as proposed in the draft resolution is
removed. Any further discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying "aye ".
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. We're all
done. Thank you gentlemen.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -24 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Blanchard Three -Lot
Subdivision, 165 East King Road, Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 44 -2 -7,
Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three
lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.592 +/- acres and 7.228 +/- acres and an 8.435 +/- acre
parcel which contains the existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard,
Owners /Applicants, 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 Subdivision Approval, has on March 19, 2002, 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 Part
11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King Road, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by R. James Stockwin, Licensed Land
Surveyor, dated March 10, 2002, 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 Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
14
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed three lot subdivision at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7,
as shown on a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King Road, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by R. James Stockwin, Licensed Land
Surveyor, dated March 10, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
a. Obtaining the necessary lot width variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to
signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair,
b. Submission of one mylar and three dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all signed and
sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by the Planning
Board Chair,
C. Submission of evidence of any necessary approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers prior to any fill or disturbance of wetlands that have been identified on this
site, as shown in Department of the Army Application No. 94- 998 - 16(1),
d. Submission of evidence of County Health Department approval of any on -site water
supply and /or septic systems, prior to issuance of any building permits for Parcels A and
C of this subdivision,
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, as long as there is no
further subdivision of the subject site. If lots are proposed to be subdivided from Parcels A, B or C in
the future, then the Planning Board reserves the right to consider the reservation of park land, or fees
in lieu thereof, based on the size of each of the individual Parcels (A, B, or C).
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Continuation from the March 5, 2002 meeting for consideration of Preliminary
Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for development
at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43-
1-2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the
construction of 60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some
proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also
15
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a
request for additional apartment occupancy above that which was previously approved.
Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and
Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student
apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp.,
Applicant.
Board Member Mitrano - Are they out in the hall?
Chairperson Wilcox - Does someone want to go let them in? It's 8:03 p.m. I'm going to start reading.
Make them feel like they are late.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:03 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right, while our friends from IAD and Ithaca College set up, let us bring the
Planning Board up to speed on something that came up today. There is an issue, whether the
County when they did their 239 review of this, in the information that they were provided, did they
have the original long form filled out by the applicant which said there were zero cubic yards of fill to
be removed from the site or did they have the amended environmental form which said that there
would be 25,000 cubic yards. The reason this occurred to me is because we have another review at
9:00 p.m., which is the athletic fields, 7,000 cubic yards. The County said this could have a
deleterious impact. Why would not 25,000 cubic yards? I talked with Jonathan Kanter, talked to
representatives of IAD, talked to John Barney. What we found out is that we believe that the County
when doing their environmental review was not aware of the 25,000 cubic yards of fill to be moved.
That raises some question about procedure. Mr. Barney, I talked to you about it, and then at which
point you offered an opinion. Which was?
Attorney Barney - You have a problem. The resolution I think is probably to submit to the County a
revised EAF in the final form that you folks saw it. Let them have an opportunity to respond. As I
understand the schedule that is sought for this project, was to consider preliminary approval tonight. I
would suggest that you go ahead with the discussion on site plan approval, but withhold your formal
vote until we get the formal response from the County. I think the plan is to reschedule this for April
2nd for final. Depending what the County says and depending on how you feel about the project
generally, it would be possible to take preliminary and final site plan approval at that meeting. I think
you want to do your discussion, probably assuming the County, if they raised an issue in respect to
7,000 cubic yards on one project, and then they are probably going to raise a similar objection in
respect to this project. In all likelihood your vote may require a majority plus one.
Board Member Mitrano - Might require what? I missed that.
Attorney Barney - Whenever the County says they find a deleterious impact on intercommunity
arrangements, in order for a local body to approve a project it takes a super majority, a majority plus
one. You might want to take a straw vote tonight and see if you have sufficient votes with that
assumption in mind, realizing it is not your formal vote and someone could change their mind.
16
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - I should also point out that I don't think we have an issue with the environmental
review that we did because we were aware of the 25,000 cubic yards of fill. At the time, 25,000 cubic
yards of fill were being offered as being trucked off the site.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you for whoever did that close reading. Was that you, Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox - That was me.
Board Member Mitrano - Very good.
Chairperson Wilcox - I am sure the applicant is not pleased with me right now, but procedure is
important.
Board Member Mitrano - We could've been spending more time trying to fix it down the road.
Attorney Barney - As we've seen from some of the activities of our collegial municipalities, somewhat
larger, which we surround, if you don't do the 239 process, it basically stops the project and you have
to start it all over again. The thought is to proceed now knowing...
Board Member Mitrano - It is a favor to the applicant not a...
Chairperson Wilcox - And possibly the Town as well. So before we get going, I think the first time IAD
was here we had some representations and disclosures to make. I think we should remember to
make them now. You represent, I believe, a member of the party professionally.
Attorney Barney - Yes. We have done work from time to time, not for the entity, but for Mr. Pejanski
who has been I client of ours. I want to say that we are not representing him in any way with any
capacity of this application.
Chairperson Wilcox - I want to say that I am employed by Claritas, which is located at 53 Brown
Road. We are in a building leased from IAD. I think those are the only two that I remember from
before. All right, having said that, Herman good evening. I think what we have decide amongst the
various conversations that are going on is that you are going to proceed with the small, short
presentation that you have. Right?
Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition & Development - Very short I hope.
Chairperson Wilcox - And provide the board with a chance to ask questions with regard to the site
plan and then given the advice of Mr. Barney, we will see if we can carry it as far as we can go
without taking a formal vote. With any luck we can reconvene in two weeks.
Mr. Sieverding - We would like to do a couple things actually. If we could maybe review sort of where
we are in terms of the site plan submission that we're going to be giving to staff within the next couple
of days relative to this April 2 meeting for preliminary and final. I think we will briefly run through the
changes that we've made in that plan. I didn't really get to this issue that you really talk about, which
is the management of the property and the relationship between Ithaca College and Integrated
Acquisition and Development. Toward that end Brian McAree and Tom Colbert will follow me with
17
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
just a brief outline about what each party is bringing to the table relative to the management of this
property beyond the renovation and new construction.
In terms of site plan, I will only refer to the site plan if necessary and have follow up questions. I think
we read very carefully all the various staff comments. We've listened to comments that have been
made in our previous two appearances here. In terms of revisions to that site plan, you will see in the
package that you will be getting soon for that April 2nd meeting, a revision to the layout in that
northeastern corner of the property for that parking lot that will create a fire truck turn around that was
requested by the Fire Department because of the cul -de -sac there that is longer than 300 feet. The
revised plan will have the parking spaces revised for the 8 foot 6 by 18 dimensions rather than the 9
by 20 that is normally specified by the Town.
The grading plan is now based on eliminating the retaining wall behind units 69 and 71 and regrading
that area with excavated material taken from other portions of the site. The revised utility plan will
now show all of the site lights that was previously shown on the landscaping plan. Plus, that plan will
now also show approximately 18 blue lights that the college will be bringing to the property. We
provided additional detail for the stormwater drainage system. They include the modification of the
size of the swale that runs between unit 20 and 24. It is the units out on the western most edge of the
property. It is that swale that runs between those buildings and the properties out front on Danby
Road. So the size of that swale has been increased. There are also details for the size of the swale
and the size of the pipe for stormwater conveyance away from the Yntema property that we had
previously discuss.
The new plan will also show the addition of bicycle racks by the community building in the center
portion of the site. The plan will also show proposed locations for two possible bus shelters pending
conclusion of our discussions with TCAT relative to brining bus service to the site.
Finally, the site plan will also include a detailed planting plan and planting list as called for in the
suggested conditions of the preliminary site plan approval for the expanded wetland detention area.
In terms of the landscape plan, we have incorporated some of the comments that were made by the
Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Board and others relative to trying to preserve
as much of the existing woodland as we can in that northeastern section of the site. That landscape
plan now shows a very sizable area behind units 66 and 68 where I think there is an opportunity to
either save the entire grouping or go through and actually pick selected trees and work a landscaping
plan around that. There are substantial revisions to the plant list based on the plan that you currently
have that will show on the new plan, that again, reflects comments made by the ERC and by David
Fernandez. Picking out plants that will do better on the site in terms of site environmental conditions
and being more deer resistant than what was formerly specified.
The new landscape also takes what were those linear plants leading you to the front of each of the
apartments and now clusters those plants adjacent to the entry. We are adding, as suggested by
staff, shrubs and perhaps trees in the area between those two buildings and the edge of the
expanded wetland detention area. We also have deleted, I think as we mentioned previously, the
basketball court and the volleyball court in that center area. Its just not needed or desired at this
point. Finally, the plan will show methods for preserving existing trees, again, I think as recommended
by staff, from damage during construction.
roo
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
All these items relate to conditions of preliminary site plan approval. So we are working hard to
resolve those. There were a number of other items that were suggested as ones that should be
resolved prior to obtaining a building permit. We have had some discussions with staff relative to I
think there are three issues there. A routing plan for trucks that would be removing material from the
site. In the end, as you may have noted in the supplemental information that we submitted last week,
we are working with Ithaca College and there may be opportunities there that we can discuss later
about taking a lot of the excess material from the College Circle site and actually using that in either
connection with the construction of the connector road or at other locations on campus, which would
alleviate any traffic concerns to Route 96 and elsewhere. Copies of the applications for, I think it is
really just state work that we are talking about in terms of other jurisdiction from which we need to get
a permit. That will be done prior to obtaining a building permit.
Based on a meeting that we had earlier in the week or last week actually with Jon and Mike and Dan
Walker, Dan Walker suggested language for the maintenance agreements for the stormwater
conveyance systems that was called for as part of a condition to final approval. I think that sort of
long list of changes and revisions really respond to all of those concerns and issues that were raised.
There is a new one that we would like to discuss. That has to do, a site plan issue, has to do with the
walkway that goes from the property down to Route 96. The original plan in the original approval
showed a walkway on the northern end of the site that goes from the parking lot down to Route 96.
Having discussions with the college, in particularly with the whole connector road... The plan we are
considering is the removal of this walkway. We would restore that area to a grass area and rely on
the pedestrian path that we will provide in conjunction with the connector road as being the principal
pedestrian connection from the College Circle property and the Ithaca College campus.
Chairperson Wilcox - Keep going. Do you want comment now?
Mr. Sieverding - I think if we could get some comment now because ultimately this will affect what
these plans will look like...
Attorney Barney - Can I ask a question?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes.
Attorney Barney - If that is done, is there any point further to the north that there would be some sort
of connection with your sidewalk into the campus or other way into the campus with Route 96 before
you come to the main Ithaca College entrance?
Mr. Sieverding - No.
Attorney Barney - You don't think there is a need for...
Mr. Sieverding - Not for pedestrians.
Attorney Barney - ...the ability to get to Route 96.
19
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Sieverding - No. I don't see why.
Chairperson Wilcox - If there is a need, it might be to the south along the entrance drive as an aid to
getting to Joe Salino's new place across the street or to Big AI's. Maybe that is the need.
Board Member Hoffmann - We actually got a letter tonight from Pauline Layton pointing that out that
that would be a desirable thing to have, a sidewalk from this development onto Danby Road so that
students or residents here would be able to go out to Route 96 and walk south to Big Al's and the
sandwich place up there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you know what my initial reaction was, though? We can make it safer for
them to get from College Circle down to 96B and then take your life into your own hands once you
are on the shoulder of the State highway.
Board Member Mitrano - How about to the athletic fields? Don't a lot of people park along 96B and
then walk up willy- nilly? Would a route provide them with a more secure access to the campus that
way?
Mr. Kanter - To the campus there is actually a gravel driveway on Ithaca College property that goes
right up to the field. It is not an open, you know it is not for vehicle access, but pedestrians certainly
could use it.
Mr. Sieverding - Comments not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - Herman, could you just point out sort of that secondary access or egress that is
used like after the fireworks?
Mr. Sieverding - I think it comes down right in through here.
Chairperson Wilcox - It's chained at 96B. Its gravel. The only time I'm ever aware that it is open is
after the fireworks as a...
Tom Salm, Vice President for Business - The only time of the year that we use that road is at
fireworks. We really discourage people being on 96. We get regular complaints of our athletes
running on the road and so on. It is not a happy place to be with the traffic. So we don't want people,
like when we have commencement, the police make sure that they cannot park on Route 96. They
park across in the AXIOM parking lot and so on. We try to get as many of them on campus. So we
don't want pedestrians on 96. 1 see this as a real liability issue so I prefer not to have...
Board Member Mitrano - Okay, thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does anyone have an issue with taking that sidewalk out? I don't. It kind of
leads to nowhere.
20
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - Actually as I remember from looking at the original plans for this site, that
area where you have the proposed sidewalk drawn in...
Chairperson Wilcox - Which proposed sidewalk?
Board Member Hoffmann - In the proposal from 1988, the area closer, the green area closer to Route
96, in that earlier plan that was set aside as a natural area.
Mr. Sieverding - There is an area ... that is not where the sidewalk goes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let's be clear. That's an existing sidewalk, right?
Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, I see. All right. I remember now seeing the end of it. Anyway, I
wouldn't have a problem with taking the sidewalk out and maybe not necessarily turning this area into
a grassy area, but planting other things to maybe create more of a buffer area between this property
and the neighboring properties.
Mr. Sieverding - Comments not audible.
Board Member Hoffmann - But you just said that if you take out the sidewalk you could create a
grassy area.
Mr. Sieverding - It would be an extension of the lawn area that already exists on both sides of that
sidewalk.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else, Herman?
Mr. Sieverding - No. I think for site plan that is really it. At this point we would like to turn it over to
Brian McAree to talk about the college's...
Brian McAree, Vice President of Student Affairs - I think as we shared in the previous meeting, Ithaca
College intends to run College Circle as one of our on campus housing options for our students. With
that our intent is clearly to provide a safe place with management and services that we provide to any
other of our on campus housing options. What we want to do is accentuate our resident life staff, our
campus safety and some of the other things that we plan on doing too.
In terms of our resident's lifestyle, we intend on having the same ratio of staff and students as we do
in our garden apartment complex on campus and our traditional residence halls. Specifically what I'm
talking about is that we will have one resident director for the complex that will live on site. The
resident director is a full time professional staff member with our resident's life department. The
person that we are intending on moving there is someone with a Master's Degree in higher education,
has worked in our resident hall program for a number of years, has exceptional experience with
working with residence hall students. That individual's responsibility is to supervise the resident
assistants who are also undergraduate students, who will specially select, train, and supervise
through our resident director staff. They serve as undergraduate peer leaders for our resident
students. Their primary responsibilities will number one be to enforce college policies and rules and
21
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
regulations, our student conduct code specifically. In addition to that they are really there to try to
build a sense of community in the College Circle complex, as they do on campus. In addition to that,
they provide programming to our students; serve as the first contact for students in terms of problems
and conflicts that they may have within their own apartments or living complex. They serve as the
first realm of administrative support for students. Again, we have a lot of experience in hiring and
training these individuals to do that work properly.
Our ratios of our students to RA's are about 1 to 125 students. We are looking at the same type of
ratio in College Circle. Again, we will have one RD and 3 RA. It is important to know that with the
RA's and the RD's they are live -in individuals. They are on site. In addition to that, the RA's are
responsible in the evening hours for being on duty in the complex so that there will always be a
resident's life staff member available, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
In addition to that, campus safety is responsible for patrolling the Ithaca College campus 7 days a
week, 365 days a year. We would be extending those services and patrols to the College Circle
complex. We have three types of patrols and level of staffing. One is a sworn patrol officer. These
are actual peace officers that are deputized by the Sheriff. Those individuals have all the powers that
any other deputy has in the county. They carry weapons. They investigate violations or suspected
violations of the law in addition to enforcing our conduct code on campus and College Circle. They
are very professional individuals, well trained. We also have security officers. These are non -sworn
officers. They are trained once again. If you think of security guards, they would be more along that
line. They patrol on campus, all our buildings and our residence halls and now College Circle. We do
that from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. We have regular patrols of those areas. We have regular contact
with our dispatcher and also our sworn officers by radio. In addition to that, we have a student
auxiliary safety patrol (sasp). Thirty -five to 40 students are again selected by us and trained by us.
They also do patrols across campus. They are on duty from 7 o'clock at night to 3 o'clock in the
morning. They are also in touch with the security officers and patrol officers by radio. In addition to
that they provide escort services to our students as needed. If someone is uncomfortable traveling
from one part of the campus to another, they will also do that at College Circle.
As I said, we are trying to through campus safety provide a safe level of patrol as we do any place
else on campus. Patrols are conducted by the security officers and patrol officers on foot. We have a
bike patrol on campus that we will be extending that bike patrol to College Circle, and obviously we
would do that by campus safety vehicle. There will be regular patrols throughout the day and
throughout the evening. This is happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I think as indicated before
we will be installing a blue light phone system throughout College Circle. That will allow students at
any point in time and visitors or anybody else to simply walk up to one of these phones that are
designated by a blue light. They will be able to push a button and immediately have contact with a
campus safety office through a dispatcher for any emergency. It also indicated immediately where
the phone was activated. So even if the person could not communicate, campus safety would be
dispatched immediately to that location.
I mentioned a couple of times our student conduct code. We are enforcing our student conduct code
at College Circle as we do any place on campus. What I mean by that is all rules and regulations and
all the expectations that we have will be enforced by the people that I mentioned. Our student
conduct code is shared with students from the time that they arrive on our campus at our orientation
22
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
at the beginning of each year and throughout the year those rules and regulations are re- enforced by
our staff. If there are any problems, people will be confronted by our staff, resident's life and campus
safety staff. If there were problems or any violation to those policies, they would be referred to
judicial action through our judicial program on campus. Obviously, our campus safety officers would
decide what problems and violations are what, where it necessitated involving the Sheriff we would
certainly do that. We would also arrest our students through our campus safety office.
Also wanted to mention that just this past January, we were successful in hiring a full time person on
campus who is our Health Promotion Coordinator. This is a person that we have hired full time on
campus. We've started a center that is located in our health center on campus for counseling. This
individual's responsibility is to try to coordinate a lot of our programs that are already taking place on
campus related. to alcohol education for our students. We take our policy seriously and we enforce it
strictly. We will also be doing it at College Circle and extending our educational program...
With the intent on enforcing all of our parking and traffic regulations on the connector road and at
College Circle as well, we have full time parking enforcement staff that is part of campus safety. Our
traffic bureau is part of our campus safety department. So the students there would be given the
same parking privileges as any other student on Ithaca College campus. They would be considered
residents. Our assumption is that for those people that have cars, they would be using the connector
road to get back and forth...
As we have evaluated all of this, we are now looking at the size of the additional parking that is going
to be created at College Circle. We would not be adding any additional parking on campus because
if you think about it, we are not expanding the student populations at Ithaca College at all by adding
College Circle. For the students who live and go to Ithaca College right now, they are either living on
campus or off campus. The only thing that College Circle allows us to do is add to the on- campus
population. If you think about it, a lot of the students that are here right now, if they got a car, we are
parking them right now as part of our on- campus and off - campus population. We don't anticipate that
adding College Circle is going to add to the parking problem or parking challenge that we face on
campus. Then again, I said the parking patrolling officers will be patrolling the lots at College Circle
on a regular basis as they do all lots on the campus. They will issue any kind of tickets...
The other part to this complex that we are really excited about is obviously the possibility of having
the new community center on site. I think it is a very critical to the kind of environment that we want
to build at College Circle. When I talk about our campus safety staff and our resident's life, it is
obvious that the community buildings is a place where they'll have offices and the focal point for
students. Our intention in that setting will be to have our main desk area, our reception area. We will
have a full time secretary during business hours as well as the staff that I mentioned. We are looking
at having a laundry center up there; obviously so people can do their laundry. A small exercise room
will be included in the community center. We are also looking at having a recreation area where
people could gather for programming and other kind of things ... for recreation.
With that, I would like to open it up for questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions?
23
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - I have one question, maybe this is not the right time for it. But, just remind
me why the fields by the community center were omitted, the volleyball court and the basketball court.
What was the reason for taking them out?
Mr. McAree - Well, one of the things we wanted to do was try to gain a sense of what our students
need. One of the things we are very comfortable with is the fact that within the community center we
think we've identified the kind of programmatic service functions that we need. Certainly, if we find at
the complex... At this point in time, we don't... This is what we can wrap our hands around in terms of
financing and trying to anticipate whether...
Board Member Hoffmann - So it was mainly a financial question, not that the site wasn't suitable right
there?
Mr. McAree - That's correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tracy?
