The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2007-05-15FILE i�,n, , DATE 12 ' REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, May 15, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer and Susan Riha Absent: George Conneman and Kevin Talty STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT Joel Harlan, Newfield Hollis Erb, 113 Snyder Hill Road, Ithaca Lawrence Hoetzlein, Cornell University, Humphries Building, Ithaca Richard Couture, Ithaca College David Herrick, T.G. Miller Architects and Surveyors, Ithaca Charlie Ackerman, Chase Construction, 1280 Dryden Road, Ithaca Mike Wilkinson, Cornell University, Humphries Service Building, Ithaca Richard Wallace, Guttman & Wallace, 411 North Tioga St., Ithaca John MacNeill, 12 North Main St., Homer William Frandsen, Orchard St., Spencer Helene Dillard, 15 John Street, Ithaca Linda Hoffman, John Street, Ithaca CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 7, 2007 and May 9, 2007 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 May 7, 2007. Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PB 5/15/07 Page 2 Chairperson Wilcox welcomes Susan Riha. I said to Susan that I would embarrass her at the beginning of the meeting, but I won't, I will simply point out that she is a Professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and she brings knowledge and expertise in drainage and stormwater management, and probably some other areas, but those .are the areas that I am certainly aware of, so we welcome you. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited the public to address the Board on a topic not on the evening's agenda. There was no one at this time. Chairperson Wilcox opens the next agenda item at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Child Care Center project located north of Cornell University's A -Lot parking area along Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 144-2.2) and the Town of Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low Density Residential in the Town. The entire project includes the construction of a +/- 14,880 gross square foot child care facility for approximately 158 children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along with .new parking, stormwater facilities, lighting, and landscaping. The portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a sidewalk, utility lines, and a fence. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoetzlein, R.A., Agent. Lawrence Hoetzlein, Cornell University, Humphries Building Good evening. I am the project manager for the Cornell Child Care Center and I can be found on the Cornell campus at the Humphries Service Building, Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a statement, or not,_this evening? Mr. Hoetzlein — Well, I have already presented the project, if anyone has any other questions about it, I think we can move to....move to...approval. Chairperson Wilcox — What is different tonight versus from when you where here last time? Mr. Hoetzlein — Okay. I think that I had already told the time that we had decided not to put a way- finding sign Road. The current site plans that you are looking at rE other thing that it reflects is that we've decided to add a site. The sides that are most susceptible to traffic, the Pleasant Grove Road side. There's some text that Planning Board the last out on Pleasant Grove ;flect that change. The fence on 2 sides of the parking lot side and the mailed to the Planning PB 5/15/07 Page 3 . Board about our reasons for putting the fence around the site and our design criteria for it. Basically, the idea of the fence is, it's not a security fence, we're not trying to keep anybody out of the site it's basically a safety barrier, a kind of last line, for when the children at the center are taken out into the surrounding areas on so called "field trips" which they often are in the types of centers that have these kinds of amenities surrounding them. They are signed out on field trips, which are supervised and this is sort of a safety net so that if a child makes a run for it, they will be grabbed by a supervisor before they get too far and before they get themselves into danger: The criteria we set for the fence is that it shouldn't be more than 3 -feet high, but it should have a fairly open look so it doesn't block views and we included 'in your package some photographs, some images, of some fence types that we thought met those criteria. All. of which we think would be appropriate, a board type fence or a rustic fence or perhaps a low metal picket fence or wood picket fence. We haven't.decided yet which type we would go with, and the decision will be based on maintenance, cost, aesthetics... Board Member Thayer — I like the look of the split -rail fence but, actually, to keep little kids out, it's pretty wide open for that. Mr. Hoetzlein — It is. A split -rail fence, a 2 -rail fence, what you'd have to do with that is on the back side of the fence, you'd put a green mesh, a chain link mesh, from the top rail down to the ground. Board Member Thayer — That would make sense. So that would be my vote. I like the looks of it. Mr. Hoetzlein — The one comment I did have ... I .noticed that it would be ... in the proposal, that there is a suggestion that we move it back even further...] had originally envisioned this fence as being right on the sidewalk, as being the natural, aesthetic place as the boundary between the property and the public side. At Jonathon Is suggestion, I thought that it was a good idea to move it back a little bit, but I'm not convinced that 3 -foot is ... it kind of puts it out there in nowhere's land and doesn't, for me, have the right aesthetic relationship with the boundary of the site and the sidewalk and where you'd want to see-this fence, but maybe that's just my opinion. Chairperson Wilcox — I think one of the issues is, if there should be a problem with the sidewalk such as it has to be replaced, and then you having a fence within a foot or two, you would have to remove that fence for a while for them to be able to put the forms in and the concrete. There's also, clearly, the issue of equipment coming through and being able to remove the snow. Maybe that requires 6 inches or a foot, I'm more worried about what happens if they have to replace the... PB 5/15/07 Page 4 Mr. Hoetzlein — Even a full sidewalk replacement would be down within a foot or 18 inches, maybe. Board Member Hoffmann = I have something... there is another reason for moving the fence back from the sidewalk, and that is, the land slopes away from the sidewalk, towards the west, it slopes down a little bit, and if you were to place the fence 3 or more feet' away from the sidewalk, it would not be up and block the views, as I talked about the last time, Pleasant Grove Road, for the people who pass by, whether they are walking or, well, I guess if they are walking they'll see above the fence, but they will be able to see over the fence better it it's located down the slope a little bit in a way that ....A also prefer the more open fences from an aesthetic point and I guess my first preference was the board fence, I think you called it, the board fence, I think the Plantations has fences like this, and my second choice would be the one that Larry likes best. But, I don't think that adding that green mesh is going to make it look much nicer and I wish there was a way of making it safer for the children and still leaving it open enough so one can see through to that very nice green natural area beyond. Mr. Hoetzlein — Yeah well that's the trade of with the rail fence, is that it has so much open space in it. Hopefully, the mesh and the grass behind it, if it's on the backside, it would probably tend to blend into the background and kind of go away to the casual observer. Board Member Hoffmann — Well it depends if it's at eye level or not of somebody driving by and there are so many fences that are bad that way. I find that the fences, the concrete fences that were put up on the bridges across the inlet, they have open areas in them, they have slots in them, but when you come driving, you see them from, at an angle, so you don't see through those fences, they are a solid concrete block, and they come up to a level that you can't see anything above them either. Your fences that you're proposing are nothing close to that, but this kind of experience makes me wary of fences maybe not looking so good aesthetically sometimes. Mr. Hoetzlein — Yeah, based on your bad experience, I am not sure how to reassure you but, I think that our fence is much lower and much more open... Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not sure how much lower it is actually. Three feet is,, but when you sit in a car, at least a regular sedan, I don't have one of those tall vehicles, then you are, you're not able to see above a certain height. Mr. Hoetzlein -- What do you think of that metal fence, that's a very low fence, very decorative. Board Member Hoffmann — I prefer the look of the more rustic one... Board Member Thayer — We were trying to save you money. PB 5/15/07 Page 5 Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway, what do you yourself think about having the fence not only away from the sidewalk but down slope a little bit? Is that a problem? Mr. Hoetzlein — I'm not sure ... I am trying to picture the site in my mind...l'm not sure it's ... that it slopes off as quickly as you think. I believe it may even break, the sidewalk goes up a little bit before... Board Member Hoffmann — Really, it was graded that way. Mr. Kanter — I guess my main concern with the distance separation was really more in the way of pedestrian safety, because the walkway is really not all that wide, I think it's probably 5 or 6 feet maybe at most, and there are actually a lot of people jogging on it and it's a pretty busy walkway and it serves, it goes all the way up to Cayuga .Heights and there's a lot of pedestrian traffic on it. So, I just thought that the more clearance that we can get, the safer it would be. Board Member Hoffmann — I agree with that, I think that's important and there are people on that walkway all the time, winter and summer. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions, comments, anybody else? Just for the record, there was no SEQR determination associated with this because the Village of Cayuga Heights is the lead agency and they. have made their determination that there is no significant impact and as the ( ?) agency, we could come up with our own findings but have chosen not to...? Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — We are bound by their... Ms. Brock — 'We're bound by their determination and they gave it a .negative declaration. Chairperson Wilcox — And we're bound by it. Board Member Howe — But was there follow up to the letter theat was sent to them about including the Gateway issue in the EAF? Because I think that's an important issue. Mr. Kanter — It was, actually, yes. In your packet you got a few pages stapled together which had several replacement pages for the environmental assessment form, and on, well, the pages aren't numbered, but, item d, on the second to last' page, on the last page, informational details added a whole description of the North Campus Gateway based on what we had said in the PB 5/15/07 Page 6 letter, so, that was reflected. They paraphrased our concern and, you know, think that's as much as could be done with it. Board Member Howe — Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann Jon, I was wondering...) read that and it's true I had to read everything in a great hurry and I may not have done such a thorough job, but it seems to me the reason for this Campus Gateway,' from our point of view, from the Town's point of view, it seems to me, .the main reason was to not have so much traffic going through Forest Home, and that was not brought out here. And. I wonder if we shouldn't bring that in here. It just talks about diverting traffic, or, I've forgotten what the wording is, but it doesn't say specifically td avoid... Mr. Kanter — Well, I think our letter, that came from the Planning Board is on the record and reflected in more detail, what they said in here, and it talked much more about the neighborhoods and diverting traffic so, we can't, we at this point can't do anything to change what the village put in their environmental assessment. They accepted it as it is worded here. Our letter is on record and, supposed, if the Board wanted to, you could add something in the resolution... Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I was wondering, if we could do that. Mr. Kanter — I don't see why not. Or in a separate resolution, maybe, would be more appropriate because again,. it's not necessarily directly tied to this project, but certainly you could send a message to Cornell to keep working with the Town and City on the North Campus Gateway concept, which they are doing: Board Member Hoffmann Well in some ways it is tied to this project because this project precludes putting the Gateway where it had been discussed. Mr. Kanter — At that original alignment, that's true. Board Member Hoffmann — And so, because it now has to go somewhere else and. that somewhere else has not been determined yet, we want to be sure it doesn't go through Forest Home. Chairperson Wilcox — What we...I had a conversation with Brent Cross today and to paraphrase what he said, he felt comfortable that there was options in the vicinity of the proposed day care facility to put the Cornell Gateway entrance in a slightly different, in a different location and a different configuration. Board Member Hoffmann — On this piece of land? Chairperson Wilcox — In that area. Board Member Riha — The other side of A -Lot. PB 5/15/07 Page 7 Chairperson Wilcox — So we haven't concluded that... Mr. Kanter — Well, we know that it can happen, we don't know that it will happen. And there is nothing we can do that will make Cornell do it. It's got to be something that Cornell believes is necessary to do and I think they do feel that but, again, it certainly doesn't hurt to strengthen any kind of message you want to send. I guess it's a matter of how you want to do it. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to see the message strengthened a little bit in some way, however we can come up.:..Can we have some suggestions from Staff over there. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we take it up at the end of the meeting under other business? Board Member Hoffmann — Unless we want to put something in the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — I think a separate resolution sent to either Bill Lent or whoever, I think would be more appropriate. Mr.. Kanter — President Skorton, right to the top, I think. Bill Lent is as familiar. with 'it and as supportive of it as we are. It's really a question of how much will it cost, what other facilities will it affect, when and how will Cornell do it. Ms. Brock — Eva, if we waited, we would probably come up with a better worded resolution. And that resolution certainly could reference this project and explain why the process that happened with this project raised concerns on our part about this. So we can tie it back together but it just wouldn't be in tonight's resolution. That way, Staff could.take a little bit of care with drafting it; especially if you want it addressed to President Skorton, I think it would be important that we have it worded very precisely and include all the information that we think is needed. Board Member Hoffmann — So you're proposing doing it at another meeting [yes] ..Okay, that's fine. Mr. Kanter — Well, I would be open to whatever the Board wanted to do. Board Member Howe — I think that makes sense, I am supportive of taking time and doing it right. Chairperson Wilcox — Want to have a seat and we will give the public a chance to speak. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Joel Harlan, Newfield It's a good idea, they're coming for the kids... supposed to make gonna do it but it should be for, students to drop off their kids an good idea. It's closer to working got to say about it, PB 5/15/07 Page 8 down the right way for having a daycare center it.a reality of some kind: I don't know how you're you know, the workers and employees and the d while they're doing their studies and work. It a there so why not go on with the plan. That's all I Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Anybody else? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Would somebody like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. Any changes Susan? Board Member Hoffmann — There was ... the County brought up a crossing from Hasbrook for kids from that project to be able to come over to this daycare center, and I thought there was a crossing from Hasbrook over to the side of the road. Mr. Kanter — There is. There's at least one. Board Member Hoffmann — The thing that I was surprised at seeing was the information about the accident rate at Pleasant Grove Road, at the corners of Hanshaw Road, being 3 times as high as the average for that kind of intersection... Chairperson Wilcox —Does that really surprise you? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, not really, I mean, . I've been through that intersection and it's not an easy one, but I don't remember hearing about a lot of accidents there. Maybe it doesn't make the newspapers. Mr. Kanter — I think they are mostly the fender - bender type accidents. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a nasty, nasty little section of road with lots of curb cuts and lots of roads. It's terrible. I have a motion and a second, any further discussion? There being none, vote. PB 5/15/07 . Page.