Board Member Mitrano - I'm just curious. What is the training of the health person that you folks have
hired for your substance abuse education?
Mr. McAree - They have a master's degree in ... education from I believe... University. They started in
January. They have made a nice impact so far. They've already put out a core survey of which we
did about 2 years ago to assess student use ... on campus... They worked in the Boston area...
Board Member Mitrano - Do you folks at Ithaca College feel yourself within an unfortunate ramping
trend of this kind of thing? Or do you think there are conditions that are particular to Ithaca College
that has caused what has been observed as a ramping up of this kind of use?
Mr. McAree - I don't think any of this is unique to Ithaca College. It is a very challenging thing to work
with 6,000 young adults from 18 to 21 years old who are many times away from home for the first
time. They are going through the transition that most of us went through during our college years,
experimenting. Trying to get a sense of independence, making decisions on their own for the first
time. All those things that I think are very challenging. The other thing that we know about this issue
is that they are not starting, if they are using substances, at Ithaca College. Many of them are having
experiences when they are home in high school, which is very unfortunate.
Board Member Mitrano - So they are ramping up in...
Mr. McAree - I think one of the things tr
education and a lot more peer education i
think what we do a good job at is enforcing
a very challenging problem...
at the college does is take it upon itself to do a lot of
> try to get the message out that this is unacceptable. I
our policies and provide a full time counseling staff... It is
Board Member Mitrano - About the relationship with IAD, are there precedence for this with other
colleges and universities that Ithaca College became aware of and sought to follow or were they
simply the circumstances that they own the property and the already existing apartments and you
24
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
were looking for an expansion of housing for your higher enrollments? How actually did it come
about and what other models have you looked at to sort it out?
Mr. McAree - I think it is a combination of both things. I think one of the things, as we mentioned
before, is that through our master planning process we identified for ourselves that we need 600 to
800 new beds for Ithaca College. Our goal is to add to our on- campus population. Right now we only
house about 40 percent of our juniors and about 10 percent of our seniors. We only house about 85
percent of our sophomores. So for a residential college, which is what we are, and just recommitting
ourselves to our mission. We said that looking at what our students need, we only have about 405
apartment beds on the campus. If anything, students now a days, especially in their junior year and
senior year are looking for apartment style housing. So now we need beds, but we need apartment
housing. Number two, with that ... we were looking at how do we provide that when we also have a lot
of other needs on campus. So other institutions, colleges, and universities have partnered with
developers to both take over existing complexes. So for a number of years we've been looking at
those possibilities knowing that if we wanted to finance this in a creative way and provide ourselves
with the capacity to have a barrowing capacity that could be used for other academic reasons and so
forth.
Board Member Mitrano - Are you aware of other examples then where after the contractual period of
time the relationship has resolved and what has then happened with the housing of those students
and the environment around them, or any of those obvious kinds of questions that you could imagine
that we would like to ask.
Mr. McAree - I don't have a lot of background on the relationships between the developers and the
colleges... I know we are going into this relationship for the long haul, in terms of committing our
resources and trying to make this work... We think it is a very positive situation for our students. We
found that so far our marketing...
Board Member Mitrano - Is there anything apart from the enthusiasm, which if I were in your shoes I
would share too, is there anything apart from the hopefulness that you can guarantee the Town that if
that relationship does not continue that there will not be such a deterioration of that area as to be
offensive to the Town?
Mr. McAree - I think a couple of things. Number one, we
intention of doing the kinds of things I just mentioned. I
culture that presently exists at College Circle. I think our
they can maybe not be under the thumb of Ithaca College,
when they found out that Ithaca College is planning on "m
intention of making this a positive place for students to live.
our neighbors. So that is how we are going handle it.
are certainly going into this with the clear
think related to that is the change in the
students see it as a place close by where
Some of our students are not very happy
anaging" the property. So we have every
One that everybody can enjoy, especially
In addition, we have worked very closely with IAD to talk about if this relationship were ever severed,
our whole expectation of IAD and they agreed because they would provide very similar kinds of
management and service personnel on site to make sure that this complex continues in the way that
we hope it is going to be under our management... .
25
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Do you mean resident advisors as well as peer resident advisors?
Mr. McAree - On site management staff, as well as security staff. I think this might be a good time, I if
could turn it over to Tom Colbert. He can talk about what IAD's intentions would be if we were too
severe this relationship.
Tom Colbert, IAD - Ithaca College and IAD has negotiated an agreement that provides for a non -
terminable 40 year commitment by Ithaca College for the College Circle property. Under the terms of
this agreement, Ithaca College will manage and operate College Circle. However, Ithaca College
may elect at sometime in the future not to continue to directly manage College Circle. In this case,
IAD will manage the property for Ithaca College while the college will continue to supply student
occupants for College Circle. Private management of college housing is a growing trend nationally.
While not presently envisioned for College Circle, it is a flexibility that Ithaca College wishes maintain.
We feel it is important to discuss IAD 's property management strengths and history given this
unanticipated, yet, possible scenario. In addition to over 300,000 square feet of office space
developed and managed locally, IAD and its affiliate presently own and manage over 1700 apartment
units throughout upstate New York. The majority of these apartment properties are located in
Tompkins County with 257 of these apartments in the Town of Ithaca. Additionally, two locally owned
properties are exclusively student properties. Our approach to student apartment properties has
always been to manage and maintain them with the same high standard to which we operate all of
our residential properties. Additionally, rapid response by on site staff to any disturbing resident
behavior key to a management philosophy. All residents are guaranteed the quiet enjoyment of their
premises. Thus, by extension, so to are neighboring property owners. As a result of our intensive
management activities, all of our properties have excellent relationships and reputations with nearby
property owners, municipal officials and area law enforcement organizations. This reputation is one of
the reasons why Ithaca College wanted to negotiate the management flexibility to have us run this
property for them while they commit to supply students to it as part of our student - housing program
for a 40 year period.
In the unlikely event that IAD is asked to manage College Circle for Ithaca College at some point in
the future, IAD would manage and staff College Circle in the same manner as Ithaca College if we
are able to offset the high and unusual costs of this management presence. Again and importantly,
these high standards of staffing, security patrols and construction and operation of a community
building are premised upon a minimum occupancy of 690 student residents at College Circle to offset
the great and unusual expenses at this intensive level of management. Among these expenses are
contracted services for security patrol, our commitment to on site resident leasing managers,
weekend leasing staff, on site resident property management assistants at a ratio of 1 per 125
students as Ithaca College is committing to with their resident advisor program. The carrying cost
which we will assume and maintain of a $1.5 million community building. These include the
investment capital, the debt service, the real estate taxes, the utilities, repairs and maintenance and
the staff for the community building. This, of course, is in addition to the cost of maintaining Ithaca
College voice and data system, which we would be doing if we managed the property for them.
We believe that this high level of commitment to on site staffing, security personnel, and the
construction and operation of a community building is of greater importance to the Town of Ithaca
than a less intensive management structure at a 600 bed occupancy level. We thus ask that the
0
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Town of Ithaca make it possible for us to undertake these staffing and security commitments by
approving an occupancy level of up to 690 student beds at College Circle under our management at
this time with prospect of our achieving a 750 bed occupancy at a later date upon application to the
Town of Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox - All done, Tom? Questions? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Which are the student housing that you manage? You said that you
manage...
Mr. Colbert - We manage a property called 312 College Avenue.
Chairperson Wilcox - Where is it located?
Mr. Colbert - In Collegetown on Stewart Avenue, as well as an apartment property at Triphammer
Road called the Brooke Lane apartments. We also manage our properties in a fashion that in any
college community we always have a significant college- student component to our properties. Again,
these properties in communities like Ithaca, Rochester and Oneonta that nearby campuses always
have a heavy student component to them.
Board Member Mitrano - Do these other properties that you currently own and operate have the same
degree of staffing that you just described you would have in this case?
Mr. Colbert - The degree of staffing that I have outlined and which is outlined in the materials by the
Town of Ithaca is a slightly higher degree of staffing than we presently have at most of our properties.
Although at 312 College Avenue, we do have a round the clock patrol of that building. We have
people on staff throughout the night to maintain control of that facility.
Board Member Mitrano - Do you have any special relationship, I assume Cornell in that
neighborhood, and in the same way you have with Ithaca College?
Mr. Colbert - No. That's a totally different situation. That is not a master lease situation. It's a free
market operation.
Board Member Mitrano - The staffing with what you propose, I'm just not familiar with the job
description of the terms that you use. I can't even remember what they were exactly, leasing people
or something like that.
Mr. Colbert - What we attempted to do and which we supplied an Exhibit b of the supplied material to
the Town of Ithaca, we wanted to take a point by point approach to commit to matching Ithaca
College's on site leasing and staffing commitment to the property. Consequently, instead of a live -in
residential director, we are committing ourselves to a live -in leasing supervisor. Instead of a resident
advisor of 1 per 125 residents, we are committing ourselves to live -in resident managers. We have
tried to meet their program point by point in a free market approach to the situation.
27
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Would those people as you envision it now, and of course in 40 year who
knows what the standard will be for student affairs and students at that time, but do you envision
those category of personnel having the same interest, degree in training and develop of that age or
are these more security minded occupations?
Mr. Colbert - We, as a rule, undergo great degrees of training of our people. They know how to
respond very quickly to most situations that we've ever encountered. They know how to determine
what response is appropriate and who to contact to make sure a rapid response to the situation in-
hand.
Board Member Mitrano - That didn't really answer my question.
Board Member Conneman - Tom, I know you have a good a reputation, but I was curious in the letter
that Herman wrote to the Jon Kanter that you did not think it was appropriate to say that if your
agreement with Ithaca College was terminated, that you would have to come back to the Planning
Board. Obviously, not any of us probably, to get approval for the increased number of people. I don't
quite understand that if what you just said to Tracy is true. If you are going to have the same kinds of
numbers of people and manage the properties as I think you manage 312. 1 haven't been there but I
have been passed it. I don't see why anybody would object to that.
Mr. Colbert - Well, we hope that no one would object to it. We have constructed the plan so that they
wouldn't object. We have tried to meet the challenge here and meet Ithaca College's commitment to
the property. What we are saying tonight is that we need this 690 bed count in order to commit to this
very heavy level of staffing. We, of course, if we managed it at a lower level, say a 600 bed that was
previously approved for this site, we certainly couldn't afford to put the same on site management
staffing in place at that lower level of occupancy. That would significantly impact our income. At this
690 bed level, we could commit ourselves to keeping in place the Ithaca College program on a private
basis. Again, this would be managed under a management agreement with Ithaca College, a very
strict agreement outlining the terms of the management activities.
Mr. McAree - Part of the things just to take you back, we support IAD request of 690 in order to
provide these services. Because if we sever this agreement, they will still serve our students. We will
manage this property for an x number of years at a certain level, but the students would be under the
similar kind of management of the site.
Board Member Conneman - I was not as concerned about what you two would do, but if there is a
successor. IAD may decide to sell out to somebody.
Mr. Colbert - The management agreement would stay in place. The management agreement that we
would have in place between us and Ithaca College and those terms would have to be met as well as
the commitment which we are making to the Town of Ithaca today as to how we will manage it and
how we will staff it. Those terms will also have to be met.
Board Member Conneman - So I see no object to including in what we may approve tonight...
Chairperson Wilcox - Or may take a straw vote on...
Im
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Conneman - Or may take a straw vote on to saying that you would sign a long term
agreement and that you must reapply. You are saying that if you can keep it at 690 its okay.
Mr. Colbert - If we can keep it at 690 as approved today, we will commit to this level of management
and we would hope to be able to come back to you and perhaps have you entertain taking us back up
to a level of housing of 750 beds, but we do need that 690 tonight to commit to this heavy level of
management.
Board Member Mitrano - John Barney, I have some questions. I'm confused and I didn't do well in
contracts. A management agreement is between whom here? These two folks?
Attorney Barney - Right.
Board Member Mitrano - So if 40 years passes and the relationship shifts over, with whom has IAD
maintained a contract at that point?
Attorney Barney - If 40 years passed and if at that point the relationship terminates, there would be no
further management responsibilities except so far as conditions that were imposed by this board
remain in place at that point. The expectation is that ultimately this property might end up as part of
Ithaca College. Right now, this arrangement makes sense.
Board Member Mitrano - Heaven forbid, say IAD does go into receivership or something like that
Attorney Barney - I don't know that you can sit here and say that Bill Perjanski and Tom Colbert will
be with IAD 40 years from now.
Board Member Mitrano - Then to what degree in your experience would substantial compliance apply
in this case if there are 689 students. Could that release them from the agreement? We're pegging it
at this one number. In your experience in...
Attorney Barney - If understand what
have to get 690, that's up to them to fi
go to 690 in order to commit to this
something else happens that for some
understand and I think the condition tl
that same management structure.
is being said, is if the number is put at 690 it is not that they
II the spots. What they are saying is they need the authority to
level of assistance. If they wind up through the market or
year Ithaca College can only provide them with 650 students, I
iat we would be looking at here is that IAD would still maintain
Board Member Mitrano - It's our promise. It's not the actual...
Attorney Barney -.Its their promise and their ability to get 690, if I understand it, the condition would
be that with that number or anything under that number, but you are authorized to go up to 690,
whatever the number is you will have the management structure in place of 1 to 125.
Mr. Kanter - Fred, maybe if I could maybe just provide a little commentary, I think the 690 number
you're hearing tonight is slightly different from the formal proposal that is before the board. The
29
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
formal proposal is to increase the occupancy to 750. Tonight we are hearing for the first time a
proposal to lower that number now...
Mr. Salm - Could I say something?
Mr. Kanter - I am reiterating what I've heard.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tom, you may come to the microphone and stand there until Jon finishes and
then I will give you a rebuttal.
Mr. Kanter - So what I've heard, and you can clarify and /or follow up, but what I am hearing tonight is
a willingness to consider a request for a lower number, i.e. 690 as opposed to the 750 with an option
to come back at some future point to request that 750. Please, if I'm wrong in what I heard...
Mr. Colbert - Please, let me clarify. Ithaca College is going in for 750 beds at this time. What we are
saying is that IAD is requesting that they are able to receive approval to achieve 690 bed occupancy
if they manage the property as opposed to Ithaca College managing it. In order to achieve that 690
bed occupancy if IAD manages the property at some future unforeseen date, we would like the ability
to come back to you and suggest with your approval that we could go back up to a level of 750 bed
occupancy that Ithaca College would maintain at that site. We are asking that we are able to achieve
under IAD management 690 bed occupancy to offset the much higher level of management that we
are willing to commit to today given the permission to branch up 690 beds. As you were saying,
John, if we missed that target of 690 beds and under our management we're only able to rent 670
beds, we would still be bound by that commitment level.
Attorney Barney - What I am hearing is that as long as Ithaca College is managing the property, 750
is the number of beds they want now. What he is proposing is if Ithaca College dropped out of the
picture, you are going to take a bed out of every other apartment to get down to the 690.
Mr. Colbert - Frankly, the furniture is very flexible. What were saying is that Ithaca College would run
it at a 750 bed level under their management. If they retained us to run it for them under our
management, we would ask for a 690 bed level of occupancy with the proviso that we would hopefully
come back to you and achieve a 750 bed occupancy.
Attorney Barney - In my mind, so we can articulate it in a way that we all understand, you're saying, if
I hear it correctly, is that you would accept as a, if the board chose to approve it, you would accept as
part of the approval process 750 occupancy tied strictly to Ithaca College's management. If Ithaca
College seizes to manage it for any reason, that the permitted number would drop from 750 to 690.
You always have the right if it is articulated or not to come back and ask for more. That's there
anyway. But, if you would like to have in there that it would be without prejudice for you to reapply at
that time in the future. I think I understand, I don't know whether...
Mr. Kanter - That is their current proposal, but does it clarify what the base proposal was before we
just heard that, is the flat 750 subject to our, the staff's proposed condition, which is what you really
want to talk about.
30
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - Which is, if Ithaca College terminates and IAD comes back to re- review the
increase over and above 600. What you are offering is a compromise.
Mr. Colbert - Right and what we are suggesting...
Chairperson Wilcox - It's a compromise to us, and I suspect given what I am hearing, it also might
solve an issue of a lender.
Mr. Colbert - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - It provides a 690 number to your lender rather than a 600 number to your
number.
Mr. Colbert - That's right, which they obviously will take much greater comfort in when it comes the
infrastructure. We, as well, as Ithaca College are putting in place.
Chairperson Wilcox - It will relieve some of the uncertainty.
Board Member Mitrano - How does the concentration of beds for this proposal compare to some of
your other properties like this 312 College Avenue?
Mr. Colbert - A concentration on what basis? We went through the density discussion the last time.
This is a considerably less dense property than 312 College Avenue, which is of course a mid -rise
structure in an urban environment.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Much of the open space being in the middle. How much did the 400 College
Avenue property just go for?
Mr. Colbert - $900,000
Chairperson Wilcox - For 400 College Avenue at auction. The old University Deli. Questions?
Board Member Howe - What would you expect the occupancy rate during the summer months to be?
Full occupancy or half or three - quarter?
Mr. McAree - We would offer an 11 month lease. Our assumption is that many of them will not be
there during the summer. A lot of the students want to go home. They leave the area for jobs, etc.
That would be their option. This is different from other on- campus housing where students
basically... It is also our hope that students will find this attractive. We are not sure how many of
them would actually be residing there during the summer months, but they would have that option
under the agreement.
Board Member Howe - And you stated the ratios of RA's to students would be 1 to 120.
31
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. McAree - It would be 1 to 125, which is exactly the same ratio that we have in the garden
apartment complex on the campus.
Board Member Howe - Do you know how that compares with other colleges? Is it fairly average?
Mr. McAree - I don't know, but I know that in a traditional residence halls as we have, we are looking
at a ratio of about 1 to 35, 40 or 50. In traditional residence halls, you are looking at freshmen and
sophomores. When you look at apartment complexes you manage them very different. You are
generally looking at juniors and seniors. They don't need the kind of "supervision" that freshmen and
sophomores do. They have already gotten friendships together and these kinds of things. This is a
pretty standard kind of ratio. From our own experiences, this ratio works.
Board Member Howe - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - If I may make a comment. The issue here is the condition about whether they
have to come back should Ithaca College terminate their agreement. I was initially in favor of that
clause. One of the things that IAD has done is address that in some detail with the creation of not
RA's but RM's, trying to create the equivalent number of positions, different names. RA's are paid
snitches, is what they are. I'm asking you to respond.
Board Member Mitrano - I beg your pardon, I was an RA. I never snitched on anybody.
Chairperson Wilcox - Frankly, what I'm being asked to believe is that by having those RA's there,
violations of either the campus code of conduct or civil law or whatever law, will be noticed and
reported and responded to quickly. Those RA's are those paid Ithaca College students, who will see
them and deal with them appropriately. IAD has offered RM's to sort of do the same thing. We have
a bit of an issue where they would have to call the Sheriff should it require it and the increased
response time than it would take to get Ithaca College safety there. So I'm pleased to see that IAD
has stepped to the plate and offered these RM's and other equivalents to try to maintain that level and
number of eyes on the apartments and on the buildings to insure that the issues that have been
ongoing and maybe still exist today, are mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
Board Member Mitrano - Actually, you just raised something, while I object to your depiction of RA's.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry.
Board Member Mitrano - I'll set that aside for a moment. You did raise something that is interesting
because the student RA's are beholden to university policy: The IAD folks would be beholden to their
employers. I wonder if there would be a different kind of incentive and style of management
decisions about the implementation of policy, the decisions of about calling law enforcement at
certain times.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that an actual question or a rhetorical question?
Attorney Barney - Make it a real question.
32
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL f6, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Are you finished?
Board Member Mitrano - I'm done.
Board Member Hoffmann - I have still two main concerns. One has to do with the drainage and I
would really like Mr. Yntema to have a chance to show on one of those maps what it was he was
proposing to us before because I didn't understand it. I would like to see it and have it explained
better. The second thing that I'm concerned about still very much is the connector road, how it is
going to be designed, how it is going to function, how it is going to impact the neighbors who live
along Route 96 who'll have both Route 96 on one side and then this road on the other side of their
residences. I remember hearing things like the bus service would be quite intense, maybe buses
would go by every 20 minutes between Ithaca College and College Circle. In the papers that we just
got for this meeting, there is a letter from Mr. Stretki, about the use of this road to transport materials,
fill from College Circle over to the main campus by traffic via this road so that it doesn't have to go on
the public roads. I don't quite understand how that can happen if the road is indeed undesigned yet
and is not going to be approved before we consider approval of the College Circle project. So 1 have
a number of questions connected to these things.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let's do ... let's do the road first. Herman, can you put the board up please.
Let's see. Let me remind everybody that the draft resolution reads as follows, "Ithaca College
submitting plans to this board and obtaining necessary approvals from the Town and any other
government agencies for which approvals may be required for the proposed new connector road to
provide both vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy for buildings in Phase II ".
Board Member Hoffmann - That also raises a question about when are we going to see the papers
having to do with the design of the road and approval them.
Chairperson Wilcox - Frankly, it gives us full control. It's kind of like saying ... the applicant comes in
they get approval... lets say they get approval to build these buildings, then Ithaca College comes
back in for the building. We've got them over a barrel. You want your apartment complexes, you're
gonna make the road look like this. They are taking that risk themselves.
Board Member Hoffmann - Still, but I think we would be able to make a more sensible decision if we
know the layout, design, and the impact of the road before we approve the buildout of the apartment
project. That is how I feel about anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox - The key here is vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle clearly. It's got to be easy for cars
to get from one to the other. There can't be impediments to flow of traffic, multiple stop signs, speed
bumps, etc, etc. Clearly, we don't want speeding, but if there are too many impediments to the flow of
traffic they are going to go out on 96B and come around.
Mr. Sieverding - I think from our point of view, the key thing is the college commitment to build this
road in time to off -set any potential, even though minor, traffic impacts that we discussed during the
33
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
environmental review. I think the college has made that commitment, both verbally and in writing.
They are also committing that the alignment of the road and the configuration of that road is as you
see it on the plan. I think beyond that, I think you're really getting into a detailed discussion of a
separate site plan application that the college has committed to submit to the Town. That site plan
application will include all the appropriate environmental reviews to address. I think just the very
issues that you are bringing up. But I think for the purposes of our site plan approval, I think that the
conceptual, the schematic plan that you have here combined with the college commitment that this
road is in place no later than August of 2003, but possibly before then is really key to moving our
application forward.
Chairperson Wilcox - We do need to talk about drainage...
Board Member Hoffmann - That's in connection with the road, too.
Mr. Sieverding - Additional comments relative to drainage arising from what?
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, Mr. Yntema, I had trouble hearing your presentation a little bit, but it
sounded like you were proposing something to us to consider. Since I didn't quite understand it, I
would love to see you describe it with the use of the map.
Mr. Sieverding - Was this the presentation that was made previously, that we missed?
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Yntema took advantage of the Persons to be Heard segment, and
addressed the board for a couple of minutes on an issue or an item which was not on this evening's
agenda, i.e., we didn't have a public hearing. Yes, you were outside the room. He snuck through the
back door, or I let him sneak through the back door. So we'll sit tight for just a second.
Board Member Hoffmann - No, he didn't. He did something that was perfectly appropriate.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, he did and I let him do it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Maybe the microphone could be turned so that we could pick up Mr.
Yntema's voice.
Mr. Yntema - This is my property and this is the Kirschman's. The plan right now is to drain
the... property down to the ditch, which will bring the load under a culvert next to my driveway. What I
was suggesting... This is where the water is coming down here. Mr. Yntema's comments not
audible.
Board Member Hoffmann - There is a drain there, you think?
Mr. Yntema - I believe so.
999 - Yeah, there is a drainage pipe that goes from the Ithaca College retention down to Danby Road.
[cit
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Yntema - ...one of my concerns is this is very narrow. You put in a trench digger there, a, you
have to get around the trees that are there. I like them because they buffer. My neighbor likes them
because they buffer us, visual and sound, but you can't turn around in 25 feet with a ditch digger I
don't think without going onto our properties. That would be a real mess. This just seemed like a
neater thing to do to take care of the damage on ... let the water settle there a while, do whatever
detention /retention ponds do. Okay?
Board Member Hoffmann - I would agree with you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann - Thank you very much. I understand much better now.
Mr. Salm - That is the first time we've seen it. I wanted to go back to
back to this. David Herrick is the one that were going to have to be able
just wanted to re- enforce the point that we will do this. Again, the intent
planning approval. Fred, I think you're right. You certainly have us ove
and give the authorization for the apartments and they we haven't gotten
connector as quickly as we can reasonably put it in place.
Chairperson Wilcox - We could make you put it in gold.
Mr. Salm - There you go. That's right.
Chairperson Wilcox - If you want your apartments filled.
the other point. We'll come
to respond to Mr. Yntema. I
was for this to be a separate
r the barrel. If you go ahead
the connector. We want the
Mr. Salm - I'm sincere about that we want to make this part of campus and the connector road is an
integral part of making it part of the campus. If we did make all of our students go out on 96B, that
would kind of defeat what we are after here in one sense. But, as I understand it, the preference was
to keep these separated and have us come in separately since it is two different ownerships and so
on. So we'd be happy to come in and work as quickly as possible to get that planning approval. The
proviso says that we have to have it in place by August of 2003, if we could do it more quickly than
that I would just as soon do that. We'll have lesser student population this fall than a year from this
fall. There is no reason why we shouldn't be using it earlier if we can get it in place.
I will remind you once again; I mention this a couple other times that we have this master plan that we
are working on. One of the issues on the road, which has given us something to think about, is
whether ultimately the road should go around on the other side of the playing fields. So if you are
concerned about it encroaching on the neighbors, and I think there is enough buffer for the neighbors
on the west side, but we need to work that out. Because I remind you again about that field house
location when we came in and talked about that over here on the corner. If we can have a field house
there, what we will then do with the whole traffic parking area is a piece of master plan that we simply
need some time to work out and make sure we can get the dollars to build that field house. So we
would put in a road that would be absolutely appropriate to handle all the traffic coming from College
Circle. But, I would want to say again and would say it if we came in for planning approval, that some
00
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
day in the not too distant future we might want to come back with a different kind of road configuration
that might go on the other side of the playing fields. I just wanted to remind you of that. But, we are
committing ourselves to doing the connector road. No question. It is in the resolution, as well, by the
way.
Board Member Hoffmann - I guess I was a little bit concerned that we were going .to get locked into
the connector road having to go exactly in those areas that are indicated on that map. I know that
that leaves it open quite a bit. There is a lot of area indicated, but I'm not entirely sure that that is the
best solution. I didn't want us by approving this, the apartments separately, without really looking
carefully at where the road would be to have us locked into something, which wouldn't be the best
solution in the end.
Mr. Salm - Again, the intent here is to get the best of all possible solutions for all of us. Mr. Yntema
and the Layton's, who we've been talking with, we will be happy to work with them. I have no idea,
but Dave has any idea now on that idea of carrying it over farther that Mr. Yntema brought up tonight.
That is the first time we'd heard it. David, did you have anything...
Chairperson Wilcox - Just hold for a second before you come up David. In one sense it is unfortunate
then when we first saw the proposed plan for College Circle, the proposal was not to build a
connector road. On the other hand, I am pleased that Ithaca College heard the voice of this Planning
Board in the first sketch plan and immediately started work on creating a connector road. If they'd
proposed the connector road initially, I think they might have been farther along in their engineering
on it, but I think they are moving rather rapidly in trying to get it done. Even though I think there was a
letter to the editor in the Ithacan where someone at Ithaca College took credit for proposing the
connector road. I would like to get David Herrick up if we could. David I know that you now have had
5 minutes to think about this.
Attorney Barney - David is very good. That's all he needs.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, he's well paid I suspect.
Attorney Barney - Not well enough, right David?
Chairperson Wilcox - Not enough to deal with us.
David Herrick, TG Miller - I think the very simplest summation to the concept is that we would be
reverting run -off from one particular watershed. The Town drains to these particular cross culverts on
Danby Road. The water would flow into a different watershed to the north with a different drainage
pipe on Danby road. What we were attempting to do is to keep watershed boundaries as intact as we
could to resemble the original conditions. For the land to drain to the cross culvert... The strip of
property that the college owns provides that connection...
Board Member Conneman - Why is that important? Why is it important to keep it in the same
watershed? Is there a rule?
36
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Herrick - Well, I'm not up on ... rights. I can't explain whether there are any legal issues for
retaining water in its boundaries. I know it is the way to manage water. There are facilities down
below, that have been built and used for decades assume those conditions would remain. Just as we
would expect that if anything developed further to the east of the property that they would respect the
watershed boundaries, not adding to and not taking away from.
Attorney Barney - It is not beyond the possibility to explore that arrangement to see whether the
diversion of that water could be accommodated by the retention pond and the pipe that is there
already or that will be there.
Mr. Herrick - Well, you could do an analysis to see what the impacts would be on the end of
watershed as a.result of the project, but how far do you want to carry that?
Attorney Barney - Well, David, I don't think ... YOU 're only looking about 300 or 400 feet
Mr. Walker - There can be significant changes to drainage structures further down the hill ... in the
City. By moving, I'm not exactly sure because I haven't looked at it. It does move it further down
Stone Quarry Road. It maybe only 200 to 300 feet here, but on Stone Quarry Road, the stream
diverge into maybe 500 to 1,000 feet further down and not crossing Stone Quarry Road at a point
where it goes into the major drainage way. It actually diverts it into the City where it doesn't go into
the City now. I don't know that for sure, but...
Attorney Barney - But it is not impossible to analyze it.
Mr. Walker - Oh, we can analyze it. Do we traditionally.., well traditionally. Keeping it in the existing
watershed is the safest way to not create problems down stream. Can we require them to analyze it?
Probably not. Can we ask them to? Sure, but who is going to pay the cost. The Town is in the
process of analyzing... The Highway Superintendent has concerns about where the water goes on
Stone Quarry Road because there have been changes over the past years and the first project
changed structures on Stone Quarry Road and probably caused us to lose part of the road during
1993. So there can be some major impacts, but we can look at it with Ithaca College,
Mr. Kanter - The irony is that both alternative, so to speak, take the same water down to Danby Road.
The question is...
Mr. Walker - Different points of Danby Road.
Mr. Kanter - That's the question. Does the current proposal go down to the Danby Road ditch and
then cross over before it would've if it had come from the retention pond? That's what I don't...
Mr. Walker - Yes. Currently, the culvert that drains next to Mr. Yntema's driveway crosses directly
and goes just south of the Ithacare property, passed the old stone quarry that was there and then
makes it way down to Stone Quarry Road,
Mr. Kanter - That's the key difference, really.
37
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Walker - If it goes further south, it diverts it more to the south of Ithacare. I'm not exactly sure
were that culvert crosses, but it does push it quite a ways down the hill. It can make a significant
difference.
Board Member Mitrano - Where was the old stone quarry?
Mr. Walker - Right behind the parking lot. It's still there.
Board Member Mitrano - Of Ithacare?
Mr. Walker - Ithacare.
Chairperson Wilcox - Dan, would you describe it as a principle of water management to keep water in
the same watershed, design principle?
Mr. Walker - It's ... yes. It's a good stormwater management principle.
Chairperson Wilcox - Practice.
Mr. Walker - You don't increase the amount of water and you don't decrease it either. You keep it
going in the same direction.
Chairperson Wilcox - If you put it in a different watershed, then you raise the whole issue of what its
impact is.
Mr. Walker - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox Both at the point of discharge and then farther down the stream, if you will, as
the water makes its way to wherever its going to wind up.
Mr. Sieverding - I think a point worth keeping in mind is that before we went down this road, we had a
meeting about this proposed concept for handling this drainage with Mr. Yntema, Ithaca College,
Dave Herrick and myself. I think he has analyzed that precisely from that point of view, in terms of
what the impacts of doing this particular proposal and keeping all the water within the watershed and
that has been the basis for our environmental review. Yeah, well I think we can talk about taking a
look at an alternative perhaps in connection with the environmental review that is going to be done for
the connector road and if it turns out that that alternative is workable and feasible, it could be
considered 'in connection with that. But, I think we have a base plan here that has already been
analyzed. The impacts have been addressed. David has determined that the capacity could handle
this water. I think that should be the basis for going forward. Including commentary, I think for others
that it's a workable plan, although they may have different ideas about how to get it done now. I think
we have e -mails to that affect.
Board Member Hoffmann - Could you remind me, again, there is some drainage coming from that
new, larger retention pond that is going to be built to, right?
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Herrick - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - That will drain out...
Mr. Herrick - It drains out down to Danby Road.
Board Member Hoffmann - And which watershed is that from?
Mr. Herrick - It is from the same water to the watershed that incorporates all of the College Circle
property...
Board Member Hoffmann - So, with what you have proposed, there would be 3 drainage ways
essentially from this site to Danby Road. The first one is from the new wetland. The second one
would be the one along that narrow 25 foot strip. The third one would be via the drainage pond that
Ithaca College had, there would still be water going through that and through the drainage, which is
further north there, wouldn't they?
Mr. Walker - Well, that's Ithaca College drainage.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's not drainage coming from College Circle.
Board Member Hoffmann - None of that comes from the College Circle area and east of that?
Mr. Herrick - College Circle run -off is handled either the outlet from the wetland or the new pipe
constructed with this...
Attorney Barney - Currently constructed or to be constructed?
Mr. Herrick - To be constructed... the new swale and pipe to be constructed. Those two outlets
handle the run -off from not just College Circle, but from the majority of the watershed that lies east.
Chairperson Wilcox - Up the hill.
Board Member Hoffmann - And I understood that was the biggest contributor to the run -off is the area
to the east.
Mr. Walker - And because of changes that have been made, that water used to flow directly down to
Danby Road through where College Circle is now for the most part. It was basically a sheet flow.
Now it has been concentrated and diverted around the existing buildings, pushed over towards the
Ithaca College property. And, yes, on high run -off events, a lot of does go across and some of it ends
up in the retention pond. Well, actually, I think it ends up in Mr. YntemaIs backyard, most of it.
Because it does, the pipe capacities are minimal up there right now. Their proposal is to contain the
water that is coming. It has been diverted from the east side above the College Circle and trying to
get it back to Danby Road in as near a original discharge point as possible.
39
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - Dan, what do you think might happen if they were to dig this drainage
channel in that 25 foot strip there? Mr. Yntema seemed to think that it was too narrow to do that.
Mr. Walker - Twenty -five feet is a tight working space. It can be done. We usually try when we put a
sewer line or a water line in, we ask for a 50 foot construction easement. But, it can be built. An
excavator can rotate in place. You can work in at 25 foot area.
Chairperson Wilcox - They'd have to unless they got permission from the neighboring owners.
Mr. Walker - Will the contractor step across the line occasionally?
Board Member Hoffmann - Can it be done it such a way that it doesn't cause problems in the future to
the neighbors?
Mr. Walker - Oh, yes. The biggest problem is, if it is heavily wooded now or trees on it now, the trees
are going to disappear while they build. They can replant the trees, but it is going to take a while for
them to grow again.
Board Member Hoffmann - But wouldn't the tree, if you replanted trees, wouldn't they interfere? The
roots get into the drainage system and things like that.
Mr. Walker - I don't think it would be a major problem as long as it is maintained for the storm
drainage. We prefer not to have trees directly over the drainage pipe. With a town structure, we
wouldn't plant trees directly over the pipe. We would plant them off -set. We would try to get plant
species that didn't, tree that weren't problems for drainage systems. But for the size of the pipe ... is
that a 24 inch?
Mr. Herrick - It is a 30 inch.
Mr. Walker - Thirty inch pvc with tight gaskets, potential for root intrusion is minimal because of the
lengths of the pipes and the tight joint as opposed to an old plank tile type sewer where the joints are
pretty open. You do have to maintain them. You have to inspect them occasionally and maybe if the
roots do get into them do some repairs. I would say with the new PVC pipe materials, you've got a 25
year life with normal maintenance.
Board Member Hoffmann - Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions this evening?
Board Member Conneman - I have a question out of curiosity. In this original thick document, it says
and this deals with the size of a parking space. It says, "Recent studies have demonstrated that with
the size of the cars becoming generally smaller ". What year was that study done in? My observation,
at least on Cornell campus, we have bigger cars rather than smaller cars. So what year was that
study done in that said they were smaller?
.N
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Sieverding - There are a series of studies that have been done that have been sponsored by the
Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association. In general, I think they have studies the
widths of those cars relative to parking spaces. Then they take a look at the land use of which those
cars are going to be parked. For long term parking, parking that doesn't rotate quickly such as retail
space, an 8 foot 6 module accommodates the high percentage of cars including some of the suv's
and alike. I have actually personally gone up and measured and counted the cars parked up at
College Circle. The widths of those cars would all fit within an 8 foot 6 space and leave the requisite
room on each side for doors to open. There is a recent study that I have cited in my variance
application to the Zoning Board of Appeals that was published in 2001 by both the Urban Land
Institute and the National Parking Association that recommends that size stall for this type of parking.
Board Member Talty - I have a question, questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - Be my guest.
Board Member Talty - Reading through all the material, I still have issue with the trucking. Not so
much the blasting. I do appreciate the memo that was put in. I find that satisfactory with regards to
the dull plump for blasting not like the Hollywood that we see. But with regards to trucking, still have
objection to starting as early as indicated. However, I will take back from the 10 or 11 o'clock,
whatever I stated earlier, but I do believe that still 9 a.m. is much more of an appropriate time. Even
with all do respect to Mr. and Mrs. Layton, I can understand what their thinking is as far as starting
earlier because they well be done earlier. I think whatever contractor does indeed win the bid, you
could certainly put in to having them perform quickly to get the process flowing and done in a
reasonable amount of time even if you bump it an hour and a half or so. I have also been witness to
many construction sites where they do start earlier and that was also mentioned in the letter with
regards to revving up their engines. I feel as though by putting it at 9 o'clock that if they show up on
the site at 8 o'clock that's okay. You start putting it at 7:30; they show up at the site at 6:30
traditionally. I just feel that that is a sticking point to my side, especially with the other neighbors and
the students that will be on site during the summer.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, so you're comfortable with the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. blasting.
Board Member Talty - Blasting is not an issue based upon the letter.
Chairperson Wilcox - In terms, of and the other thing is the trucking of the spoils. What would you
prefer?
Board Member Talty - 9 a.m. because ultimately what happens is that they start a little earlier
because the guys are up early, construction workers, I was one at one time. They like to get going at
the crack of dawn and then they are done when the sun goes down. Ultimately what's going to
happen is that they are going to start earlier anyway and if we put in here 7:30, they're going to be
there at 6:30. There is no question in my mind about it at all. So I don't mind if they are milling
around and they start to detonate their charges as long as what I am reading is correct that it is going
to be a dull thud and not like a Hollywood explosion. I don't have a problem with that, I really don't. I
think that that was satisfactorily answered. But with regards to the trucking and the removal of the
stone and gravel and things of that sort, it makes a lot of noise in an empty bed of a truck. There is no
41
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
question in my mind. So, if they want to do all their preparatory work and get moving and then start at
9 a.m., I don't have a problem with that. 5 p.m., that's no issue either.
Chairperson Wilcox - What about 9 to 6 instead of 8 to 5?
Board Member Talty - I don't have an issue with that at all.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does anybody really care whether it is 8 to 5 or 9 to 6 other than Kevin? Okay,
9 to 6. Anybody else?
Board Member Talty - Garbage, also in the addendum that was put, all good intentions with regards
to the dumpster areas, I haven't seen a good dumpster area in my entire life after a year of service. I
really would expect Ithaca College to do, but I think that everyone is very genuine here tonight, is to
make sure that that is kept up to a reasonable fashion. That includes any gates that get knocked off
by trucks running into the gates, overflowing recyclable areas. I think that what Ithaca College needs
to do is use their influence in negotiation around this to speak to the dumpster companies in regards
to banging it 4 or 5 times at 3 or 4 a.m. because when I was at RAT as a student, I lived right above
the dumpster area. Nothing upset me more than the dumpster guys coming at 5 a.m. going like this
and then the fumes rising.
Mr. Salm - It's time to talk trash. Ms. Layton had an exchange on this just today about this. We do all
our own trash, Ithaca College does. We do not contract it out. We have our own recycling people.
We have our own garbage packer. We have our own grounds people and utility people who do all
the pickup, all that kind of stuff. We have tried a number of different kinds of enclosures for
dumpsters that have been mix success, but we don't leave knocked off gates and that kind of thing
around. We don't use them. I think we get this settled in and students understand the routine, our
biggest problem is getting them to do a good job of recycling. We do daily pick up if we need to. Of
course we do composting as well. It will be all under our agents. We don't contract any of it as well.
Occasionally we've done stuff on the weekends. I agree with you. I learned about dumpster divers
today that I didn't even know existed that our apparently are a problem on occasion. We don't plan to
do dumpster diving either. We will prohibit that. Thanks.
Board Member Talty - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, you all set?
Board Member Talty - Yes.
Mr. Sieverding - I am worried about the hours. I understand the concern about noise. It does present
certain problems for us in terms of the workday. I think the point is if we shorten up the amount of
time that these guys can work, the length of time it is going to take complete the work is going to be a
little bit longer. So we would like to maintain those hours as much as possible. The problem with
adding on hours at the back end of the day is that it becomes much more expensive project. You are
working beyond the normal workday. It does present an issue for us.
Board Member Talty - That is all contingent upon how it is written when people bid on the job.
42
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Walker - From contracting experience and I will speak as the Town Engineer. Our guys start at
6:30. The trucks are on the road at 7. Our noise ordinance allows that.
Board Member Talty - Okay.
Mr. Walker - A contractor will run a 10 hour day. If you make them run a 7 or 8 hour day, you are
going to pay 20 to 30 percent more for the same earthmoving. It is going to take them that much
more days to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Now, wait a minute. I was very careful to not shorten the amount of time, but to
move it an hour. Instead of 8 to 5, 9 to 6.
Mr. Walker - What I am saying is, they are going to want 10 hours. To do that kind of earthwork, they
are. going to moving 10 hours a day. They've gotta get in there and get out. If you shorten the day to
6 hours or 7 hours, which you are talking about...
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not talking about shortening the day. I'm talking about shifting it an hour.
Mr. Walker - They are going to be working until 6 o'clock anyhow. They are going to be working from
7 to 7. If you don't let them have that latitude, they will increase the contract cost by 25 to 30 percent.
Mr. Sieverding - As soon as you start working outside of the normal hours that these companies work
at, you're going to be paying the premium. Ultimately, it is going to be reflected in the bids that we
get. If we put out the bid and say at the front end that here are the hours that you are working and
they are hours that are different than the norm, then I think we have an issue in terms of price.
Mr. Walker - Our pipeline contractors start digging at 7 o'clock in the morning. The ones that make
money and really do a good job work a 10 hour day productions. Then there is an hour in the
morning and an hour at night of cleanup that they are doing besides that. I think it is unreasonable to
limit it, especially when the Town's noise ordinance allows that kind of work from 7 o'clock until dark.
Board Member Talty - I would just like to comment on that. First of all, I was unaware of the
ordinance, but if I had my way I would be changing the ordinance. Since you mentioned that, I will
take that under...
Mr. Kanter - I'll just add that just because the Town has an ordinance, doesn't mean that everybody
is entitled to do that if the Planning Board feels there are reasons not to do that.
Mr. Walker - That's fine. I think it is an unreasonable restriction, though.
Mr. Kanter - Well...
Mr. Walker - That's the engineer's opinion.
Mr. Kanter - That is totally up to the Planning Board to determine.
43
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Attorney Barney - If I could just add two cents worth having represented contractors for a number of
years. In the summertime, particularly, they tend to start their days earlier because they have the
daylight. By in large, many of them want to get out early so they've got part of the day to play with,
too. I guess, if it is being done in the summertime, people would like to sleep. If you do it starting on
their regular basis, you are more likely to get the job done in a shorter period of time then if you try to
stretch it out and say we want to make a different rule for you. The contractor is still going to start
work at 7 o'clock. It's just that this particular job, he may not be able to start which makes it an odd
job to deal with, an odd job to man. Then there will probably be overtime at the other end of the day.
Again, I think Jon is right. It is Planning Board decision, but I am not sure whether we want to get that
much in to the micromanaging...
Board Member Conneman -John, you don't think...
Attorney Barney - I don't know. Dan would be better able.to respond to that.
Mr. Walker - They do pay after 8 hours and they do pay overtime. But, that labor charge is a small
part of all your equipment charges and the number of weeks that you spend on a job. If you shorten
the day by 20 percent, you're extending the time that they are on the job with that equipment. That's
what cost the money.
Chairperson Wilcox - I want to move on. Kevin?
Board Member Talty - One last comment. I appreciate everybody's input. I just want to go on record
to say that I will probably change the way I feel, but if anybody comes and complains to staff later
about noise, I just want it on record that I was opposed.
Attorney Barney - We're going to send them to Dan.
Mr. Walker - People call the Highway Department all the time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I want to get a straw vote here if we can.
Board Member Conneman - I don't see any reason to delete the passage here that next to the last
one is "c, submission or evidence..." I don't see any reason to delete that. It doesn't say that I vote
against it if you deleted this. But I would like to go on record that I think if everyone agrees they are
going to manage the property well and 690 is approved, I don't see any reason not to leave "c" in.
Chairperson Wilcox - Rod is looking at you funny.
Attorney Barney - I'm not sure I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox - Say that again in different words, George.
Board Member Conneman - I say that after 40 years or whatever period of time Ithaca College or
IAD, whoever it is, the successor were to reapply to us if they want to change what we passed. I
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
don't want somebody 40 years from now to say, "Boy, what a dumb Planning Board. They could've
left it in there, but didn't ". Okay? Is that clear enough, Fred?
Attorney Barney - No. In other words, you're saying you want it to revert period.
Board Member Conneman - I want it to stay in there.
Attorney Barney - You want "c "...
Board Member Conneman - I want "c" to remain as stated.
Attorney Barney - Rather than put in a 690 option.
Board Member Conneman - No. Rather than deleting this. I think there was some suggestion,
wherever it was, by Herman that we delete that.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think in some early discussions there was some talk about if that could be
deleted. I think what they've offered is a compromise, which says if Ithaca College is no longer part of
the agreement, then the density would revert back to 690 automatically. That they could then come
back to the board and ask for the density to be up back to the hopeful 750 number. That's their
compromise that they are offering us to get that clause out of there.
Attorney Barney - "c" is not going out, but is being modified. Instead of reverting back to 600, it is
going to revert back to 690.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are we comfortable with going from 750 to 690?
Board Member Conneman - I have no problem with that.
Chairperson Wilcox - So, if Ithaca College is no longer part of the agreement, that's when it goes back
to 690. Is everybody comfortable with that? Okay. For right now that blasting stays at 8 to 5 and
let's assume for not that truck traffic stays from 8 to 5.
Board Member Conneman - 8 to 5 or 9 to 5.
Chairperson Wilcox - Lets assume for now, 8 to 5. We have heard some arguing on the other side.
Kevin is at least reconsidering his current stated position. He may come back in two weeks and say,
"no, I really believe 9 to 6 is the
comfortable with the increase
measures that have been props
with 750 given Ithaca College's
everybody else. Do we believe
Ithaca College's involvement will
way it should be ". But, at least he is willing to look at. Is everybody
in density to 600 to 750 given all the other mitigation methods,
)sed? That is the other key. 600 is approved. Are we comfortable
involvement, given campus...? I could repeat campus safety, RA's,
that 750 will make the current situation worse or do we believe that
make the current situation that much better?
Board Member Mitrano - I'm okay with it so long as Ithaca College is involved. I appreciate the efforts
of the corporation to suggest measures. I don't have faith in them, that isn't to say that I disrespect
45
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
the efforts. I just think it is to specultuative and there are parts and factors to evaluate what in 40
years what that would be like and the development of college culture. There are so many factors, but
I am comfortable.
Chairperson Wilcox - The other issue was removal of the existing sidewalk on the north side. Any
issues with that? Okay. Have I missed any substantive points?
Mr. Kanter - Did we talk at all about the retaining wall?
Chairperson Wilcox - We should talk about the retaining wall. I think at the last meeting we all
nodded our heads and we didn't have a problem with the retaining wall being taken out.
Board Member Mitrano - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - That also might have the advantage of allowing more fill to be kept on the
property. There was something about that might require a couple thousand cubic yards more of fill.
Drainage. We will have to see final drainage plans. There seems to be little argument about the idea
that keeping the water within the watershed is the best thing to do because it is more predictable of
what is going to happen downstream. Mr. Yntema, my feeling is that you are working diligently to find
the overall best solution both for the neighborhood and your own property and there is nothing wrong
with that. The solution, as proposed, hopefully deals with the problems that we've seen on your
property while at the same time potentially eliminating I believe you said 41 trees. Moving it to the
north saves those trees, saves that buffer, may have the advantage of the retention /detention pond,
whatever its called, which may purify the water, slow it down whatever, but may have other
consequences, which are unintended or which are negative. We'll have to make that final decision in
two weeks.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would hope we would get some more information to base that decision
on.
Chairperson Wilcox - We're going to have to get either information from the applicant and their
engineers or the Town engineer. And as we always do, we rely upon the experts. We weigh their
evidence and we will make the best decision that we can.
Issues about the road. Ithaca College has committed,
College to building a road or they don't get occupancy
think we've got them over a barrel on that one. If we
being somewhat fesicious, but we have some control
here? Given what we have just discussed, do we hav
for a straw vote here. Kevin?
Board Member Talty - No.
the proposed draft resolution, commits Ithaca
permits for the new buildings. So as I said, I
don't like it we can make them change it. I'm
there. Are there any other significant issues
e any objections individually? I'm just looking
Chairperson Wilcox - Rod? You're shaking your head no. No, No.
EN
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - I still have some hesitancy about the number of students concentrated
there, but I think overall compared to what it would be like to have those students living in other
private housing in neighborhoods around there, I think this is probably likely to be better with the
arrangements that have been presented.
Chairperson Wilcox - I am also much happier with what has been proposed now because...
Remember this is a straw vote. None you are committed to what you said. We'll see when we get
final details and meet again in two weeks. In general, we are all at least satisfied enough that we
could go along with the agreement given the stipulations that we talked about tonight and the
additional details and changes that the applicant has brought forward to us tonight.
Mr. Barney, anything you want to add? You're all set. Staff? Susan, good evening. Nice to see you.
Jon? Herman?
Mr. Sieverding - I think there is one last thing. That is the sort of the relationship of what we
discussed tonight relevant to our pending Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Sieverding - I think the issue is depending on further information from the county relative to the
239 review, whether or not we can go ahead with the Zoning Board of Appeals on the 25th, which we
may not be able to do. In which case, is the board prepared to at least recommend to that or have
some sort of contingencies that at April 2 we can have final approval?
Chairperson Wilcox - Who wants to take the lead on this one?
Mr. Kanter - What we had suggested was the possibility of scheduling a public hearing for the April
2nd meeting for preliminary and final site plan approval with the assumptions that we would have
enough details to proceed with final approval, which IAD is on track to do that anyway. In fact, we
already have a set of revised plans that were handed to us tonight that basically have addressed
most of the things that we've talked about. So assuming if the board were willin� to consider
scheduling a public hearing for preliminary and final site plan approval for the April 2n , I think then
given the reality that we would have to push the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting from March 25th to
April 15th. It would at least not change the time frame too much. It would add a two week differential.
Still if the board would be comfortable with that approach then we could schedule...
Chairperson Wilcox - Given as much time as we spent on the Stn, 19th and then again on the 2nd... the
2"d would be a public hearing because we would be adding final site plan approval. The Zoning
Board of Appeals issue, which Herman has brought forward, is that they were hoping to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals later this month hoping that they would get preliminary approval tonight,
which includes our recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the density an the size of the
parking spaces. We have not made a formal vote tonight and cannot make a formal vote tonight
given the fact the county needs to relook at the 239 review. The issue is, is it appropriate for Ithaca
College, College Circle to go the Zoning Board of Appeals next week, Monday, with a
recommendation from this board, separate vote, saying that we recommend to the Zoning Board of
Appeals that you allow the variances in terms of the parking and density without us having formally
so
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVEDAPRIL 16, 2002
approved anything. My thought on that is that I really would like to pass something. We really
haven't voted on anything yet. Normally, we would give preliminary. They would go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals they get the variances. Then they come back to us and we give them final. To
meet their schedule, they would love to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals next week. My feeling is
that we haven't approved anything. We've talked at great length.
Board Member Mitrano - Is it required?
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't know if it is required
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Attorney Barney - Yeah.
Mr. Barney, is it required that we make a
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you want to make a recommendation kind of on your own without having
approved anything yet?
Board Member Mitrano - Sure.
Attorney Barney - I'm uncomfortable with that. I don't know what vote is required until you get the
thing back from the County. I think you need to have the 239 review...
Chairperson Wilcox - Before we can vote to either to approve or recommend. Okay. All right.
Mr. Sieverding - So I think that the understanding, Fred, then would be that the April 2 preliminary and
final site plan.
Chairperson Wilcox - The goal of this board will be preliminary, final and recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Sieverding - So that we can be on their agenda for April 15'h, Jon?
Attorney Barney - Subject to what Andy says.
Mr. Kanter - You'll have to reschedule that this Andy.
Chairperson Wilcox - April 2"d would be a public hearing.
Attorney Barney - This all assumes that we get something back from the county.
Chairperson Wilcox - They legally have 30 days. So we have to hope that they would respond rather
quickly given that they have already read once that they can give it a thorough review based upon the
supplemental information.
Attorney Barney - You understand that the final would then be conditional on the Zoning Board of
Appeals approval.
EN
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Sieverding - Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - That is ... generally we don't do that. Generally, it is preliminary, go to Zoning
Board of Appeals and come back. Here we would give preliminary and final contingent upon the
Zoning Board of Appeals granting the variances.
Mr. Sieverding - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are we done ... for now? See you in two weeks. Good. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
The board took a brief recess from 10:05 p.m. until 10:13 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Cornell University - Precinct 9 Athletic Fields, Pine Tree
Road,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you all for waiting so patiently. Laurene are you going to handle it
tonight?
Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University - I am a landscape planner for Planning, Design and Construction
at Cornell University. The project we are bringing you tonight for preliminary site plan approval
includes the creation of two multipurpose athletic fields, the creation of a recreation trail which will
linked the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way and
improvements to the existing stormwater system. The two fields will be located below the existing
outdoor tennis courts and equestrian center. They comprise approximately 10 acres. They will be
used for various club sports and intercollegiate practice such as lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, rugby,
soccer. The noise generated from this project will be game playing activity during daytime hours.
I've got a chart and you will see the type of use during the different months of the year. For instance,
in April there will be primarily club use and it take place at about 4:30 in the afternoon until dusk. In
May and June, for those two months, the fields will do what they call rest. There will be no activity on
those fields for those two months every year. That is to regenerate the grass there that they play on.
There will be room for public drop in use, however, during those times.
During the month of July, camps will be using it primarily from 9 o'clock to about 4:30 except one
week during the course of that month there will be evening lacrosse until dark. In August, for three
weeks, again rest. There will be no activity, except again, for public drop in use. September through
November 10th clubs primarily and that would be again 4:30 until about dark. That's the kind of
activities that will be going on out there.
There will be no competition games played on this field. There is no lighting, bleachers, buildings or
paving associated with the project. Approximately 7500 cubic yards of fill will be imported to create
the grass fields. The fill will be acquired from excavation from other Cornell projects if possible. We
..
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
intend to work with the Town Highway Department on a plan to import the fill with the least
disturbance possible. The recreation trail will have a gravel base and surface and will not be
maintained during the winter months. A turf grass management plan, which we have submitted to the
Town, will be used to maintain the fields. The area where the fields slope to the existing meadow will
be revegetated and allowed to renew itself as meadow. That would be those areas right there.
We have designated the fields so that only a minimum amount of disturbance to the existing
Hawthorne thicket, one tenth of one acre will occur. This is done with regard to the unique nature of
the thicket and its migrating bird population. We believe the two activities can co -exist without harm
to the nesting bird population. We also sited the fields so that the existing view shed is preserved.
That is this view shed over here.
We have drafted a stormwater management plan by request of the Town and nearby residents and
reviewed it with the Town engineering office. This plan will improve drainage overall on the site and
takes into consideration future paving of the existing gravel lots in front of the tennis and polo centers.
Don McPherson, our consultant from the LA Group, located in Saratoga Springs NY, will give us an
overview of the stormwater plan.
Don McPherson, LA Group - We are working with the Cornell staff in planning the athletic fields for
both their design and environmental analysis study. The focus of which has really been the drainage
analysis. As indicated, the drainage study has been submitted to the Town back in January. Since
then we have met with them to review preliminary comments. We have submitted a revised version
of that report last week. It is now in consideration for final review. I think just a brief summary of
that ... I'll leave the technical analysis to the appropriate staff. I can give an overview of the
methodology as well as the results of the study.
First of all, the methodology included the design storms for the rainfall events that were required by
the Town those being the 10 and 25 year storms, with prospective rainfalls of 3.9 and 4.6 inches. So
they are certainly significant rainfalls that are planned and accommodated by the design. As a result
of the design summarizing report, we were able to achieve the goal of meeting or increasing the
existing off site flow from the project area. In general, the overall watershed is shown in an existing
condition on the left here. Then the proposed condition here, with the affected areas being those that
are approximate to the north and southern and field. The drainage area is funneled down towards the
west to the recreational trail here and includes a central drainage corridor that brings water from the
east side of Pine Tree Road through the site to central corridor as well as an open swale.
In analyzing the existing conditions, it was clear that the design point or the critical location was right
down at the bike trail where there are two existing culverts that conduct existing road runoff under the
bike trail. So that is our focus. We looked at the existing rates of run -off that currently reach that both
from the project area as well as from that tributary area across Pine Tree Road. That was provided in
conjunction with the Town staff for its, as part of its drainage analysis. By putting those two
components together, the on site and the off site, I understood the existing drainage characteristics. I
made sure through the results of the drainage study that the creation of the fields did not increase the
flow that was getting to those twin culverts. In addition to maintaining that existing peak flow, you are
also controlling the first flush of run -off, which is the first half inch affected from the impervious or
gravel parking areas, which are out in front of both the tennis and equestrian centers. As Laurene
em
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
mentioned, understanding that Cornell plans to pave those existing drives and lots, we took into
account the fact that those roads and lots would become paved as part of the same drainage study.
There is one drainage study that is now being reviewed by the Town staff accommodates that future
stuff.
As a result, you are also looking at the existing detention basin here, which was constructed as a
result of the tennis center to control its runoff at the time it was built as well as an existing basin
available down to the west here below the southern field. By first of all, adding first flush control to
the tennis basin, which was not previously there as well as getting the majority of our storage in this
second basin. What we'll call pond 2 we were able to accommodate the existing first flush as well as
the future and make sure that the field improvements don't increase the runoff to that design point,
which is the twin culverts a the trail. As a matter of fact, Town staff is reviewing the results of the
reports. So not only do we maintain the existing flow going to that culvert or pair of culverts from the
on site project area, we are actually showing a reduction in the peak flow that reaches that pair of
culverts. Not only is that a reduction in the runoff rates, but also in modeling that for that 25 year
design storm in the project area as well as the contributing area east Pine Tree, we see a reduction in
the storage volume in what is called pond 3. The existing compression right along the bike trail,
which is not being altered as a result of this project. We are seeing a reduction in its peak elevation
during that design storm. In other words, from where the pond 3 currently rises to during the storm
event for the 25 year design storm, we are actually reducing that so that we're going above and
beyond what may be the normal requirements both maintaining the existing flow.
The other aspect of the project to keep in mind is not only are we accommodating future parking and
so forth, but also both of the on -site detention basin ponds, 1 and 2, have additional freeboard above
and beyond that 25 year design storm. So that if there is a large event, there is actually capacity in
that system to handle larger rainfalls even beyond the 4.6 inches of a 25 year storm. So again, in
brief summary, taking into account what currently flows through the site as well as what's being
changed as a result of the athletic fields, we were able to maintain if not reduce the grades as well as
the volume of runoff that is then funneled down to the existing culverts under the bike trail.
I guess I will stay up in case there are initial questions on the drain study. I guess it is up to the board
how you would like to handle questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will open it up to the board.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I hear you saying that the conditions with whatever it is that you
are going to be doing, there will be less problems downhill with overflowing of water and things like
that for both the 10 year storm and the 25 year storm than there is currently.
Mr. McPherson - That is right.
Board Member Hoffmann - What is it that you are going to do that is going to accomplish this?
Mr. McPherson - Well, by using first of all the existing tennis basin, or pond 1 here as well as
enhancing the existing basin here to maintain storage volume as the rain water goes into the basins,
it is collected and released at a slower rate than it goes in. So compared to the existing conditions,
51
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
where only the existing tennis basin is here and no significant storage in pond 2, we are increasing
the volume in both of those so that as runoff goes in at a certain rate, it is released at a slower rate. It
is used as a holding basin.
Board Member Hoffmann - So just increasing those two holding basins will make that improvement?
Mr. McPherson - Correct.
Ms. Gilbert - This pond presently...
Mr. McPherson - At the risk of correcting my client, the pond 3 exists currently and will not be altered.
That is the existing load area along the bike trail.
Chairperson Wilcox - You will be making those detention ponds larger.
Mr. McPherson - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - And you will be adjusting the height of the spillway.
Mr. McPherson - Well, actually for pond 1, the tennis basin, that existing outlet will stay as it is today.
What we are adding is the first flush control, which is actually the storage volume below that outlet to
collect sediments and so forth. Then put pond 2, as Laurene mentioned, that currently has very
minimal if any storage volume today. We are restoring or creating the storage volume there that is
needed for the stormwater control
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva, any other questions?
Board Member Hoffmann - Not right now.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else.
Board Member Howe - I'll have to rely on staff for their opinion on the stormwater runoff issue.
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Walker, have you reviewed the stormwater management plan?
Mr. Walker - Yes. We have looked at it and for the additional runoff that is going to be created by the
construction that is proposed for the fields, they are handling the stormwater, it appears. We've
provided some input about the drainage area above the site, which has watershed considerations.
There have been a few problems in the past at the railroad grade and the areas below that. The
Town installed an additional culvert a few years ago. That seems to have taken care of the problem.
It appears that they are not going to make the problem any worse with this project. Athletic fields are
pretty innocuous anyhow as far as stormwater.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think what I would like to see, though, is since there are problems with
drainage now, is to see not just that it stays as it is, but that it is improved as part of doing this. I hear
that there is going to be an improvement. I don't know by how much.
67%
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Walker - The...decrease about sixths tenths of a foot in elevation at the major railroad grade
pipes of the storm, 10 year storm or 25 year storm.
Mr. McPherson - 25 year.
Mr. Walker - That would be a slight improvement. The...we provided a hydrograph of the water
coming into the site and they added that into their discharge from their site. It should
actually... because they are providing additional storage from the lower part of the site, there is going
to a little longer retention period there. It will be a slight improvement.
Chairperson Wilcox - Conditions there today are?
Mr. Walker - We haven't had any problems since we've added the new culvert pipes and also
reconfigured the entrance to the original culvert pipe. Cornell when they first installed the catch basin
there, they had a grade over top of it, which was great for traffic...and that is actually where we got
most of the flooding from. That pipe was recollected on grade and it plugged it up basically. So we
built a pond and by removing and making ... we still have some sort of grade on that... It wasn't a very
deep manhole so it really didn't require the digging out... Then we added the additional pipe.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Dan.
Mr. Walker - 1993 was when we really had the problems.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does someone want to talk about this turf grass management plan?
Summarize what it says.
Mr. McPherson - It was originally prepared by Cornell, but I am familiar with it and can speak to some
of the issues relative to athletic fields. In general, the focus for the maintenance of fields, which will be
practice fields not high caliber competition fields. So they get a lower degree of maintenance to begin
with. But the focus of the turf grass or integrated pest management plan will be on cultural practices.
Those beginning with the correct turf grass selections. Making sure that the soil is as good as it can
reasonably be. Them mowing it properly. Those management practices will go a long ways to
creating healthy stand of grass. Beyond that, there will be an occasional need for either fertilizers or
pesticides, only as a last resort. If the turf is failing in health, certainly a fertilization program will be
considered and perhaps done on a regular basis and also for any pests. There again, only as a last
resort will chemicals be put as a ... the focus being cultural side of things to work with the grass plants
making them as hard as they can be in a natural means rather than using chemicals. They do need
to be maintained, the grass on the fields, in order to maintain safe playing conditions to treat pest
problems from grubs or whatever it might be. There does need to be the possibility of reservation to
be able to use chemicals from time to time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. The reason I asked is that we were provided with the turf grass
management plan, but it was provided to us this evening. I'm not sure who has had a chance to...
01
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - I have had not had a chance to read either of the two things that were
handed out for this project.
Chairperson Wilcox - Discussion on infringement on Hawthorne Forest, tenth of an acre. Any
discussion?
Board Member Mitrano - It's a lot better than 6.6.
Chairperson Wilcox - Right. Absolutely. Any other potential environmental issues? Noise? Some
noise?
Board Member Hoffmann - That is a problem, I think. One can here noise already in that area from
the fields ... from.the field that is north of the tennis facility.
Chairperson Wilcox - Women's softball where competitions are held.
Board Member Hoffmann - They have a sound system, too. I can hear sound from when there are
games over at Schoellkopf field.
Chairperson Wilcox - I can hear the bands at Schoellkopf field where I live. Kevin, you were going to
say something?
Board Member Talty - Considering most of the people were in the room for my last comments, I just
want to say again that I am a little weary of the amount of dump trucks coming in as well as the time
of day that would be working times for this particular projects. I just want to say that I haven't
forgotten my last comments. I'll be reviewing them during this project as well.
Board Member Mitrano - There are no sound systems on these playing fields, correct?
Chairperson Wilcox - There will be no sound, no amplified sound as part of these fields.
Ms. Gilbert - That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. If there are no further comments or questions right now, with the,
pleasure of the board I think it would be appropriate to give the public a chance to address us on
environmental issues. I think once again we have this sort of project where many of the comments
are more properly addressed at this time rather than later on. Having said that, I would like to give
those members of the public who are here this evening a chance to address the Planning Board
before we actually get to the public hearing. This gives you an opportunity to provide us with
comments on the environmental issues while we are discussing them. Can I have a show of hands of
who is going to speak this evening? All right, I got about...) saw about 8 hands. If you will all be
reasonable, I won't set a time limit. I hate setting time limits. I know it is getting late, but I do not like
to set time limits. Assuming that you stay on point, we will get through this relatively quickly and you
will all get a chance to say what you need to. Having said that, I will recognize whoever raises their
hand first and ask you to come to the microphone. Give us your name and address. We ask you to
please stick to the environmental issues at this point. Ma'am?
54
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Karen Edelstein, Vice Chair of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council - As you all
know the Environmental Management Council produced the Unique Natural Area inventory. See
attachment #2. The Town of Ithaca has really set some amazing standards for the County and how
seriously you have all taken the information that we've included in that document. When the revisions
were put together for the 2000 version, something that was sorely lacking in that addition was
information about animals. It is the earlier information in the 192 UNA 's is very much slanted towards
plants and that is a great thing, too. Since those additions were put together, a lot more information
has come to our attention on documenting the animal communities. Notably the assembly of the
important bird areas inventory, which... has put together has been helpful as well as some
information that has come forward from Chris Tessalglia - Hymes, I believe is going to speak also.
The Unique Natural Area committee looked at that and said yeah, this is really quite relevant to
include in the inventory and because this is very much a living document, 192 was not where it was
going to stop. We decided after finding out this information about the birds on that site, they really did
need to start putting together the documentation for this UNA 193. So, we've been putting that
together and this UNA ranks somewhere along lines in terms of importance with Sapsucker Woods
bird sanctuary. It is extremely, extremely critical bird habitat for New York Tropical Migratory birds. I
have an extensive list, although this is preliminary documentation, it is a stop over and nesting area
for some birds, which have been considered under critical consideration by the breeding, birds
survey.
Also, this is an area, which we didn't realize was used very extensively by Cornell professors for Plant
Ecology classes. So it is an important bird in- sight. It is an important natural area. It is an important
teaching site. It is an important urban green space, which we would really like to see not disrupted
and the basic and aesthetic values are all very critical. It is also a very important biological corridor
that comes close to connecting with the Six Mile Creek corridor. There is a stream that runs through
it, as you all know. So, we are in the process of getting this material together to have it officially
adopted, although this is the preliminary documentation that I have here. I have that for your
consideration if you would like to look it over.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I ask you a question?
Ms. Edelstein - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - The materials that I have in front of me indicate that the fields are close to the
proposed boundary of the UNA, not within. Is that the same information that you have?
Ms. Edelstein - Our understanding is, and again I am working off a 1995 color inferred air photo. The
way that we've mapped the boundaries, the edge of the UNA is where the Hawthorne Woods start.
We are concerned about the encroachment into that. Although, I do agree that a tenth of an acre is
quite nicer than 6. We would prefer that it did not go in at all. -
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Thank you. Next.
55
Chris Tessaglia- Hymes, Etna New York - I'm a f+
that I am strongly opposed to the construction of
like to see that field ... be abolished. I don't know
The orchard is utilized in its entirety by the bird
east side of the orchard, which is the top side of
probably the most dense and contains the most
an acre, that is a tenth of an acre less supplying
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
)rmer resident of 120 Pine Street. I would like to say
the north field. The one on the left... Ideally I would
that that would ever happen. I have some concerns.
watching community, not just part of it, all of it. The
the orchard which is the tenth of the acre removed is
ideal habitat for birds. If you remove even a tenth of
habitat for the birds.
The second concern, the field will undoubtedly need to be sprayed with fertilizers, herbicides and
insecticides at some point. Probably will either be one year and off a year. It will probably be on and
off again. These treatments will undoubtedly have a negative impact upon the flora and insect life in
the orchard resulting in decrease bird community. The bird community would be quite disappointed
to say the least,
wanted to make a comment. Laurene had mentioned that the...from the north field would revert
back to meadow. That tenth of an acre is not a meadow. It is a Hawthorne Orchard. The Hawthorne
Orchard is well over 50 years old. It takes a long time to grow. It maybe really short and only 15 feet
high, but it takes a long time to grow. This, ,it would take decades to reach this state of maturity that
it's in right now. When you cut a chunk out of a Hawthorne Orchard, I think it is guaranteed that that
is not going to revert back to a Hawthorne Orchard. There are a lot of factors involved in getting a
Hawthorne Orchard to be a Hawthorne Orchard, which I won't go into.
I have some suggestions. Laurene had mentioned that they are going to build one field one year and
build the second field the next year. If the north field has to be constructed, I would like to see the
south field constructed first. So we can see what the actual usage is before constructing the second
field. If it turns out you don't need the north field, then don't construct the north field. If the north field
is actually needed based on a usage study of the first field, then I would highly recommend using a
retaining wall and a fence along the west edge of the north field so you have no infringement upon
the Hawthorne Orchard at all. So you don't remove the tenth of an acre of the Hawthorne Orchard. A
tenth of an acre is a tenth more than no acres. That is how I would like to reflect it.
Also, we wouldn't have to deal with the grade, which means less fill needed. I see no reason not to
have a retention wail. I would like to see you look into that as an option. Many ball fields have walls
around the edges so there shouldn't be any concerns about having a wall or a fence on this one.
Chairperson Wilcox - Sir? Before you get going, stay on point. Thank you.
Joel Harlan, Dryden - I'm gonna make it brief. Sorry I'm late tonight. I just came from the Target
issue up in Lansing. I'm trying to fight for that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, stay on point.
Mr. Harlan - I am. I think you are going to go on with this any way 'cause it's a proven point that
everyone went against North Campus and the pipe line. You still went on against it. You know, went
against the people and went right on and built in. This is a fine project just like College Circle
Apartments. You know, the students will have something the play with. They already got a couple of
56
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
soccer fields and stuff like that up on north campus. This is just to build a 242,000 foot building on
the main campus, why the want to move it there. But, I know you are going to go on with it regardless
of what the people say because it is the same issues just as north campus and the pipe line. Where
the money is, you are going to go with it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, do you have any environmental concerns?
Mr. Harlan - Not really.
Chairperson Wilcox - Then would you please take a seat and wait until the public hearing?
Mr. Harlan - When's the public hearing?
Chairperson Wilcox - As soon as we get to it. Thank you.
Mr. Harlan - It's a fine project.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'll give you your chance. Anybody else here who would like to address the
board on the environmental issues this evening? I know I saw more hands come up. Please, its only
quarter to eleven. These guys are getting real mad at me over here.
Ms. Edelstein - Given that it looks like the fields at least the south one for sure is going to be
constructed, one thing that I would also really suggest strongly that the board consider is that the
heavy equipment and the earthmoving devices are not there making a racket while the birds are
coming in at the beginning of breeding season. That would be late April through early July. So if
there is any way to keep the construction not happening at that time, I think that from an
environmental standpoint, it will be quite prudent..
Chairperson Wilcox - May and June are the primary months. Okay. Anybody else at this point?
Okay. Joel did raise one issue and I want to address that. I want to make sure that there is no
confusion about these two athletic fields and the potential athletic fields which Cornell will have to
build for Varsity practice that will be displaced as a result of the building of a new research building on
lower Alumni Field or the staging of the equipment and building materials necessary. These are not
those two fields. We have not seen any plans yet for those two Varsity practice fields that will be
displaced. This is a separate two fields. This actually... when did we first see, about 3 years ago.
think it was 1997 when we first saw this plan. It was 3 fields and lights and everything. Joel, I know
you're confused about it and I am aware of some other people that are confused. These are not the
replacement fields in kind for what will be lost on Alumni Fields when construction begins.
Members of the board? Questions, comments based upon issues that have been raised?
Board Member Mitrano - I have a couple of questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - Be my guest.
57
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Either of the two folks who spoke... Is a Hawthorne Orchard a certain kind of
a breeding ground...? Could you define what a Hawthorne Orchard is?
Robert Wesley, 541 Ellis Hollow Creek Road - The way a Hawthorne Orchard happens is a pasture
that is grazed by livestock over many years the farm animals, probably cattle, eat everything else and
leave behind very thorny species like Hawthorne's, Crab apples. This process selects for the species
that form it and then later after it's abandoned, it grows to a dense thicket of Hawthorne's.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Ms. Edelstein - A Hawthorne Orchard has a profusion of flowers in the springtime. The flowers bring
in insects and many of the migratory birds are insect eaters, which is why it is such a hot spot for the
birds. So that creates the whole cycle.
Board Member Mitrano - While you are up there or the other gentleman who spoke, could you assess
the impact in some ballpark, quantifiable way of what the one tenth of an acre encroachment, is how
you sort of described it, would have on these birds? Is there someway to substantiate your
assessment of what the affects of that encroachment would be?
Mr. Tessaglia -Hymes - It is probably more ... its hard to quantify. It would be something that you
would have to quantify after the fact.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. It is interesting that in the previous review we had the opportunity to
take away a retaining wall to provide a more natural slope if you will and here we have someone
saying why don't we put in a retaining wall instead, which might lessen the amount of fill that is
necessary. We had this discussion of retaining wall with North Campus as I remember regarding
retaining walls around the fields and having people run into them and that sort of stuff.
Board Member Mitrano - What did they do? I can't remember.
Chairperson Wilcox - There are pretty steep slopes near the new athletic fields on Cornell campus.
Ms. Gilbert - I was just wondering if someone could tell me what the total area of the proposed UNA
is.
Ms. Edelstein - I don't know for absolutely sure, but I'm thinking that it is probably in the area of
approximately 15 acres.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Board Member Mitrano - Jonathan, do you have any assessment on these particular environmental
issues?
Mr. Kanter - No. Do you, Sue?
Ms. Ritter - No additional ones that I have.
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the approximate size of the Hawthorne Forest? Anybody know the total
size? I could look at the notes... probably pushing 10. Six or 7? Thank you, Robert. Questions or
concerns of this board with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann Mike Smith had a number of comments in what he wrote for us. Starting
on pagel , the second paragraph. Something about stormwater construction details will need reflect
any modifications because of what, Mike? Could you explain that a little bit?
Mr. Smith - The additional information that was given to the applicant by the Town... modifications
have been made since then. The review plans and the final plans need to reflect those.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are these the things Dan talked about?
Mr. Smith - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - But, we haven't seen that in any of the papers we've gotten so far.
Mr. Smith - I believe its incorporated into the new stormwater plan that...
Board Member Hoffmann - Right, but we haven't seen it, have we?
Mr. Smith - Not the stormwater plan. You have the summary of it.
Chairperson Wilcox - We just have the summary, not the details.
Mr. McPherson - That is correct. When the initial storm report, the summary the board got and the
current plans were submitted, the staff at least had the one drawing within the set that does show the
construction details. It shows the details of the silt fence, the outlet controls of the detention basins
and so forth. Our construction details may not have circulated to everyone. But is has been
submitted back in January.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I noticed that the Conservation Board, the Environmental Review
Committee, had a couple of comments. One is they recommended that instead of paving the parking
surfaces in the existing parking lots that some permeable or semi - permeable surfaces be used for
those areas.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can we agree that that is not relevant to this discussion? There is no proposed
paving as part of this proposal.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's right, but since the discussion includes drainage...
Chairperson Wilcox - That's right.
Board Member Hoffmann - It is part of it in a sense.
59
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - They designed the stormwater facilities for the potential paving of the parking
areas of the Reis Tennis Center,
Board Member Hoffmann - But I think it would be an improvement environmentally if those area were
not paved, in fact. That they were given some other sort of surface that allowed water to permeate
into them. It would be even less potential of drainage problems downhill because of that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you vote at the Reis Tennis Center like I do?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Ain't it awful? It is an awful driveway. But be it as it may.
Board Member Hoffmann - On top of the next page of Mike Smith's statement it says that the
proposal should be able to handle the drainage from the paved lots assuming that the paving project
covers the existing parking areas and not an expansion. I was wonder why you made that comment
about the expansion. Is it something that is possible that the parking areas might be expanded?
Mr. Smith - No, it's just a statement that the parking as existing would be paved and as long as they
have done stormwater plans...
Chairperson Wilcox - It is 11 o'clock. There is no parking proposed here. I would really like to move
on.
Board Member Hoffmann - All right. I'll move on.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can you do that for me?
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Board Member Hoffmann - We will get to that later then.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're a doll. I appreciate it.
Board Member Hoffmann - The UNA. I agree with whoever it was that said, I think it was the young
gentleman here, who said that there is some concern about runoff from the fields of residues of
pesticides and herbicides and such. I was concerned about that, too. Since we were only handed
this maintenance control paper tonight and I haven't had a chance to read it carefully, I don't know if it
really discusses anything that would be helpful to know about that, especially the runoff from the
northern most field would be a concern. There is something here about a map that will be a
preliminary map of the UNA that would be available at the meeting tonight.
Mr. Smith - That is what I passed around.
.E
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - That is right there.
Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, I see. Could we each have a copy of it?
Mr. Smith - That is the only copy and it doesn't reproduce very well. It is just a preliminary plan.
Board Member Hoffmann - So what is shown here, as the UNA is everything within the red line?
Mr. Smith - Right, the proposed boundary.
Board Member Hoffmann - Then there is the question of the importation of the fill material and where
that will come from and what routes it will take from wherever it comes from to get to the site and the
impact on the neighborhoods and the roads and so on. Is that something you could address?
Chairperson Wilcox - Please.
Ms. Gilbert - As I said earlier, we would be working with the Town Highway Department to work to
initiate a plan that would impact, in terms of impact in the least way possible the impacts of trucking.
We would be using normal size trucks. They have given us a list of conditions that I think you have.
Board Member Hoffmann - The County did.
Ms. Gilbert - Yes, the County. It was written by the Town Highway Department, which we have no
problem with. We would be willing to work with them on a plan. One of the things, we would build
one field at a time would be to lessen the impact of truck traffic to deliver things to the site.
Chairperson Wilcox - Laurene, do you have a good idea of where most of this fill will come from?
Ms. Gilbert - Where ... we would like it to come from other excavations... from other projects that the
university will be working on over the next two years.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anything specifically?
Ms. Gilbert - No. I don't know. The fill would have to be of the right quality also. It depends on what
excavations are happening. We would have to have the right type of fill.
Chairperson Wilcox - You mean you don't want shale for example, I would presume.
Ms. Gilbert - Right. We want clean fill. We want not having clay, not having silt. It has got to be well
drained soil.
Board Member Hoffmann - You mentioned something about first building one field and then the other.
I don't remember seeing anything about that in the papers that we got.
Ms. Gilbert - I don't where that question would have been posed. I gave it to you in the information
that I prepared for you this evening. I think it was at our last sketch plan review that we talked about
61
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
that. They were asking about the timing of the fields and that was when we could build one field one
year and then the next field the next year.
Board Member Hoffmann - And is that what you are planning to do?
Ms. Gilbert - It seems to make the most sense in terms of lessening the impacts. of creating the fields.
Like I said, we have to build one field lets say this summer. Then we would have to let that field
develop into a playable field and that takes a year to do that. So by the time that field is ready to play
on, we would be importing fill for the next field.
Board Member Hoffmann - Which field would you build first?
Ms. Gilbert - We hadn't really talked about that. I don't know that it really matters. So if it works out
better...
Chairperson
Wilcox - If
got to
that as far as the construction of the first field, it would also be the
construction
of all of the
water
detention facilities.
Ms. Gilbert - Yes. They would be built in advance.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right.
Board Member Hoffmann - There is a comment about the place where the swale runs along the
recreation way and were it crosses and that the final site plan needs to address how that is going to
be done. Do you have any more information about that now?
Ms. Gilbert - Yes. There is a very narrow swale that runs on the east edge of the recreation trail.
Where the trail would cross over that, we would put culvert pipe and then fill on top of that the same
way you do a driveway for instance at somebody's home. It's the same idea.
Board Member Hoffmann - And that would take care of all the water that would come out of this whole
area?
Ms. Gilbert - No. That is just to bridge the recreation trail to connect it to the Ithaca Recreation trail. It
is not a water control. It's more like a bridge over the swale.
Chairperson Wilcox - Might be the kind of thing we see in final design details. We need to see the
plans.
Board Member Hoffmann - The other comment that the Environmental Review Committee made is
about the settling basin. They say, "We need a clarification of the purpose and design of the settling
basins indicated at the northwest corner and west side of the multi - purpose field. They seem too
small to handle the run -off from the nearby slopes. If so, the basins maybe ineffective, trapping
pesticides and herbicides that could be used on the fields and the excess would flow down into the
Hawthorne Forest ".
62
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Ms. Gilbert - Okay. Those settling basins that they are talking about are for construction only. It is an
erosion control devise during construction. They are not meant to ... they will be taken away after
construction. During the importation of the fill and the leveling of the field, there won't be any
vegetation to hold the water. So the settling basins are created until the fields are finished.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Laurene, how would the trucks enter the site with the fill?
Attorney Barney - On four wheels.
Chairperson Wilcox - On four wheel, thank you very much. I want to know, how does the truck get to
the locations of those two fields with the fill?
Ms. Gilbert - Well, there is probably a variety of ways that it could happen. There is a paved walkway
that extends right down here that exists right now. This field could easily be created using that path.
On this side right here, they could come right through this trailer, horse delivery area and then drive
right across the meadow.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you saying all fill placed on this site, the trucks would come from Pine Tree
Road?
Ms. Gilbert - Yeah, I can't see any other way that they would come.
Chairperson Wilcox - I just want to make sure... I don't know whether this land has any frontage on
Honness Lane. I want to make sure that they are not going to come from Honness Lane.
Mr. Walker - We wouldn't let them on a Town road anyways.
Chairperson Wilcox - They've gotta stay on the County roads.
Mr. Kanter - There is always the recreation way.
Chairperson Wilcox - Clearly, they are not coming up the recreation way either. Okay. Anybody
else?
Board Member Howe - Fred, you raised or somebody raised the issue and you responded about the
retaining wall. Do you have any ... I'm just curious what the response might be for a retaining wall so
that none of the Hawthorne Forest would need to be impacted?
Ms. Gilbert - Can I divert that question?
Chairperson Wilcox - Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. McPherson- In consideration of the retaining wall, obviously it creates a vertical block and per the
use of athletic fields is an obvious hazard. A fence could be constructed above that to prevent people
63
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
from falling off. 'That also becomes an obstruction. The field guidelines have certain setback
requirements from the striped line of the field to any part of obstruction. Currently on the north field,
which is the one in question, we do have an apron area beyond the stripe before the slope begins to
give the player some run out area. Unfortunately, on the north field, the west side is only
approximately 15 feet, which is very minimal.. If a solid obstruction were considered, that run off area
or that apron would need to be significantly widened so that by doing so it would maintain a safe
playing condition. The overall footprint of the surface most likely would not vary all that much. By the
time that we save slope, horizontal measurements and condense that into a wall. We need to move
the wall away from the fields because of the obvious safe guard or guide rail fence, whatever it might
be, on top of that. So I am not certain it would be a saving of any clearing of the Hawthorne area.
Chairperson Wilcox - Follow up?
Board Member Howe - No.
Mr. Smith - Fred, there are a couple of points I would like to point out in the booklet. Question 11 in
the part II dealing with the aesthetic resources. That part just wasn't transferred to the text part that
was typed out. If you look at the part that I actually typed, the checks for the "yes" in the aesthetics,
the other impacts just weren't transferred over. I don't think any additional information has been
added...
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry. Start again for me. I lost you.
Mr. Smith - Question 11 on the impacts on aesthetic resources...
Chairperson Wilcox - What page?
Mr. Smith - Page 16.
Chairperson Wilcox - Question 11. Yes?
Mr. Smith - The other impacts at the bottom part of that was checked does proposed project involve
change in topography... that section just wasn't transferred over onto the text part that staff types up.
Chairperson Wilcox - Part II?
Mr. Smith - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes and I had noticed that and since I'm always concerned about views
especially across these parcels here off Pine Tree Road. I was a little surprised to see that it
says ... the end of that sentence says, "the proposed project involves a change in topography and
adding recreational activities within view of use of the east recreation way and residential areas to the
west of the site". 1 hadn't realized actually that it would be possible to see the fields from the
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
recreation way because of the trees along there, but I guess you can. That is the applicant's
statement.
Chairperson Wilcox - They will be recreating.
Mr. Smith - I have a couple other points I just wanted to point out. In the Part I submitted by the
applicant, under section b, project description on page 6, question 6 asks about single phase
projects. It mentions there about two months. It was just mentioned here about over two summers, a
couple of years.
Chairperson Wilcox - But now we are talking about a multi -phase project.
Mr. Smith - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - We are talking 14, 15 months, right?
Mr. Smith - Yeah, about that.
Ms. Gilbert - That two months would be if we did both fields that the same time. That would be about
how long it would take.
Chairperson Wilcox - But if they're staged...?
Ms. Gilbert - But if they're stage and you said it was a 14 or 15 months, it would be minus many
months.
Chairperson Wilcox - Agreed, but from start date to end date you are talking 2 months, 10 months off
and then another 2 months or something like that.
Board Member Mitrano - Did we establish whether the applicant would be willing to hold off during
those particular migratory months?
Chairperson Wilcox - Late April through early July?
Board Member Mitrano - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think they would be happy to do that if we requested that.
Board Member Mitrano - I would just be curious to their reaction to though before we say anything.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're right. We haven't heard a reaction. While they discuss it, I'm
sympathetic to that given the amount of trucks going in and out of there. The noise and the diesel
engines. I think Kevin said it better before, the exhaust and they are loud.
Board Member Hoffmann - You're sympathetic to a 2 stage project rather than a...
65
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - And to eliminate construction during the mating season.
Ms. Gilbert - I'd like clarification on the question.
Board Member Mitrano - It was suggested by some of the public that there be no construction from
late April through early July or perhaps we could say for May and June. Would you be willing to
accommodate your schedule to that?
Ms. Gilbert - Well, it probably would work out because we wouldn't be able to import fill until the
ground is dry anyways. We have to do it during the dry months. I've talked to the people in our
Plantations office, we've been out there talking to them about the construction. We even went so far
as to offer a walk through with somebody from the lab of Ornithology to see when the best time to
construct would be provided that it fits in with a reasonable schedule for us to be able to complete the
work.
Board Member Mitrano - And the walk through for the lab of Ornithology was for the birds, not for
planning and development I assume?
Ms. Gilbert - Yeah, so we are working this out. We would like to develop a plan.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Robert, can I make use of your expertise for a second?
Mr. Wesley - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - As Karen had mentioned, the breeding season from late April through early
July. Do you concur with that?
Mr. Wesley - I am not a bird person, but I've asked this question of bird people many times. At least
early May through early to mid -July is the answer I have most often heard. So I think that is
approximately correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry. I thought you were a bird person given some of the stuff that I've
seen you...
Mr. Wesley - No. I'm a plant person.
Board Member Mitrano - Do we have any bird people here?
Chairperson Wilcox - Its Nancy Ostman that you bring with you to do the bird part.
Mr. Wesley - Right. She's out of town.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay.
..
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Ms. Ritter - Fred, I might add with that sensitivity to the birds. I have a little discomfort with the
herbicide and pesticide and hearing that maybe, and I have no idea if there would be any affects. I
don't really know how these applications would be applied, but I don't think there is anybody here that
can say for sure that they wouldn't affect the birds. So it might be at least if they could be sensitive to
this busy time, this breeding time and when they are feeding their young and what not to be sensitive
to these applications of the pesticides and herbicides...
Chairperson Wilcox - Fertilizers as well?
Ms. Ritter - Maybe not as much, but certainly the pesticides and herbicides.
Board Member Mitrano - Fred, Mr. Wright would like to speak if that okay with you?
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry. Thank you. He's sort of hiding back there from me.
Steve Wright, Director Planning, Design & Construction - I think what we would be quite comfortable
committing to is that we would work with our experts at the lab of Ornithology to understand what the
breeding cycles of the birds are. We would accommodate the construction of the fields so as to not
impact the cycles, as they would be defined by the experts at the lab. So whatever that might be, I
don't know if it is the end of April or the first of July or whatever. But I think that we will all be quite
comfortable accommodating some of the experts in that field. What that might mean though is that
we would sure like to get this done and if we had fill available for example the field, which is more
remote than the field closer to the Hawthorne Woods, that we might be constructing both fields at
once. It might impact the schedule and the rate of which we can construct those fields. I would ask
for some understanding about that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Clearly, this proposal has environmental impacts. The question is
with the information we received tonight, do we believe that those impacts can be sufficiently
mitigated. That is obviously the question before us. Right now the question before us any time we do
an environmental review. Any other comments, questions?
Mr. Smith - One more point I would like to make about water usage on page 7.
Chairperson Wilcox - Did we interrupt you? I'm sorry. Yes, Mike,
Mr. Smith - Question number 23 talks about the water usage. In the pest management plan that was
submitted on page 4 it talks about the fields could require 2 to 3 waterings in the dry season. So
obviously there would be some water usage at some point.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anticipated water usage per day.
Mr. Smith - It's not zero.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its close to zero though if you average it out.
67
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Mr. Kanter - Fred, I just want to ask a question back to the board about traffic. Just point out that we
noted in the environmental assessment Part II write -up that really we were not provided much
information about traffic. I just wanted to make sure the board was comfortable with the lack of
detailed information.
Chairperson Wilcox - Laurene, can you tell me about how the athletes will get to the fields or anybody
associated with the project? I look to you only cause you are the spokesperson right now.
Andy Nowell, Director of Athletics - I'm not really sure. I think primarily we'll be working with Bill
Wendt. We've already discussed with Bill the fact that we would like to have a route with TCAT bus
or some university transportation to in a timely fashion from the Day Hall area and the central
athletics campus to take athletes and intramural people and club people to that site. I imagine that a
number of students will have their own cars; probably 30 to 40 percent of the students may have cars.
We are looking to Bill Wendt to help us with the out loop, which he has agreed to do.
Chairperson Wilcox -. Would any students be running or jogging to the site?
Mr. Nowell - Certainly. If the recreation path is complete, they would be. We certainly would not
encourage them to run from campus on those busy streets.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that a change?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, because I remember when we first heard the proposals for ... I guess
I was away when the polo facility was built. But when the tennis barns proposals came in, we were
told that most of the students would get to this area on foot.
Mr. Nowell - That maybe. I can't comment on that. I was not around at the time that was stated, but
a lot of these students have cars. It is realistic to say that some of them would drive. Some of them
would be on buses that would be involved in this loop that I just mentioned. I certainly can't predict
with any certainty what the percentages would be.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would these be Cornell buses or public buses?
Mr. Nowell - My understanding is they would be buses that Bill Wendt would be administering, Cornell
buses. We also have some funding from an alumni committee for a couple of vans that will transport
some of the tennis players and squash players from time to time ... softball players to that site.
Certainly there would be no problem giving individuals rides if there is room on these vehicles.
Chairperson Wilcox - The issue here is that ... no one came here tonight and represented that the
students would run, though we've heard that at prior sketch plan review. The other thing is that if
students if take their cars, you are talking about two large athletic fields. I can't begin to think about
the number of students that can be on each one at any given time, but you could clearly have two
rugby teams or four rugby teams or something like that and spares. If you get that many people and
you get 40 percent of them driving their cars... Is there sufficient parking in the Reis Tennis Center or
the Polo arena to accommodate that. That's something that clearly has not been discussed. Jon,
.:
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
thank you for bringing it forward because we were thinking that most of the students would run from
campus along the recreation trail and get there.
Board Member Mitrano - These are not varsity games?
Mr. Nowell - No. They are not varsity.
Chairperson Wilcox - Clubs, maybe ultimate Frisbee and the sort of stuff.
Mr. Nowell - Quite often these students ride together. I mean it would be unrealistic to assume that
they would all just be driving themselves. They live together, eat together. They pack into a car and
come over. Some would jog, but quite frankly a number would come in cars, I'm sure. It would be
unrealistic to expect that that wouldn't happen.
Board Member Hoffmann - Maybe we would need to have some information about what you are
expecting as far as traffic by car and by bus.
Chairperson Wilcox - I was just thinking that if we get to that point that clearly someone is going to
have to look at the impact on parking and what the expectations are for the number of students who
will walk, drive, take the bus. Either Cornell permits to providing a van to get the students there and
back to campus and that obviously mitigates some of the impact on parking and the need for parking.
Board Member Hoffmann - So maybe we need to talk about parking.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well ... YOU 're going to embarrass the hell out of me.
Board Member Conneman - It seems to me that you are off track. I mean you talk about an
environmental impact. One environmental impact that we've identified is that if we can have the
university builds the fields with some help from the Ornithology department that at least mitigates the
problems with the birds. Right?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes.
Board Member Conneman - And that's an environmental impact. Parking is site plan in my opinion.
Board Member Hoffmann - No, but that's also environmental.
Board Member Conneman - Well, sure, but everything is environmental. My point is I don't think
we've ever come across one like this where we say ... there are some environmental impacts, but the
applicant is willing to mitigate them by the timing of the construction.
Chairperson Wilcox - Every project has environmental impacts. The question is, are they significant
or not. If they are, can they be properly mitigated?
0
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Conneman - My wife would laugh if she thought I would be identified as a birdwatcher.
The fact is that is what the issue is. The issue is whether you have environmental impact. If they are
willing to mitigate it then that makes some sense.
Chairperson Wilcox - Laurene?
Ms. Gilbert - Getting back to the traffic question... originally the change... We did talk about vans
earlier. That is not a change. We said that a certain portion of students who are using the fields, the
club sports especially would be jogging over and or walk and there would be use of vans also for
transporting.
Board Member Hoffmann - I do remember that you mentioned that too.
Ms. Gilbert - That is basically what we are talking about now here too. But the students who would be
driving their own cars, which we can't stop them from doing. Right now there is sufficient parking for
at least, simultaneous events that go on there with the softball fields sometimes and the equestrian
center and the tennis center all have simultaneous events quite often. There is sufficient parking for
all three of those facilities to have events at the same time. So there would be sufficient parking
for ... some are games and some are play activity for 40 percent or 30 percent of the students who
would be driving their cars.
Board Member Conneman - But for the camps, obviously you would bus them there.
Ms. Gilbert - Right. Yes, that would be part ... you can't force them on a bus, but you could offer the
bus.
Board Member Conneman - That will take care of a lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think there have been occasions where there have been cars parked along the
entrance driveway to the Reis Tennis Center,
Ms. Gilbert - There have been for overflow sometimes. Actually, in the horse trailer area, too, they
use that as over flow.
Board Member Hoffmann - In the environmental review, there is a maintenance plan mentioned as
something that is needed for the drainage swales so that they don't get covered with vegetation and
clog up and don't function anymore. Do you have such a maintenance plan or is that something you
are planning to come up with?
Mr. McPherson - Yes that certainly would be something that we can provide or wanted to provided
the drainage report as minimal as possible. We are waiting for the other technical staff review for that
and then revising the study accordingly. Certainly there will be a maintenance plan for the two
detention basins to make sure, just as you said, to make sure that they function to maintain the first
flush sediment control as well as general stormwater volume. As Laurene mentioned, that will not
take place for the settling basin because those are really a construction phase stormwater or erosion
control facility. There will a plan prepared for the maintenance of the detention basin. It will follow
70
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
logical probably two or three year perhaps five year cycle. It really depends on how quickly
sediments might accumulate, but we will submit something in writing on that, too.
Chairperson Wilcox - In fact, that is a condition of the draft preliminary site plan approval resolution.
Board Member Hoffmann - What the comment is that we got from staff is that it has to cover the
entire stormwater system. It is especially important for the swale along the east Ithaca recreation
way. So it shouldn't just cover the retention basins.
Mr. McPherson - Yes, we can expand it to address anything that is a component of the project. That
is not a problem. I'm sorry. I hadn't seen the comment specifically. It certainly can be incorporated.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions, comments in regard to environmental review? Would
someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Talty - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Kevin Talty,
Board Member Conneman - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have a seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion? Comments
from staff? All those in favor please signal by saying, "aye ".
Board, "aye"
Chairperson Wilcox - There are no abstentions. The motion is passed.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 25 - SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Cornell University — Precinct 9
Athletic Fields, Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 604-9627 60 -1 -18, 60-
1 -5, and 60442.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University
Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the
Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -51
and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi-
purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill, and disturbance
to approximately 1/10 of an acre of the hawthorn forest which is located west of the Reis Tennis
71
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Center. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins
and creation of a recreation trail which will link the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis
Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene
Gilbert, ASLA, Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has declared its intent to
act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval
and Special Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by
Town Planning Staff, plans titled " Stormwater Management Exhibit," dated 1122102,
"Conceptual Grading and Erosion Control Plan," dated 6/29/01, and "Site Context — Precinct 9
Planning Study — Cornell University," dated October 1997, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Approval;
NO W THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved
Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the
above - described actions,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required, and that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the
provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 61712.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9
Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian
Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.21 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence
District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the
deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill, and disturbance to approximately 1/10 of an acre of the
72
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
hawthorn forest, which is located west of the Reis Tennis Center. The proposal also includes
improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and creation of a recreation trail, which will
link the proposed athletic fields, and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way,
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 11:30 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If any member of the public
wishes to address the Planning Board this evening we ask you to please step forward, give us your
name and address and we will be very happy to hear what you have to say?
Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane - My property is due south, 400 feet from the southern most field.
I am rather amazed .that that environmental assessment got passed because it says no increase in
traffic. Obviously, there is an increase in traffic. Increase in traffic also makes an increase in the dust
from that unpaved road and unpaved parking lot. There will also be an increase in dust to the
neighborhood mainly to the south of those fields since we have a predominant north to northwest
wind during construction. Those are environmental factors. When you have a women's softball
game, that road from Pine Tree all the way to the tennis building is parked solid on both sides of the
vehicles. That doesn't seem to me to mean that there is adequate parking. When there is a horse
show or whatever they have there on weekends, you can't park anywhere off Pine Tree. In fact, they
park along Pine Tree. Sometimes they park up to the P &C, the plaza is. The whole area is parked
full of horse vans.
So it seems to me that there is going to be quite an impact on the adjoining neighborhood. The three
sides, but there is 25 buildings... almost 25 buildings that are around the perimeter on three sides of
that project. All those properties are going to be affected with noise. I think the board; I'm moving off
from the environmental issue, which is somehow already passed without any traffic information.
There is going to be an impact in sound on all those homes as well as adjacent homes. There is
going to be an impact on dust during construction. There is already an impact from that site from the
dust from that unpaved parking lot and road in there. Two years ago when this project came before
the Town, paving that lot and that road was included in the project. I don't know where that paving is
now. It's off in some separate project or something.
I also have a few other concerns. So any way, I think the Town needs to consider a buffer zone. In
other words a zone on that total property, not part of this project, but on that total property a buffer
zone for the residential area. I believe in the Town now we have a buffer zone from the Commonland
to the Conservation District. There are buffer zones between those apartments and the Conservation
District. Is that right? In some of your conservation areas you have a buffer zone? By a buffer zone,
I mean an area where they cannot build in the future. There seems to be kind of a fast moving effort
to make this ... let me put it this way. Outdoor athletics are getting pushed off of campus. This is
going to be the extension of campus for outdoor athletics. It started about 5 years ago with the
women's softball field, the tennis courts keep increasing. I mean I can just see this whole acreage
covered in a few more years.
My other concerns are, I realize at this moment Cornell is not here with lighting and they are not here
with a sound system. But I'm sure they will be back within two years, especially with the stock market
73
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
increasing, wanting to develop those fields further. I fell it should be part of your resolution, even
though there isn't a sound system and a lighting system in there now, part of your resolution should
be no sound system, no lighting system. So that when they come back, you know when the stock
market gets better and they have more money for athletics or someone has died and donated $5
million to them, they come up back and say, "gee, a lot of busy fields ". We've gotta get the TV people
in there and so on and so forth. But you have to look at the resolution you passed and part of it is
certain things are not to be in there. My recommendation is that those items should be in your
resolution. That is all I have.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Harry. Joel, I said I would give you a chance to speak.
Mr. Harlan - I'm from Dryden. What I was trying to say is it seems like these colleges are walking
away with all these projects without a care of what anybody says. But when it comes to growth
around here like small stores and small offices and drive throughs all the way up to big boxes,
everybody comes out of the wood work to try stop it. I was up there at Pyramid tonight up there in
Lansing. It's the same thing. One guy is trying to come out of the wood work to stop the project.
They just don't want these big developments here. But, boy, when it comes to Cornell University and
Ithaca College and collegetown, they jump right on the band wagon and okay go because its money.
I don't know. It seems like they go away with the pipeline project, north campus. Now this project.
Now west campus is going to be rebuilt. Duffield Hall, that 240,000 foot building where these fields
are at now. I don't know what other projects Cornell is coming up with. They are big, big, big huge
projects plus Ithaca College with College Circle Apartments and redoing their campuses.
Collegetown is ever growing with big buildings. You know, like I said, you guys stop the projects from
around the downtown area, why not stop the projects for Cornell and Ithaca College. If you are going
to allow the colleges to grow, both of um, why not allow the area to grow. It's not fair. Its favoritism.
Money talks, you know who goes to do the walking. We go without. Its about time that people start
standing up to these campuses and say, "hey, one or the other ". If you are going to allow one, what
is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cause it is not fair to get these projects right off the bat
and there is opposition against it, but still you go on and pass these projects. But when it comes to
the little stores right down to the big box stores, everybody comes out of the wood work and you go
okay. We've gotta go through Riga more. It goes on and on and on for years and nothing has been
done. Then all of a sudden they defeat the project. These colleges are swallowing up this area. The
eight ball is rolling and we are behind the eight ball, the City and the county and the eight ball is
rolling all over us.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're wandering off here, Joel.
Mr. Harlan - I'm letting you know that Cornell and Ithaca College and collegetown is just huge
buildings, huge projects, and you put a permanent band on no growth for drive throughs and small
offices and buildings and stuff like that. It shows. These politicians around here are affiliated with
Cornell and are lobbying for Cornell and Ithaca College's project cause a lot of you are affiliated with
Cornell. And also, when Cornell and Ithaca College want to put on a project, I told Faye Gougakis,
you ain't gonna to stop it. Cause you try to stop it like you Widewaters, Southwest Park and other
these other projects, Cornell and Ithaca College is gonna put a thumping on ya because they have
the money and the power to lawsuit ya.
74
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, are you done?
Mr. Harlan - Yeah.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road - A few comments about mitigating some of the effects should this
go through. I would like to see the truck traffic come between the buildings that are already existing
so that we can use the buildings themselves as sort of a noise baffle from the surrounding
neighborhoods. I would like if this is staged one year and then a subsequent year, I would like to
make sure that the re- seeding below the first field is enforced immediately and not delayed until the
completion of the project. Also, if it is going to be staged, I would like real consideration about
whether the proposed walking path down to the recreation way should go in the first year or the
second year, I suspect strongly that there is going to be foot traffic from Cornell. It seems to me that
the impact on the neighborhood and the on the Hawthorne Forest will be reduced if we get that foot
traffic funneled through a planned pathway that swings down on the lower side from the horse
jumping field area.
I do very much like the idea of trying to let the birds nest at least one nesting cycle if that is at all
possible. I am relieved at the truck volume reduction, although I hate the strategy of something that is
coming with something that is just absurd, just so we are happy when something comes back a little
less absurd. I'm still a little concerned about 400 to 800 truck traffic passes through the Pine Tree
Road, Judd Falls area intersection, within just a couple summer months. I think that is an issue. I am
very concerned at how blively the parking has been passed over here. Parking spills out on the sides
of the driveway and out onto Pine Tree Road already several times a year during the summertime,
especially. You cannot presume that students will park in the horse trailer parking area in such a way
that that will still allow the horse trailers, which require great turn around and other issues to be... You
can't think that students coming and going from the fields are compatible with the horse trailers and
their needs. So I really urge you to think very carefully about those sorts of considerations.
I also would ask that there be something very strong about discouraging any further proposals in
terms of lighting or sound systems. It would be a tremendous strain on the neighborhood and on the
woods. I'm very glad it's not in the current proposal, but the current proposal is only the current one.
Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else this evening? There being none, I will close the
public hearing at 11:45 p.m., a little earlier than two weeks ago.
What would the board like to do right now? Proceed on or? If possible I would like to proceed and
maybe we can get through this in a half of an hour or less, but I'm sensitive to everybody else.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay, lets try.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Given the comments that were made, I think the parking situation needs
to be looked into clearly. Yeah, I know. I've gotta eat crow on this one, don't I? I apologize.
Board Member Hoffmann - Apology accepted.
75
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - Clearly, there are some issue about how the students will get there. How many
will use their cars, whether there is sufficient parking now with soccer fields, tennis courts, polo arena,
etc. It would be incumbent upon the applicant to prepare some sort of a study to indicate that either
the parking that is there is sufficient, which may be difficult to do given some of the anecdotal
evidence we've had or what they are going to do to deal with the lack of parking, at least the lack of
parking during peak periods. I'm not sure. Clearly, some evidence, anecdotal evidence from the
people that have spoken that there is often not enough parking during some peak periods whether
that is for women's softball games or a combination of events or something going on at the polo
arena, but there are times when there's not enough parking. So that will have to be addressed. I
don't have a problem with that. In terms of prohibiting amplified sound and lighting, I think we are all
in agreement with that one.
Board Member Conneman - Is that stated in here?
Chairperson Wilcox - Its not stated, but I think we can state...
Board Member Hoffmann - The lights are in here. Its actually here in the recommendation. I was
going to suggest adding sound system as well.
Chairperson Wilcox - No amplified sound I think is the way I heard John Barney refer to this before.
Clearly, we can't prevent sounds, but we can prevent amplified sounds. Limiting construction to...l
don't know how to phrase this. Everybody seems to be in agreement that not having construction
going on during the breeding months is reasonable. How we put that in the resolution, whether we
don't allow in May and June or whether we get a report from the scientists at the lab of Ornithology. I
think something written from them as part of preliminary and final and say that no construction will
occur in late May through whenever and then Cornell will abide by that.
Attorney Barney - I think that we could probably put in that as part of final approval you'll have a
report from Ornithology and include in the final approval the time frame.
Chairperson Wilcox - That is consistent with their report. Okay. We do have a condition that the
route for vans and trucks be submitted for review and approval. Hollis made the suggestion that the
trucks come through the buildings, between the buildings as a way to somewhat baffle the sound or
mitigate it.
Mr. Walker - Its logical because of the parking areas and so on.
Chairperson Wilcox - Since the resolution would give to you, the Director of Engineering, the approval
of that plan, I think it is the board's intent that we mitigate sound as much as we can. That those
trucks stay between those buildings as much as possible.
Board Member Mitrano - Would it be reasonable to consider not having that traffic occur say between
8 and 9 in the morning and 4 and 5 at night or 4:30 to 5:30, or is that unreasonable?
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, Kevin, the proposal says between 8 and 5 only. The same as was in the
College Circle one. That truck traffic be restricted to weekdays between 8 and 51
76
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Well, I am suggesting something slightly different I think.
Board Member Conneman - What are you suggesting?
Board Member Mitrano - Maybe make it between 7 and .6, but restrict it between 8 and 9 and 4:30
and 5:30, peak traffic time. That really is, you're gonna get a lot of bottle necks there during that time
when people are coming and out to the campus.
Chairperson Wilcox - How would you phrase that into the resolution?
Board Member Mitrano - I think I just did, but I'll do it a third time. General perimeters, 7 to 6, but no
truck traffic between 8 and 9 and help me out. What do you guys think would be the peak hour on the
other end? 4:30 to 5:30?
Ms. Erb - It would be more like quarter to 8. That is when the bottle necking is.
Board Member Mitrano - Quarter to 8 to quarter to 9 and in the evening I'm divining...
Ms. Erb - 4:30...5:30.
Board Member Mitrano - 4:30, 5:30,
Chairperson Wilcox - If we limit it to between 9 and 4:30 we solved it.
Attorney Barney - 9 and 4:30? When are you going to have the truck traffic then? Overnight?'
Chairperson Wilcox - I hear you. I hear you. We had this debate before. The question is do we allow
truck traffic from 7 to 7:45, so we allow it for 45 minutes then we don't allow it for an hour then we
allow it for 7 or 8 hours and the we don't... That's an enforcement issue.
Attorney Barney - Isn't really the intersection that you're concerned with?
Board Member Mitrano - Yeah.
Attorney Barney - So why don't you just say no truck traffic related to this project to the Judd Falls
Road, Ellis Hollow Road intersection between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m., then 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.
Board Member Mitrano - What about down at 79 and...?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, but I don't want them going down Pine Tree Road or down Honness Lane
or up Snyder Hill to get around that either.
Mr. Kanter - I think the Slaterville Road intersection would be the same because... Actually rather
than guessing at the peak hour, why don't we look at our data on Burger King and other proposals
and see what the actual peak hour is...
77
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - Is that reasonable?
Attorney Barney - You're gonna create a problem. Presumably, where this stuff is coming from is you
got a contractor who is taking a material out of Duffield Hall, for example, and they want to take it out
of there. What you are basically doing now is saying that job; you would be shutting down that job for
that two hour period. It has some real practical ramifications.
Board Member Mitrano - That's why I asked if it was reasonable to request it or not. Perhaps its not.
Attorney Barney - You could soften it by saying, instead of making it an absolute condition that the
developer be requested to make efforts to minimize traffic through the busy intersections or to
minimize truck traffic during the rush hours or something like that. It doesn't make it an absolute no,
no, but sends a message, which may be the university, would pay attention to it in doing their
schedule.
Board Member Mitrano - It's better than nothing. Can we allow Mr. Wright to speak to this point?
Chairperson Wilcox - I would like to hold off for a second to see if we can through some of this and
then give them a chance to respond all at once. I will give you a chance. If construction is staged,
then there were some issues about the details of staging in terms of ... I'm no so much concerned
about which field is done first, the north or the south, I'm more concerned that proper mitigation
measures are taken during construction if its staged to ensure that the retention ponds are built. That
the necessary seeding or erosion control and everything that is in place throughout the entire thing.
But I think that is covered in the erosion control details and everything else. That is already a
condition. The question about the walking path. The connecting path being built as part of the first
field was brought up. Again, I think a reasonable thing to do is to get that path built early on. I should
be looking over here, I'm sorry. Get that connector path from the recreation trail up to the athletic
fields. Get that built with the first field so that it is in place.
Let me see if I made any other notes. We talked about a parking study. Some discussion about a
visual buffer ... why am I so confused. Is that the south side along, between the ... near Honness
Lane?
Ms. Gilbert - That's the west side.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, there was some discussion about some sort of a visual buffer, which may
also serve as a sound buffer, too.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. Exactly.
Chairperson Wilcox - Whether its pine trees or conifers or something, something that would provide
primarily visual.
Board Member Hoffmann - You can look at the model. There really aren't any trees indicated along
the southern edge of that southern field.
IN
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Chairperson Wilcox - That would be a way to ... something to ... it doesn't have to be near Honness
Lane. It could be simply to the west of the field, but something that creates a barrier both for sound,
noise. I think that is a good idea.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think it would be preferable if it were near the field.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, landscaping plan to be provided by Cornell. Alright. Does anybody else
have anything?
Board Member Talty - I have a question. My question is to the gentleman who brought up the issue
with regards to that unpaved road that you so enjoy driving over during voting time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah.
Board Member Talty - Was that part of the plan back when that particular facility was being
constructed or being proposed?
Chairperson Wilcox - There was some disagreement expressed some while back about whether
Cornell wanted to pave it and the Town said or if Cornell didn't want pave it and the Town thought
they should, but there was some confusion about the parking lots for Reis Tennis Center,
Board Member Talty - I was just thinking that maybe we need a clarification on that because there is
no question that if you have heavy trucks going over that it is definitely going to weaken that road.
There is no question about it. There is nothing there to protect it and if somebody could address that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is now the appropriate time?
Steve Wright, Planning Design & Construction - That was never part of the original project. I
remember when we brought the project forward probably a year ago, the board expressed concern
about the dust and the noise. It was at that point that I said golly, gee I thought that over the years
you folks hadn't wanted it paved. You said gosh, we thought you didn't want to pave it. We went
away and we actually did start the project at that point. We will be bringing that to you fairly soon.
Hopefully we will be able to construct that this summer. Paving, which is what we think you folks
suggested was the right thing to do in that situation. That is why in fact we addressed the drainage
assuming that we are going to pave that. I left that last meeting thinking that was what you had asked
us to do.
Board Member Talty - Is that correct, Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think that's a fair summary of what happened the last time.
Mr. Wright - Can I comment also on the construction time? I don't think we would take any exception
to those restrictions proposed for the traffic.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Very good, thank you. Anybody else? Concerns? Issues to be
addressed? All right, would somebody like to move the preliminary site plan approval as drafted?
79
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Mitrano - I will.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Do I have seconded?
Board Member Conneman - I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. Alright, now we will go through the...
Attorney Barney - I have a couple. I'm not sure I got everything you want to have included.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know. He's been filling the margins so, go ahead John.
Attorney Barney - "j" would be there is no amplified sound or any lights to be part of the project. "K ",
and this is in the list of condition, submission to the board as part of final site plan approval a report
from a qualified expert from Cornell Is Department of Ornithology as to the usual nesting cycle of bird
in the Hawthorne Forest and inclusion in the final approval of a period of time during such cycle
where no such construction concerns. I just added a parenthetical e.g. May and June of each year,
close parenthetical as an example. "L ", the developer to minimize to the extent possible truck traffic
during the peak hours of traffic in the morning and afternoon.
I wasn't quite sure where he came down on that, whether he wanted to put absolute limits on certain
time or you just wanted to put suggestions.
Board Member Mitrano - Peak hours is good.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you comfortable with that?
Board Member Mitrano - Yes
Chairperson Wilcox - George, you seconded, are you comfortable with what its there now?
Board Member Conneman - Yeah, that's okay.
Attorney Barney - I'm out of margins...
Chairperson Wilcox - There should be a change to further resolved 1 b,
the Zoning Board of Appeals as long as no lighting of the athletic
proposed
first field
I think we should put that there as well. How do we put
will also include construction of the walking path?
condition?
in
which is a recommendation to
fields or
if staged,
I'm not sure how to put that in as a
amplified sound is
construction of the
Attorney Barney - We could put in a condition that if it is staged, the walking path be included in the
first phase.
Chairperson Wilcox - Be included in the first phase, okay.
6*
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - Do we need to say also that all the drainage basins and such should be
taken care of before that or is that already included in the plan?
Chairperson Wilcox - That's a good point.
Attorney Barney - Well, I think subject to Dan seeing the final drainage plan, then I would assume
that...
Mr. Walker - I would want to see pond 2, 1 think it is, is an old swank pond and the trail built first.
Then probably I would recommend that they build east trail first or east field first because then if they
decided they didn't have enough money to build the west one we wouldn't have to worry about the
trees anymore.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is a condition in here, submission of approval by the Director of
Engineering of detailed stormwater and drainage plans, including maintenance.
Mr. Walker - Build the east field first, the trail and the swank pond first and then you can do the rest of
it later. I'll just approve the plan.
Chairperson Wilcox - Not in my opinion you haven't.
Mr. Walker - Just making a recommendation...
Chairperson Wilcox - Are those changes acceptable so far, George and Tracy?
Board Member Conneman - So far.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are there any others?
Board Member Hoffmann - Did you have the one about limiting the construction period for the birds?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. What about the parking study?
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. The applicant needs to submit a parking study ... how do
I put this. The issue is, is there enough parking there now. So the question is...
Attorney Barney - Submission to the board prior to final site plan approval that a study showing the
adequacy of parking for the current project and the proposed...
Chairperson Wilcox - That would have to take into account the number of users of this field. How
many are going to get there by foot, van, car or some other transportation. They would have to show
that there is sufficient parking there... Anything else?
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Board Member Hoffmann - The buffer plan?
Board Member Conneman - The two buffers for sound and visual.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Do we have, John Barney ... I'm sorry are you still writing?
finish writing.
Attorney Barney - That's all right, go ahead.
I'll let John
Chairperson Wilcox - We have a condition "e ", submission of landscaping plan to include plantings
between pond two and the east recreation way. We want to add a landscaping plan to include
plantings to the south side of the property to provide a sound and visual screen. Yes, Laurene?
Ms. Gilbert - That is one that I think I need to raise an issue for.
Chairperson Wilcox - Please do.
Ms. Gilbert - When we brought the plan way back in 1998. We had the three fields and we had the
one way over to the south. There were residents along Honness Lane ... we had a buffer in that
project and the residents on Honness Lane took exception to that buffer. They didn't want us adding
vegetation because they liked looking through the trees in their back yard and seeing the fields and
the view. Also, vegetation is not a good sound barrier. I have a lot of documentation and studies that
have been done. Psychologically, it's a good sound barrier. But sound, like if you've ever been in the
woods, you can hear a pin drop. Sound bounces. Its goes right through vegetation.
Chairperson Wilcox - It's a visual barrier.
Ms. Gilbert - It's a visual barrier, but it is also a barrier for the people that live on Honness Lane.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think the point is, if the barrier is planted very close to the southern edge
of that field, it would be quite far away from that original buffer was proposed because there is still
some green area in between that southern most field...
Ms. Gilbert - What purpose would the buffers serve then?
Board Member Hoffmann - Pardon?
Ms. Gilbert - What purpose would the vegetative buffers serve if it wasn't for sound?
Board Member Conneman - Visual.
Board Member Mitrano - But only if you want it and that's an open question.
Board Member Hoffmann - It sounded like Mr. Ellsworth is interested...
Board Member Mitrano - Yes, I heard that individual, but...
MN
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Ms. Gilbert - We also have to talk with our turf management people in terms of what kind of situation
that would create in terms of shading the fields and keeping the grass growing.
Board Member Mitrano - Lets put it to study, like traffic.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, they have to submit the details. Absolutely. Again, we don't want it over
near Honness Lane. We want the buffer closer to the fields, which retain all that wonderful open
space there.
Board Member Hoffmann - You wouldn't need to plan very tall species that would shade the field
because you could essentially... it would have to be at player height only.
Ms. Gilbert - It's a design issue. I think we really have to take a look at that and see.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, obviously and we would like to see it too.
Mr. Walker - I seem to recall in a previous review of this area for development that there was a
concern that the meadow nature of the area that we are talking about around that field not-be
disturbed because blue birds or something that likes meadows as opposed to the Hawthorne woods.
There was some issue about that maintaining it into meadow like situation because of a special
population of birds there.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right. There are blue bird nests that are placed there.
Mr. Walker - If you start planting trees, you are changing the nature of the ecological community. I
remember that from a previous...
Board Member Mitrano - Lets put it in a study.
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a feeling that the fact that the field is going to be there is going to
disturb the birds too.
Mr. Walker - It was a former Zoning Board of Appeals member that was a bird specialist.
Board Member Hoffmann - Dick Fischer, who is on our Conservation Board...
Mr. Walker - It needs to be mowed once a year to maintain that, to keep vegetation down. That's
what they've been doing up there. Cornell said they wanted to continue to maintain it like that forever.
Chairperson Wilcox - The bottom line is...
Board Member Mitrano - Lets put the buffer to study.
Chairperson Wilcox - We've asked for the landscaping details. If they come back with a study that
says why its not a good idea, that's fine as long as it's by acknowledged experts.
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Attorney Barney - I'd like to get home. I need to be back to work tomorrow morning.
Board Member Talty - Can I just say one thing?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes you may.
Board Member Talty - What is a proper noise buffer? If vegetation doesn't work, what does work?
Earth berms and things of that sort?
Ms. Gilbert - Exactly. Solid mass.
Board Member.Talty - So besides an earth berm?
Ms. Gilbert - The heights of them have to be studied, too ... its solid mass.
Attorney Barney - A concrete mass.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are there any other proposed changes to the resolution? I have a motion. I
have a second. You've approved all the changes so far.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to make a comment.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, you may make a comment.
Board Member Hoffmann - That is, my biggest concern about all of this is, a comment Mr. Ellsworth
made too, that is I'm worried that the great part or the athletic part of campus is going to move over to
this area. I am feeling very unhappy about that. Even though all these fields, the plans for these
fields have had great improvements over the years since we first saw them, I am not inclined to vote
for it. For the reason that I don't want this to become an athletic campus. So I am not voting for it.
Chairperson Wilcox - None the less, we need five to approve. All those in favor please raise their
hands. One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? One opposed, Eva Hoffmann. There are no
abstentions. We needed five and we got five. The motion passes. Thank you very much.
RESOLUTION NOs 2002 -26 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Cornell University — Precinct 9 Athletic
Fields, Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60441, 604429 60 -1489 6041 5, and
60- 1 -8.2.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
i. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University
1011
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the
Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.21 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -51
and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi-
purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill, and disturbance
to approximately 1/10 of an acre of the hawthorn forest which is located west of the Reis Tennis
Center. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins
and creation of a recreation trail which will link the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis
Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene
Gilbert, ASLA, Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on March
19, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Full 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 March 19, 2002, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate for preliminary approval, plans titled "Stormwater Management Exhibit," dated
1122102, "Conceptual Grading and Erosion Control Plan, " dated 6129101, and "Site Context —
Precinct 9 Planning Study — Cornell University," dated October 1997, and other application
material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the checklist, 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 Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, as shown on plans titled
"Stormwater Management Exhibit," dated 1122102, "Conceptual Grading and Erosion Control Plan,
" dated 6129101, and "Site Context — Precinct 9 Planning Study — Cornell University," dated
October 1997, and other application material, subject to the following conditions:
a. granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval;
b, submission of, and approval by the Director of Engineering, of detailed stormwater and
drainage plans, including a maintenance plan, prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
C, that a routing plan for trucks hauling fill material to the site shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Director of Engineering prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and that
such truck traffic shall occur only on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm;
99
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
d. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from
county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent
and Pollution Prevention Plan for NYSDEC and Tompkins County Overweight Permits
(if needed);
e. submission of a landscaping plan to include plantings between pond # 2 and the East
Ithaca Recreation Way, a buffer with plantings along the southern perimeter of the
southern field, as well as details showing how the slopes created from the new fields will
be revegetated and stabilized, prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
f. revision of plans to change the trail surface from mulch to a stone dust, or a similar
surface material, along with construction details and cross section of the proposed trail,
prior to Final Site Plan Approval; .
g. revision of "Conceptual Grading and Erosion Control Plan" and "Stormwater
Management Exhibit" to include the proposed method of crossing the existing swale by
the proposed connector trail where it connects with the East Ithaca Recreation Way,
prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
h, revision of "Conceptual Grading and Erosion Control Plan" to include the name and seal
of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic and boundary
survey, prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
i. submission of an Integrated Pest Management Plan, prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
j, no amplified sound nor any lights to be part of the project;
k. submission to the Board as part of final site plan approval of a report from a qualified
expert from Cornell's Department of Ornithology, as to the usual nesting cycle of birds
in the Hawthorne Forest and inclusion in the final approval of a period of time during
such cycle when no construction occurs (eg. May and June of each year);
1. developer to minimize to the extent possible, truck traffic during peak hours of traffic in
the morning and afternoon;
M, if project is done in more than one phase, the first phase to include the walkway to the
recreation way;
n. submission to the Board as part of final site plan approval, and approval by the Board,
of a parking study and plan to provide adequate parking for all current and proposed
facilities on the site.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation regarding Special Approval to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following:
Re!
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the
applicant;
b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project, as long as no lighting or amplified sound on
the athletic fields is proposed;
C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: Hoffmann.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be. carried.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 19, 20022
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva, did you look at the minutes of the 19cn?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - As I historically do, I move the approval of the minutes of February 19th. Do I
have a second?
Board Member Conneman - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. It's late.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'll ask the person who said it ... with corrections.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those in favor?
Board - "Aye"
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? None. Minutes approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -27- Approval of Minutes - February 19, 20020
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman.
gh
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 19, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED APRIL 16, 2002
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the February 19, 2002 minutes
as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with
corrections.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Other business. Mr. Kanter?
Mr. Kanter - No thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have no other business. I didn't write anything down. Any business on this
side?
Board Member Howe - No business.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the motion to adjourn? So moved by George
Conneman, seconded by Eva. We are adjourned at 12:12 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 19, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 12:12 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Ui2�'��
W �
Carrie Whitm re,
Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes
..
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, 19 March 2002
Testimony of John Yntema
My name is John Yntema. I live at 993 Danby Road (also known as Route 96B).
As I testified at your Public Hearing two weeks ago, there are 41 30 ft. tall
red pines in the area through which the drainage pipe was originally intended
to be laid, running down to Route 96B. These trees are not mentioned in the
College Circle documents, as far as I could tell. Although most of them are
admittedly on Ithaca College property, it would be ideal to save them to serve
their present purpose. They provide an excellent visual and sound buffer
between my property and that of my neighbor, Mr. Kirschman.
As an alternative to removing most or all of these trees, in order to lay the
drainage pipe, I urge Ithaca College, the developer, and the Planning Board to
consider a suggestion a neighbor mentioned to me -- laying the drainage pipe
so it empties into the existing retention pond by the south soccer field, and
thence down to ditch on Route 96B. That would save the trees, and would
avoid flooding the properties that have been flooded the past two years. It
would also slow the stormwater flow, and allow some "cleansing" of the
stormwater. This seems to be a sensible action, and might also save some
money for the College and the developer.
Thank you.
ATTACHMENT #1
Mitchell Street Thorn Thicket
Preliminary UNA493 Documentation
Compiled by Karen Edelstein, Robert Wesley, Nancy Ostman, Chris Tessaglia -Hymes
Reasons for inclusion
• Birding site
• Cultural site
• Designated natural area/preserve
• Diverse fauna
• Important teaching site
• Rare or scarce animal
• Recreational value
• Urban green space
• Scenic /Aesthetic value (views)
Special land use information
• The Tompkins County Greenway Coalition has identified a biological corridor that includes this site.
• The Tompkins County Greenway Coalition has identified a multi -use trail on this site.
Wetland resources
• A stream runs through this site
• All or some of a lake or pond is on this site
Location
The Mitchell Street natural areas are south of Mitchell Street and west of Pine Tree Road, near the Cornell tennis
and equestrian centers. The best access is via the East Ithaca Recreation Way, which runs between Honness Lane
and Mitchell Street. This wide path follows the old railroad right -of -way and is usable year - round, and in all
weather. There are parking areas off Mitchell Street.
Description
These parcels are good examples of abandoned agricultural land, much of which was used relatively recently for
pasture. The thicket is dominated by thorny shrubs and small trees. It has an understory of grasses and forbs.
Hawthorns (Crataegus) and European buckthorn are the dominant species, but alder - leaved buckthorn,
honeysuckles, multiflora rose, and privets are also abundant. Scattered trees, including box elder, white ash, bird
cherry (Prunus avium), white pine, bitternut hickory, and red oak are emerging through the canopy of tall shrubs.
The herb layer has a weedy component and includes moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia), willow -herb (Epilobium
coloratum), forget -me -not (Myosotis scorpioides), grasses (Poa), and self -heal.
A small meadow west of the recreation way has been mowed regularly and is dominated by hay grasses (Phleum
pratense and Festuca elatior). Forbs include white bedstraw (Galium mollugo), tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris),
self -heal, wild carrot (Daucus carota), field garlic (Allium vineale), plantains (Plantago), chickory (Cichorium
intybus), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
Behind the Reis Tennis Center, a small section section of grassland grows beneath scattered white oak and shagbark,
pignut and red hickory (Carya ovalis) trees. It resembles an oak opening. The hay meadow north of Honness Lane
has a wonderful open view down the Sixmile Creek valley. This field has been used for bird studies for many years,
especially studies of meadow - loving species such as bluebird and goldfinch.
The area near the small creek that runs parallel to Mitchell Street is a mix of meadow species, with trees and shrubs
becoming increasingly dominant. Here rough goldenrod (Solidago rugosa) and tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima)
are the dominant species.
Communitv tvpeS
Pastureland G5 S5 L4
Agricultural land permanently maintained as, or recently abandoned from, use as pasture. Permanent or semi-
permanent sod is present. Dominants are forage grasses and legumes, usually some combination of timothy, orchard
grass, smooth brome, alfalfa, bird- foot - trefoil, and clovers.
ATTACHMENT #2
Cropland (Ostman and Wesley) G5 S5 L4
49a. Cropland/ field crops
An agricultural field planted in field crops such as alfalfa, wheat, timothy, and oats. This community includes
hayfields that are rotated to pasture.
49b. Cropland/ row crops
An agricultural community planted in row crops such as corn, potatoes, and soybeans.
Successional old field G4 S4 L4
A meadow on sites cleared, plowed, and then abandoned. The ragweed type occurs on fields 1 to 3 years after last
cultivation; ragweed, daisy, Queen Anne's lace, crab grass, golden foxtail, and chickweed are common. The golden
rod subtype occurs 3 - 15 years after last cultivation. Dominant species are perennial composites: goldenrods and
asters. Other herbs include timothy, orchard grass, smooth brome, bluegrasses, quackgrass, sweet vernal grass,
evening primrose, old -field cinquefoil, wild strawberry, and hawkweeds. Shrubs represent less than 50% cover but
include gray and silky dogwoods, arrowwood, raspberries, sumac, and eastern red cedar.
Successional shrubland G4 S4 L4
A shrubland with at least 50% cover of shrubs that occurs on agricultural fields 10 - 25 years after abandonment,
following other disturbance, and especially on sites with restricted drainage. Characteristic shrubs include gray
dogwood, raspberries, hawthorn, serviceberries, chokecherry, sumac, nannyberry, arrowwood and buckthorn. Herbs
are of those of old - fields. Seedlings of white pine, red maple and white ash are usually present.
Successional northern hardwoods G5 S5 L4
A forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Dominant trees are usually two or more
of the following; red maple, white pine, white ash, gray birch, quaking aspen, big -tooth aspen, and, less frequently,
sugar maple. Tree seedling and saplings may be of more shade tolerant species. Shrubs and ground cover species
may be those of old - fields. In abandoned pasturelands apples and hawthorns may be present in the understory.
Appalachian oak - hickory forest G4G5 S4 L4
A hardwood forest that occurs on well - drained sites, usually on flat hilltops, upper slopes, or south and west facing
slopes. Dominant trees include one or more of red oak, white oak, and black oak. Mixed with oaks, are one or more
of pignut, shagbark, and sweet pignut hickory. Common associates are white ash, red maple, and hop hornbeam.
Small trees include flowering dogwood, witch hazel, shadbush, and choke cherry. Shrubs and groundlayer flora are
diverse. Shrubs include maple -leaf viburnum, blueberries, red raspberry, gray dogwood, and beaked hazelnut.
Soil information for Proposed Unique Natural Area #19, Mitchell Street Thorn Thicket
SOIL TYPE
SOIL NAME
DRAINAGE
ERODIBILITY
HYDRIC?
Ab
Alluvial
Very well- to very
Non - highly
Hydric
poorly-drained
erodible
ArB
Arkport fine sandy
Well- drained
Moderately
Non - hydric
loam, 2 -6% sloe
erodible
BtF
Bath, Valois, Lansing,
Well- drained
Highly erodible
Non - hydric
35 -60% slope
HsB
Hudson silty clay loam,
Well- drained to
Moderately
Non - hydric
2 -6% sloe
moderately well - drained
erodible
HsC3
Hudson silty clay loam,
Moderately well-
Moderately
Non - hydric
6 -12% slope, eroded
drained
erodible
HsD3
Hudson silty clay loam,
Moderately well-
Highly erodible
Non -hydric
12 -20 %, eroded
drained to well - drained
RkB
Rhinebeck silt loam, 2-
Somewhat poorly
Erodible
Non - hydric
6% sloe
drained
Bird inventory, Thorn Thicket
Gavle immer
Phalacrocorax auntus
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Chen caerulescens
Branta canadensis
Aix sponsa
Anas rubripes
Anas platyrhynchos
Cathartes aura
Pandion haliaetus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Common Loon
Double- crested Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Snow Goose
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
American Black Duck
Mallard
Turkey Vulture
Osprey
Bald Eagle
Accipiter coopeni Cooper's Hawk
Buteo lineatus Red - shouldered Hawk
Buteo lagopus Rough - legged Hawk
Falco columbanus Merlin
Phasianus colchicus Rina- necked Pheasant - 4.2779 - 3.8888
Meleagris gallopavo
Colinus virginianus
Charadrius vociferus
Wild Turkey
Northern Bobwhite
Killdeer
11.1803
5.0504
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Larus marinus
Columba livia
Ring - billed Gull
Herring Gull
Great Black- backed Gull
Rock Dove
1.6703
Coccyzus americanus
Otus asio
Bubo virginianus
Strix varia
Asio otus
Asio flammeus
Yellow- billed Cuckoo
Eastern Screech -Owl
Great Homed Owl
Barred Owl
Long -eared Owl
Short-eared Owl
- 3.9379
Aegolius acadicus
Chordeiles minor
Chaetura
Northern Saw -whet Owl
Common Nighthawk
Chimney Swift
Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher
- 1.7595
- 1.2324
Eremophila alpestris
Progne subis
Tachycineta bicolor
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Riparia riparia
Hirundo pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Horned Lark
Purple Martin
Tree Swallow
Northern Rough - winged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
- 0.8752
Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow
Corvus corax Common Raven 11.8677 4.7842
Anthus spinoletta American Pipit
. Lanius excubitor Northem Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
V. pinus x V. chrysoptera Brewster's Warbler
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler - 1.9013
Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler
Helmitheros vermivorus
Seiurus motacilla
Oporomis formosus
er
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
- 2.1586
Icteria virens Yellow- breasted Chat - 2.7281
Calcarius lapponicus Lapland Longspur
Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting
Stumella magna Eastern Meadowlark
Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole
Pi nicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucoptera
Carduelis flammea
Carduelis homemanni
Red Crossbill
White - winged Crossbill
Common Redpoll
Hoary Redpoll
Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak
Passer domesticus House Sparrow - 1.8493 - 2.2203
Total:
Total sp. seen IN Orchard:
184
(Bolded Numbers): 101
Towns ofDryden and Ithaca
UNA493 Mitchell Street Thorn Tliieket
Tompkins County Environmental Management
Inventory of Unique Natural Areas in',Tompkiri
Last Updated:;December 2001
Council N
s' County
UNA boundaries were de lace ate d by field biologists based on a rev iew.of ar
photogmphs, "dig l GIs Vase map data Goads ;bP'e�footpipcs.,ZOfcot
contouas and stream s) and field visits. UNA boundaries ace approx it ale and
should b e use d for generalp lerning purpose s only. As a peactic alm ateri the"
couray does not warrardthe "atctaaey or c ompletmess of the irGoffi Won
portrayed. The end user of this m hp agree s to acc apt the data "as is ".with full
lmowledge that errors and om issicars m ay exist: and m hold haza le ss to
C ounty for ug dam age s thatm ay n suh from an inappropriate use of this a ap.
20 Foot Contour
Road.
Building Footprint
Unique Natural Area UNA193
Other Unique Natural Area(s)
Municipal Boundary
1000 0 1000 ".Feet
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Family Room Addition, 309 Saranac Way.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of
the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and modification of the condition on the Final Plat
of the approved Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA & Teton Court, which requires a thirty foot
minimum distance between structures, to permit the proposed addition located at 309 Saranac
Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -108, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes
a 336 +/- square foot addition to the south side of the existing house, which will extend within
thirty feet of the adjacent building at Saranac Way, thus violating the cluster subdivision
requirements for a distance between structures of no less than thirty feet. Brian K. Heltsley and
Ann L. Hoffman, Owners /Applicants.
7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Blanchard 3 -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road.
7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Fina
proposed three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road,
44 -2 -7, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide
three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.645 +/- acres and
acre parcel which contains the existing residence. George and
Owners /Applicants.
I Subdivision Approval for the
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into
7.072 +/- acres and a 8.435 +/-
Dawn Blanchard,
8:00 P.M. Continuation from the March 5, 2002 meeting for consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for development at College
Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and
43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of
60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed
modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a
community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for
additional apartment occupancy above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College
proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to
operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing.
J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant,
8:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Cornell University — Precinct 9 Athletic Fields, Pine Tree Road,
9:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of"Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis
Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.25
60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of
two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill, and
disturbance to approximately 1 /10 of an acre of the hawthorn forest which is located west of the
Reis Tennis Center. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing st6rmwater
detention basins and creation of a recreation trail which will link the proposed athletic fields and
the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent.
9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: February 19, 2002.
H. Other Business.
12, 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.)
The, tlthaca- Jour nalr,,
Wednesday, March 13; 2002
TOWN "OCAMACA,
Cl; PLANNING, BOARD:.,
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C` Tuef: March' 19,'20
B "i'dir'ect'ioh - of he
'
h! ;
_ChorpPirson,of e Plonnin:Y Board..NOTICE .IS "HEREB
"LVVL', UI '4- IJ!.'IVV1111' +11 U
Sheet Ithoca,"N Y of -J of iPrelimrnary
following times' and on` the' 1 r - - 1, -
followingg maters iftwnI -the
7:40 P.M.._Cons,deration ' of Appeals_'-n
a'`request fora waiver, of A rovcil I
Section 32 Paragraph 6 ,of, Cornell Un 1. the Town of'Ithoca Sub�ivl' Atfilefic Ji
sion'Regulahoris'; and mode iPine Tree;
ficdtion of the condrtion';on, Reis,' ;Tennis
the Fihdl: Plat' of, the <!ap` sCornelli -Ec
'. nrevnrt Oi±arfcRun ".sdiviivf -. 'r, rr.-..
a : veron
requires;.;° i60
num distance, •661
ires•.to'oermit. FD11n
the :pproposed
cated.at 309:;
Town i of,rslthac
No. 441 -101
District''R -15. _
includes a 33E
addition to the
the existing I
will extend wit
of the adiacer
i
-1-9.1;! 60.1'9 -2'
60- .1 -51 , onj'
Residence Dikrict
proposal, includes -
m''of'two. multi•'
u::VI V31
-which fwhich rs located'wesl of }he
rty feet `R6ii:TEMIsCenter. The , pro-
fi '
1 psaLlds.ncludes;. im-
oating provements+ to the existing
vision storriwater'detenhon basins
-stance land-•''creatian of "a
no less ire�reahonaf'trail -which will
<:`Helt Mink;, fie ;�PProposed. athletic
ff'na^ fields and' the Reis Tennis
Center i to the - East Ithaca
I°� IRecreahon',Way-Cornell Su
Uniiversrty
ir'_ the; !AppIlicdnt; .Lauren Gilbert,
>bdivi -� r 11I 'Agent
i`Eoia lSoicl-Knnmg Board will at
said'ames and said' place
Resi- hear.''alhpersons,m' :support-
re pro; i of such matters or objections
lertfie,: tthereto.jPersons_ may' appear
l= :infoti I!liy�,agenf or.-in person.-
t;;par -: lo'ilividuals "with visual
5. 1 I,.mpai'rments, hearing
3s and Impairments or other special'
ioicel, fne61f will be provided withi
cisting Bassistance as ' necessary,
upon ' request. -,Persons'deslr-
mers/ Lting' assistance must`.make
(such, a ;requesl not less than
i48 hours, prior to the time of.
Lthe public'hearings.
Jonathan Kanter,AICP
;Director of Planning
273 =1747.
Morch.1,3 „2002
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: March 19, 2002
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESVAFFILIATION
41C
��� ;. 5
� Ste. ►►� C. �,i� �d �-►
Vice ,�^
, rte, k,�s
I
/ P'J�
Uid
o
r
vll
ck
41C
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: March 19, 2002
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MlAlUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
0
I OV
1 IVIS C wvll
V y) L
G o v
L-Z-
C v A,
�V,� "C\"I� A O�
t
0
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, 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 local 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 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday March 19, 2002 commenci!ig
at 7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag_S,treet.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication:
March 11, 2002
March 13, 2002
� y ctc9�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of March 2002.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 CQ