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 047 Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit Cornell University -Child Care Center North of A -Lot Parking Area Along Pleasant Grove Rd. Cayuga Heights Portion. Tax Parcel No. 14. -4 -2.2 Town of Ithaca Portion: Tax Parcel No. 68. -1 -13 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, May 15, 2007 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Child Care Center project located north of Cornell University's A -Lot parking area along Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 14- 4 -2.2) and the Town of Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low Density Residential in the Town. The entire project includes the construction of a. +/- 14,880. gross square foot child care facility for approximately 158 children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along with new parking, stormwater facilities, lighting, and landscaping. The portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a sidewalk, utility lines, and a fence. Cornell. University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoetzlein, R.A., Agent I . 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which . the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board, acting as lead agency in coordinating the environmental review with respect to the proposed Cornell Child Care Center, has, on May 1, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II EAF and attachments prepared by the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board, and comments regarding possible environmental impacts submitted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in a letter dated April 18, 2007 from Fred Wilcox to Brent Cross, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 15, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a site plan review submittal report, entitled "Cornell Child Care Center', dated February 13, 2007, with revised site plan sheets C101 Layout Plan, C102 Grading and Drainage Plan, C103 Utility Plan On -Site, and L101 Planting Plan, all PB 5/15/07 Page 10 dated 04/16/07 and prepared by Horizons Design and T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors, 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 Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the elements of the proposed Cornell Child Care Center located within the Town of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -13, as shown on revised site plan sheets C101 Layout Plan, C102 Grading and Drainage Plan, C103 Utility Plan On -Site, and L101 Planting Plan, for the "Cornell Child Care Center', all dated 04/16/07 and prepared by Horizons Design and T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors, and other application materials, subject to the . following conditions: a. submission of the final design and details regarding the proposed fence, for review and approval of the Town of Ithaca Director of Planning, prior to issuance of any building /construction permits for work in the Town of Ithaca portion of the site, said fence to be no higher than three feet in height from ground elevation and to be consistent in character with any of the "Alternate Fence Design Options" for the Cornell Child Care Center submitted with the letter from Lawrence Hoetzlein to the Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Ithaca Planning Boards, dated May 7, 2007, and b, revision of the site plan drawings C101 Layout Plan, C102 Grading and Drainage Plan, C103 Utility Plan On -Site, and L101 Planting Plan, for the "Cornell Child Care Center' relocating the proposed location of the fence along Pleasant Grove Road so that no part of the fence is closer than three feet from the western edge of .the existing walkway along Pleasant Grove Road, and C, submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings listed above, revised as required above, on mylar, vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of any building /construction permit, and PB 5/15/07 Page 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1.. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for that portion of the Cornell Child Care Center project within the Town of Ithaca, located on Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -13, finding that the considerations for special permits. listed in Section 270 -200 of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, as follows: a, the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and the specific purposes of the Low Density Residential Zone are being promoted, and b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed Child Care Center, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and C' the proposed Child Care Center and the location and design of proposed structures within the Town of Ithaca are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the .general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and e. operations in connection with .the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and f. community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed elements of the Child Care Center located within the Town of Ithaca, and g1 the proposed use, facility design, and site layout of the portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca comply with all of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and h, the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses located within the Town of Ithaca is safely designed and the site layout of elements within the Town of Ithaca provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and PB 5/15/07 Page 12 i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and j, the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and k, natural surface water drainage for the portion of the project located . within the Town of Ithaca is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainageways in the Town of Ithaca are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and I. to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structures located within the Town of Ithaca complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan. review set forth in the Town of Ithaca. Zoning Code. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSENT: George Conneman, Kevin Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:25 p.m. SEAR Determination Cornell University Moakley House Renovations, 213 Warren Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Normally I insert the word proposed renovations, but noticed that construction is well under way... Having said that, gentlemen, name and address and a brief description of what's being proposed. Charlie Ackerman, Chase Construction, 1280 Dryden Road, Ithaca Mike Wilkinson, Cornell University, Humphries Service Building Mr. Ackerman — The proposed project and current project and exterior renovations of Moakley House. This means rooms, a new kitchen, new restaurant and dining facility it outside with new windows, doors, and replacing the roof. make the Moakley House look a little bit more like the pro in the last 10 years. is interior renovations putting in new locker side and updating the Our goal is to try to shop, which was built PB 5/15/07 Page 13 Chairperson Wilcox — This is the first time I ever, well not the first time, the first time in recent history that I have walked around that building. I was surprised at how bad it looks. Board Member Riha -- It's in bad shape. Chairperson Wilcox — It's in bad shape and ... Mr. Ackerman — It was built in '53 and I think there have been like 4 windows and 2 doors replaced since then. Chairperson Wilcox — And I drop by most every day and I didn't realize that the dormroom windows have flat roofs on top and yeah, I was, it was... Mr. Ackerman — Yes, they are very, very flat and inside they've had years of leaks and patches because they are too flat. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a general question. I gather that CMU has something to do with the exterior siding, but what does it mean? Mr. Ackerman — CMU stands for concrete masonry unit, cinderblock. Board Member Hoffmann --Okay. I know what a cinderblock is. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Would someone like to move the SEQR motion as drafted? So moved by Larry Thayer, seconded? Seconded by Susan. She's on the Board. There being no further discussion... vote. PB 5/15/07 Page 14 ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 = 048 SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Alterations to Moakley House 213 Warren Road Tax Parcel No. 68 =1 =9 Town of Ithaca Planning Board May 15, 2007. Motion made by Lary Thayer, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68-1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The alterations include replacing the roof shingles and windows, replacing an existing chimney with a new metal : chimney, installing pitched roofs over existing flat dormers, and adding a new stone veneer to the exterior fagade. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Charles B. Ackerman II, LeChase Construction Services, LLC, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)` Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Moakley House Renovations," including Sheet A170 titled "Roof Plan," and Sheets A201 and A202 titled "Exterior Elevations," and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 .of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information PB 5/15/07 Page 15 in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: . AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSENT: George Conneman, Kevin Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The alterations include replacing the roof shingles, installing pitched roofs over existing flat dormers, replacing windows, replacing an existing chimney with a new metal chimney, and adding a new stone veneer to the exterior facade. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Charles B. Ackerman II, LeChase Construction Services, LLC, Agent_ Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site Plan? Board Member Howe — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, would you have a seat. and we will give the public a chance to speak. I . Chairperson Wilcox invite the public to address the Board. There being no one, he closes the public hearing at 7:31. Chairperson Wilcox -- I had actually, when I stopped by today, I was talking to one of the construction guys up there and he was telling me, from his perspective, what they were doing to the kitchen and he was pretty enthused about the changes, so, it's interesting, to get his perspective on the project. Any questions for Mr. Ackerman, or anyone else? Alright. Would somebody like to move the motion as drafted ... So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by the Chair. Susan ... weIre all set? [yes] There being no further discussion.... vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 049 Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Special Permit Alterations to Moakley House 213 Warren Road Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9 Town of Ithaca Planning Board May 15, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS. PB 5/15/07 Page 16 Approval 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The alterations include replacing the roof shingles and windows, replacing an existing chimney with a new metal chimney, installing pitched roofs over existing flat dormers, and adding a new stone veneer to the exterior fagade. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Charles B. Ackerman II, LeChase Construction Services, LLC, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on May 15, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having 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, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held.on May 15, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Moakley House Renovations," including Sheet A170 titled "Roof Plan," and Sheets A201 and A202 titled "Exterior Elevations," and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed alternations to the Cornell University Moakley House finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, PB 5/15/07 Page 17 AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 3.. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 4. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone, as submitted in drawings titled "Moakley House Renovations," including Sheet A170 entitled . "Roof Plan," and Sheets A201 and A202 titled "Exterior Elevations," and other application materials. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSENT: George Conneman, Kevin Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen the next agenda item was an addition to the La Tourelle County Inn. We received an email from.. "was it from Wally? ... we received an email indicating that the applicant has withdrawn their project. Not to say they may not come back later, but they withdrew their project. Mr. Smith — At the moment. Chairperson Wilcox — At the moment. So, that is why there was no information in your packet about that. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:32 p.m. SCOPING DOCUMENT Consideration of acceptance of the Final Scoping Document.for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, PB 5/15/07 Page 18 indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 1015 +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Copies of the Final Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (607- 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website: www.town.ithaca.ny:us. Richard Couture, Ithaca College David Herrick, T.G. Miller Architects and Surveyors Chairperson Wilcox our packet, we were provided, actually with two copies of the draft Scoping Document, one is a comparison copy showing the changes that were made based upon the Public Scoping Session that was held two weeks ago, and then we have a final draft copy containing the changes. Our job this evening is to make sure that the final Scoping Document has everything in it that we think is appropriate, is consistent with the documents provided and with the input that we received from the public. So having said that, questions? have a question if I can start. Susan, the other issue was property values, an quality was not identified as a significant a little bit, how the process works completed... since it did not identify that not consider it as one? there's the issue of air quality and then d there's a reference to the fact that air impact in the EAF. Can you explain that in terms of...The EAF was done, as a significant potential impact, we can Ms. Brock — Generally you wouldn't unless you had new information that showed that in fact there would be a potentially significant adverse impact. Mr. Kanter — I wanted to just comment on the property value issue. Basically, cases, case law, and I am sure Susan could describe in more detail, said that property values are not an environmental issue that you can look at under SEQR. .It may be an issue that you can look at under a special permit, for instance, but not under SEQR review. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan is nodding her head, for the record. Ms. Brock — That's right, I mean, you can sometimes get at property values a different way such as if a certain proposal is going to cause blight in an area or PB 5/15/07 Page 1.9 something like that, then it affects. the character of the community and so. ..'you might get at it in other ways, but I think in this particular case, it's not, ..property values would not be something we would be looking at in the EIS itself.. Chairperson Wilcox — okay, those are my questions. Board Member Howe — This letter from George, I think that is sufficiently addressed, right, he was concerned about just alternatives about the loop road or no loop road, but that's in there... Chairperson Wilcox — Let's address George. I think he took the time to write it so I think we should take the time to address it. When I came in this evening and saw it, I just think in his mind there might have been some confusion about the process. And specifically, I was looking at his point #2 about alternative sites need to be considered and for the record, he goes on to say "David Herrick indicated he would present alternatives. I think we need to know " ... excuse me, "what they have considered and the pros and cons of each site. I hope he follows through on the 16th." Okay. I think that's unreasonable. The purpose here is not to come in with alternatives, at this point it's to finalize the document, which says you will study the alternatives and let us know as part of the... Ms. Brock — Well, wait a minute here. I'm not, maybe I didn't understand what you just said. To the extent that the Board feels there are certain alternatives that they feel it is important that Ithaca College look at, we should state them in the Scope. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, but I think George was indicating that he wanted David to talk about alternative tonight, is the way I read this. Yes, that's the way I read it. "I hope he follows through..." meaning that he talk about alternative this evening. Just like I think in point #1, George makes a specific comment about the project, again, I'm not sure this ... while I'm glad to have his, input, this is not the right time, necessarily, to be making comments about the project. We are still doing the Scoping Document to get to the environmental review and if we get through that, then we get to the site plan and then these comments will become very relevant at that time. Ms. Brock — Okay, I agree with that. The only other thing I would want to say regarding George's comments are that he actually has identified specific locations for the athletic field's alternative locations, and to the extent that you want Ithaca College to look at those specific location, if the whole Board wants to do that, then we should specify those locations in the alternatives section of the scoping document. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I would agree that... PB 5/15/07 Page 20 Chairperson Wilcox — (hands a copy of George's letter to the applicants /agents) You have a right to see this. Board Member Hoffmann — I would agree that that would be something that would be important to look at. I remember that earlier on in this process, somebody, I don't remember if it was Dave Herrick or Rick Couture, did talk, briefly, about alternatives that they had looked at, and places on campus that they had considered and it was sort of a rather sketchy review of why they couldn't be considered and I certainly hope that we'll get more details about that. Board Member Thayer — Well, that's what we.are asking. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. But I don't know if they looked at the specific points that George brings up here and if they haven't, I think we should ask them to do that, because I think that what he says makes a lot of sense, to me. Both what he says in A and B. Board Member Thayer — As far as .moving the fields? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. Or moving the activities to the different fields. Chairperson Wilcox — Now that you've had a chance to quickly read it ... George references 2 specific areas; one are the, what I will refer to...he refers to the 3 large fields on the east side of Route 96, 1 refer to those as the practices fields {yes} I am sure that was mentioned in the presentation that Eva mentioned before. That is an area that you mentioned verbally, therefore my expectation is that it would be mentioned in writing as part of the EIS, we can put that in there. How does Ithaca College, how does Ithaca College refer to those fields? Mr. Couture — Those are the practice fields. That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. And then the second one he refers to is the fields that students use for intramural activities and practice.... I'm not sure what he's referring to there. Do we know? I'm not sure what he's referring to there. Mr. Hebdon — I think what he's saying there is if you put the fields on the existing practice field, you could, the practices fields could move over to the other location... Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, and therefore the impact moves over .... Okay, so think he is referring to one specific location which is, and I think we will add that language in the document, but I think you were planning on doing that anyways. PB 5/15/07 Page 21 Board Member Hoffmann — I think what he is saying, basically, is looking at having part of the activities on one side of campus and relocating the ones that are there to the other side. And I don't remember that you talked about that when you gave us that very sketchy overview. I think you talked about having looked at putting this whole activity and events center in various places, and it didn't fit, or there were other reasons it didn't work. I don't remember hearing you talk about splitting them up and putting some on one side of campus and some on the other, and that, to me, makes a difference. So if you didn't look at that, that's something to look at, it seems to me. Mr. Herrick — Hmmm[yes] ... weIve all agreed that that should be added. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, you are over there writing... Alright. Anything else? Do you think that the changes to the document reflected the public's input that we've received and our own comments ?. Board Member Thayer — I think so. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am not sure about a couple of things, and may very well not have read it carefully enough....When I talked about seeing if it would be possible to eliminate the loop road and for special events rely upon traffic direction, traffic being directed by police and other people, I meant that one could, instead of .....I meant that one would rely on that type of traffic direction instead of relying on people driving themselves around a loop road to get to a place and so I was hoping one could replace the loop road with some other way of doing it and I'm not sure that I see in here that you are going to look at it that way. Chairperson Wilcox — I am wondering how close we are getting to the site plan .here and not environmental review. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I just want to make sure that everything is in here because after we... Chairperson .Wilcox — That's right, that's right... Board Member Hoffmann -w ...let go of this, we can't do, anything about it. Chairperson Wilcox — So I wonder if it's something we can put in here. Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I'm asking. Board Member Riha — You're concerned that they're not structuring this in a way that would normally not require police to be directing traffic, for some of their major events? Is that Eva? PB 5/15/07 Page 22 Board Member Hoffmann — I was thinking, you know, they have talked about having a loop road constructed, to be able to direct...to have traffic go through campus in a different way, after special events, at least that's how I understood it, and I remember, if you go to special events at Cornell, they don't have any special roads, they rely on the roads that are there and they have a lot of traffic police and other personnel telling people where to drive. They close off certain roads and they tell people to go certain ways and it's a big production. I'm. sure it takes a lot of planning to do that and it might be expensive, I don't know, but I'm ... I would like to see if you've looked into doing it that way instead of building a loop road, as an alternative. Mr. Herrick — I think, on page 6, it does talk about, as part of the alternatives, number 3, moving loop road corridors, or number 4, eliminate the loop road corridor. So I think it's in there. Board Member Hoffmann — Where did you say it is? Mr. Herrick — It's on page 6 of the Scoping Document, down on #5, Alternatives... Board Member Hoffmann — Right.. Okay. So that covers it, you feel. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't care if they feel that it covers it, do we feel it covers it. I feel that it covers it. Board Member Riha — It means that they are going to discuss those alternatives... Chairperson Wilcox — They are going to provide us information about those alternatives, yes. Board Member Riha — Alright. Mr. Herrick — Further, there is, under roman numeral II at the top of page 6, there's a whole discussion on traffic control before and following specific events which would mirror exactly what you just described at Cornell. And that would probably go hand -in -hand with any proposal to eliminate the loop road, it would have to. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, I just wanted to be sure you looked at it that way. Okay. Good. Thank you. Now, let's see... another big concern I have now is that since you couldn't put up the balloons for us to see where this could be seen, I'm not sure that I want to sign off on from where you could see the site and especially the lights, until we've seen that. Mr. Kanter — Well, the problem is, with That was going to be the balloon flying, done from... PB 5/15/07 Page 23 the balloon flying, that was going to be it, not a test to see where the test should be Board Member Hoffmann — No, but I mean the balloon flying would indicate where this was going to be located. Mr. Kanter — Yes, but then they were going to analyze the views of the balloons from the site... Chairperson Wilcox — From these sites.... Mr. Kanter — from the list. Chairperson Wilcox —They were trying to get a jumpstart on the environmental review. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but the balloons flying would also help you, by driving around, seeing if you could see the site from other places other than the ones listed. Chairperson Wilcox — Agreed but... Mr. Kanter — That's not the methodology. That's not how those tests work. You don't just drive all around... I mean, if the applicant wanted to be prudent, they probably could drive around and see if it was visible, but the idea is to scope it down to the sites that look like potentially significant areas to look from. Board Member Hoffmann Yeah, but how do you know what they look like until you've seen something helpful like balloons or a mock up of a gate, or ... Chairperson Wilcox — I think the answer is, based upon our collective experience of the Town, where can you see this site and where might the impact, the visual impact of the proposed development be seen. Board Member Thayer I just said that we have 10 sites that they are going to look at those balloons from, and that's part of the visual impact that they're going to talk to us about. So we understand it. Board Member Howe — And we did add another location based on the past discussion. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, we did, that's true, but I'm still not sure that one can't see this, and especially the lights, on the fields, from other places which might be significant and where the lights might have a significant negative PB 5/15/07 Page 24 impact, just like the Cornell field lights have on some people who live on the west side of the lake, for instance. And I guess I had thought that the balloon flying was going to be something that would help us determine that. Board Member Thayer — That was not it's purpose. Board Member Hoffmann — What was the purpose then? Mr. Kanter — Well, the purpose was to get a head start, well, not a head start, because actually the foliage is now filling in and it's almost full now and the whole purpose was to get it,done as early as possible so that you could have a worst case view analysis.. Right now it's getting close to the point where it's pretty much summer foliage so, much more .waiting will not really give you quite as complete a picture as it would have been, you know, today, yesterday, or a week ago, or 2 weeks ago. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. So why was the balloon flying not going: to be until now when it was scheduled, and couldn't happen because of the winds being too strong? D.id we have anything to do with that? Mr. Herrick — No, this was totally our attempt to get these photographs taken as early as possible so that we can then superimpose the building frame and actually show you the visual impacts of the surfaces . of the building and the elements of the building. So, the balloons help you in driving around and seeing where this may be visible, but they weren't done with the intent of helping to further define the vantage points for a visual analysis. Board Member Hoffmann — Nevertheless, they would have helped with that, that's what I maintain, and, even if they were to show the corners of buildings, like we have done in other cases. Just being able to see that from some distance away helps you also locate in your mind where other things will be because you have a. reference point there. And I guess I had thought that we were going to see that before we signed off on the Scoping Document, and I am disappointed that that will not happen. Chairperson Wilcox .— Yeah, if you think about it, what they did was they tried to get a jumpstart on doing the environmental review. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, we actually didn't ask them to. do that. Chairperson Wilcox - They tried to get going early. Board Member Thayer — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — If they hadn't offered it, we might have asked them to do it, because we have done it in other cases. PB 5/15/07 Page 25 Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to add another site. You know where I'm talking about... Board Member Thayer - Yeah I do. Chairperson Wilcox — Some of us had the opportunity to do a site visit to a proposed residential development on West Hill, actually off of Mecklenburg Road, and this is old farmland that is proposed for development, and Larry was there, I was there, I'm not sure who else was, certain members of Staff were there as well, and from the top of that hill and across the valley you've got a beautiful view of Ithaca College. So I think I would recommend we add a site, think best described as on Mecklenburg Road, across the street from the entrance to Eco Village, which is....Rachel Carson Drive. Rachel Carson Way. Board Member Thayer — You get a real good view there. Chairperson Wilcox — It's really a striking view across the valley that we saw while we were up there walking Mr. Rancich's property. So that gets us one up high on west hill looking across the valley, and that's good. Board Member Hoffmann —.And I suspect that one also would see ... it's not just. the Ithaca College campus, but this particular site which they are talking about now and it's hard to tell where that is when you don't have any balloons to locate the site. But I suspect you can also see this particular site from other places on West Hill, like from Route 96, and maybe even from Route 89 and you mentioned from Cass Park, which is right along Route 89, and it's the views from public places like roads and parks and such that are important. But, when it comes to lights, it's also important for people in their homes, because the light sometimes can be disturbing. I am hoping they're not going to be as disturbing with the new kind of lights that are used today as the old ones at Cornell were. But still, it's something that's important, I feel. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue of lighting is addressed, is in here in the Scoping Document. Board Member Hoffmann — I also don't understand why air quality is not a significant issue, especially during construction. Ms. Brock — And I want to clarify what I said about that because I was just looking back at the SEQR regulations... What they say is "the scope, shall include the potentially significant adverse impacts identified both in the positive declaration" which, this document does, "and as a result of consultation with the other involved agencies and the public." So, when I said before it wasn't in the positive declaration, and really,. unless we get new information indicating that there's a potentially significant impact we shouldn't include it...l think I want to PB 5/15/07 Page 26 amend that a little bit. It's not really new information, but perhaps just information perhaps presented in a fuller way, or a little bit of a different way, that convinces you now that it's potentially significant where as before it wasn't determined to be. So I think the way the regulations are worded, it's a little bit broader than what I said before. So I'm glad you brought that up so I had a chance to clarify that. So it's really up to this Board to determine have you heard enough that you believe that there are potentially significant adverse impacts, and as you said, maybe you can segment it out into construction impacts as opposed to long term impacts or maybe you'll feel that long term impacts are equally valid and need to be looked at too. Chairperson Wilcox — You use the word potentially significant ... I mean, we... Ms. Brock — That's what the regulations say. That's the standard, "potentially significant adverse impacts ". Board Member Hoffmann — I think in addition to air quality problems during construction, that the permanent impacts might be what happens at big events, when you have a lot of car traffic. going to and from, if we're going to continue having cars like we have now,.. Board Member Thayer — Like the busses idling and... Board Member Hoffmann — That's right. So it seems to me... Board Member Thayer — I think David will cover that for us. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, cover what? Board Member Thayer — Air quality of idling busses. Chairperson Wilcox — No, it doesn't get covered unless we add it. Board Member Thayer — That was a point .that somebody brought up. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes we did talk about that. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes and in fact it's addressed by being specifically excluded right now and Susan has provided us with the means to include it if we think it is a potential significant... as a potentially significant environmental impact. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, for the record, I think it does, so I would like to see it included. Chairperson Wilcox — And specifically the....Can I get you to... PB 5/15/07 Page 27 Board Member Hoffmann — We have to be specific? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Because they can't study it, I mean, they can produce volumes and volumes trying to hone in on what the specific air quality issue might be. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. As I already mentioned, air quality problems during construction,... Board Member Riha -- That'd be dust. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we deal with construction? Board Member Hoffmann — ...depends on what equipment they use. That might pollute the air. Ms. Brock — We added dust. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, dust is already covered. Source, magnitude and duration of dust and traffic effects generated during construction is covered. Board Member Hoffmann — I mean, if they use gasoline fueled equipment, diesel fueled equipment, we would have the same air pollution problems that busses would have. Board Member Riha — And cars and truck. Board Member Hoffmann — And cars, right, but busses and trucks especially seem to spew out these both very smelly and nasty looking exhausts, which might have pollutants in them that are worse. Cars, of course, produce it too but you don't smell it or see it the same way but it's there. So, it's both air pollution during construction and then while the facilities are being used, especially during these bigger, special events, when there's a lot of traffic, a lot of cars coming and going from them and busses coming and going from campus, and I hope that busses are not going to be allowed to idle and pollute the air that way. I hope that is something that you are going to prohibit, but, that certainly would be a source of air pollution too. Mr. Herrick — Are you looking for some understanding of how vehicular use can be limited ... from generating sources of pollution or ... in other words, are there practices, best management practices, if you will, that may be employed when we have these events. I think that we're treading on thin ice here with air quality. Qualifying air quality issues here, I... Board Member Riha — Yeah, you'd usually be concerned in the kind of situation where you get inversion effects, in the atmosphere, which is not where Ithaca PB 5/15/07 Page 28 College is located. It's the ideal place where any kind of pollution that is generated on the ground is going to quickly mix ... It's not like even being downhill in Ithaca, so, I mean, in terms of a place where you'd expect the least impact from those kind of problems. That site would be, really good ... you'd expect the minimum impact ... other than just if you had never had any trucks or anything up there, but in terms of dissipating up into the atmosphere, you get good winds, you wouldn't expect inversion up there. Board Member Hoffmann —You wouldn't expect inversion? Board Member Riha -- Inversion is ... the atmosphere kind of traps the gases, that's what really causes pollution affects. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but... Board Member Riha -- You are certainly right in saying that you are going to get more fumes than you otherwise would. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, .and I must say I can't help thinking that even if there is no inversion effect, that just the whatever comes out of the cars at the ground level, blowing over to the .neighboring dormitories and residences might . have a bad effect on those places, before it dissipates. Chairperson Wilcox — Key word here is significant... may have a significant environmental impact. Not an impact. Okay. Let the discussion continue. We have to collectively decide whether we want to put something in or not. There is already something in having to do with construction and dust, that's already in the document, so I think the discussion here is more about post construction when the facility is used and busses are sitting there idling or cars are coming in and out, is there a potential for significant environmental impact that we think should be studied as part of the IS. Board Member Hoffmann — You also get cars sitting and idling when they line up waiting to leave, especially, after an event. Chairperson Wilcox — I understand that, but that's not the question before us. The question is, is this a significant... do we believe it's significant enough to be included in the Scoping document, that's the question in front of us. Board Member Thayer — I don't think there is a solution to the problem anyway. Ms. Brock — Well, that's not the standard... Board Member Thayer — If you've got a lot of cars, you've got a lot of exhaust. Chairperson Wilcox -- Now, we have said... PB 5/15/07 Page 29 Board Member Hoffmann — They might encourage using busses, for instance. Board Member Thayer — Idling busses cause problems. Chairperson Wilcox — Haven't we seen areas where, I think it was brought up before, are there areas where busses are specifically forbidden to idle? Board Member Hoffmann = Yes, I told you last time... Board Member Riha — Yeah, at Cornell, I mean at Bradfield the air intake is in a place where they used to idle trucks and busses and that's where they sucked in air, but I assume, and you could smell it all through the building, but I am assuming they would be designing their air intake in a way that would minimize, but ... I... you know ... where you're putting your busses to idle. Board Member Thayer — That's a specific point that could be added Board Member Riha -- Yeah, you could talk to that. That has to do with the atmosphere quality. Board Member Howe — Doesn't some of this relate to the idea of a loop road.. The idea of the loop road is to get traffic out from major events quicker than backing up and idling so, somehow, I don't know if there's a way to say, part of the analysis of a loop road or not a loop road may be also tied to air pollution from cars leaving a major event or something. Board Member Hoffmann — The things are tied together, obviously. Board Member Howe — Right, but it's hard to know what.to be specific about, but I think it is related to the idea of getting traffic off more quickly than not. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it's interesting, I wasn't sure the purpose. of ... YOU say more quickly, I thought about it as internalizing the traffic to get it over to 96 and get it on .a state highway, rather than having the traffic exit onto Coddington Road which is a county road and is not as... Board Member Howe — Different solutions would back up traffic more than other solutions as well, for major events. Board Member Riha — Right, and from an air pollution point of view, you want to minimize.... Board Member Hoffmann — At the last meeting I mentioned that whenever I have gone by bus down to New York City, when you are going to the Port Authority Terminal, there are signs saying that the busses have to turn off their motors, PB 5/15/07 Page 30 they are not allowed to idle more than 3 minutes as they pull in and then they can't start their motor again until they are ready to go. Board Member Thayer — In there facility. Board Member Hoffmann -- Not only that ... it's partially open, it's not closed; you know, the walls are open. But it's obviously possible, as I said last time, for a bus to start out, even though it hasn't been idling, to keep the motor warm, and if they can do it there they can do it anywhere. And I. know there are cities, the City of Stockholm, for instance, has for years, not allowed more than 1 minute of idling by any motor vehicle. It started with busses and taxis and now it's any private car. And I am sure that is true in many other cities in European countries. Chairperson Wilcox - Alright, the question remains, what if anything do we think should be added. Personally I am not convinced yet that... Board Member Thayer — I'm not either. Board Member Riha -- I'm not either. Chairperson Wilcox -- ...that we haven't covered all the bases, even Rod, with what you said., we've got the loop road in there and I look over here... Board Member Howe — So I move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on for a second. Susan, what ... Susan, you have written some changes, based upon our discussion, earlier discussion today. Ms. Brock — Okay, so we're not adding anything on the air quality at this point? Chairperson Wilcox — Not at this point, no ... I shouldn't say not at this point, no. There is no other time. Ms. Brock — Okay, on page 4, paragraph d2, add another bullet for views that have been identified... Mecklenburg Road (across the street from Rachel Carson Way) On page 6, under alternatives, the 2nd bullet, should be revised to read: site plan revisions 1. Moving the athletic field and track and parking lots to other campus locations, such as the area of the practice fields on the east side of Route 96 (and relocating the current practice fields to the east side of campus) And I believe that is all. I believe those are all the changes that you identified so far. Mr. Herrick — Fred, could you repeat that last one please. PB 5/15/07 Page 31 Ms. Brock — Add the following language at the end of 1. Such as ... number 5, alternatives, second bullet, 1), the existing language says moving the building, athletic field and track and parking lots to other campus locations" add the following language right there...: such as to the area of the practice fields on the east side of Route 96B (and relocating the current practice fields to the east side of campus) Mr, Herrick — Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — In the minutes, on page .49, Larry said that he, somebody had mentioned a before picture so that one could tell how many trees were going to be taken down and all of that. I don't think we have seen that either, and, there was also something about the houses on the other side of the road. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, again, again, let's talk about scope document... Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure what seeing houses on the other side of the road has to do with it. That's site plan for sure. Board Member Hoffmann — Well it also shows the effect of what happened on campus on not just what's on the Ithaca College side of Coddington Road but on the other side and Six Mile Creek. Chairperson Wilcox — Express it as an environmental impact that you think they should study. Board Member Hoffmann — The environmental impact of an area which is very close, really adjacent, just on the other side of the road... Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try again: What is the impact you think might be significant... that you would like to add to this document. That's the question in front of us. Not to show houses on the -other side of the road. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it's the impact of the traffic, of the noise:.. Chairperson Wilcox — Traffic and noise are already in there. Board Member Hoffmann — All those things, but then what Larry had talked about was having, if I understand it, maybe you can explain it better. PB 5/15/07 Page 32 Board Member Thayer — Just a picture as it exists today and how many trees will be taken down as a result of the construction. And I don't know that that was covered, specifically. Mr. Herrick — We've stated several times that the documents that you will see in subsequent studies will show the housing outlines on the other side of the road. That's just a mapping detail. That's all that is. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, you said you would take care of that. Mr. Herrick — Right, and that will come through in the ... weIve gotten he request several times, and we will provide that. I think with respect to the vegetation question, we did provide, in the long environmental assessment form, a summation of the acreage of land conversion that addressed forest, scrub growth and then what landscaping lawn would be replacing the lost existing vegetation. So, we did quantify in the long environmental assessment form. Those numbers as they existed at the beginning of the year. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but is there also, included, a guide to the location of that acreage. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Again, what is the significant environmental impact that we believe should be addressed. Going back to the scoping document and the purpose of it. Board Member Hoffmann — We're talking about removal of vegetation and trees... Chairperson Wilcox — I understand that. What is the significant environmental impact that you... Board Member Hoffmann — Of that? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely!: Board Member Hoffmann — And you don't know that? Chairperson Wilcox — It ... We have ... the purpose of this document is not that trees are going to be removed. If we believe it is a significant environmental impact, then we can add it to the Scoping Document. I' have heard no discussion of what the impact is. All we're saying is, trees are going to be removed, I want to know how many. What's the impact? Board Member Howe — And I think we... PB 5/15/07 Page 33 Board Member Hoffmann — It depends on how much and where they are going to be removed. Board Member Howe — Okay. On page 2, under natural resources, doesn't that cover what you're trying to get at? Board Member Hoffmann — It might. (everyone looks) Board Member Riha -- ... "nature and significance of development on existing shrub and second growth forest and other identified unique or sensitive areas." Board Member Hoffmann — Where are you reading that? Board Member Riha -- It's the second 3, under natural resources, the 3rd bul)et... "nature and significance of development on existing shrub and second growth forest and other identified unique or sensitive areas." Board Member Hoffmann — I have trouble reading it when I hear you reading it too because I'm not looking at the same words. (Larry shows her) Okay, well maybe that does take care of it. Board Member Thayer — That does take care of it. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Good. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree. Any other discussion? Board Member Hoffmann — I think that's all the points that I had written down. Chairperson Wilcox — Just, before we get to the motion...Are Jane and Hank here this evening? (they raise their hands) Good. I want to reference your letter to the Ithaca Times. Tonight is not a public scoping session, which you may have intimated in your letter, and I hope that you didn't come this. evening expecting to be able to speak. I think I was pretty clear 2 weeks ago that that was the public session and that this is the chance for us to review those comments on our own, so I hope other members of the public were not misled and came expecting to be able to speak this evening. But nonetheless, we're glad you're here and listening and taking this in. (Mr. Roberts says something) if let you speak then I got to let everyone speak. Okay ... I understand that,. and thank you for the comments that you made 2 weeks ago. So the motion in front of us would be to accept the final Scoping Document dated May 9, 2007 as amended this evening. Mr. Kanter — One question, I just noticed in reviewing this, on page 4, under small 4, towards the end it refers to hours of the day that ambient sound levels PB 5/15/07 Page 34 will be used as a comparison. And it lists 9p.m. and 11 p.m....is that correct? Those were both intended to be p.m.? MR. Herrick — Correct. Mr. Kanter — Is there a rationale for why those times are set for the baselines? Mr. Herrick — Yes. The field use could occur easily up till 9:00 and then any night time use would have to be concluded at 11:00. So we're looking to capture the ambient conditions now at those respective hours and then be able to suggest how. field use, at night, would impact that baseline. Mr. Kanter —Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — I stated the motion, I did not make it, so if someone wants to make that motion, I think Rod...So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Larry Thayer. Okay. Any further discussion? Ms. Brock — I have some changes. to the resolution just to reflect the fact that we have amended the May 9th draft.... On page 2, paragraph 10, add to the end of that sentence, "and has amended said document at it's May 15, 2007 meeting." Under the first resolved clause, add to the reference to the date, where it says dated May 9, 2007, add the following language, "and amended by the Planning Board on May 15, 2007. " and make the same change to the second resolved clause. Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, are those changes acceptable? [yes] Anything eise? We've captured everything, this is our last chance. Alright, all set ... There being no further discussion, vote. PB 5/15/07 Page 35 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 050 SEQR —Acceptance of Final Scoping Document Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center Tax Parcel No's. 414-30.2, 41 -1 -24 and 42 -1 -9.2 Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board, May 15, 2007 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer, WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center (PB Resolution No. 2007 -015) located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +1- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor- lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 1015- +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board and possibly variance(s) by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review because the proposal involves construction of a facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, parking for more than 100 vehicles, and potentially, the physical alteration of more than 10 acres (Section 148 - 5.0 -1, 3 and 4 Town of Ithaca Code), and 3. A letter from Ithaca College, dated February 1, 2007, has been received, in which Ithaca College states that ... "the College will concede that there is the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact and that a positive determination of environmental significance by the Town Planning Board of this Type I action is warranted", and a Full PB 5/15/07 Page 36 Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on February 8, 2007, and received no objections to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this matter, and 50 The Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and, Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be. prepared, and 6. Ithaca College and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope and content of the DEIS, and 76 Ithaca College submitted a Draft Scoping Document (revised April .6, 2007) for the Board's consideration, and 8. The Planning Board, at its meeting on April 17, 2007, has reviewed the Draft Scoping Document (revised April 6, 2007), and determined that said Draft Scoping Document was adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and 91 The Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1, 2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public, and 10. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on May 15, 2007, has reviewed a revised Final Scoping Document (May 9, 2007) submitted by Ithaca College, and the Planning Board has amended said Scoping document at its meeting on May 15, 20074 PB 5/15/07 Page 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines that the revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board meeting 'at its May 15, 2007, for the Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center adequately incorporates the relevant comments and concerns of the Planning Board, the public, and involved and interested agencies, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the above - referenced revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSENT: George Conneman, Kevin Talty The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kanter — David will you let us know when the balloon flying looks like it might happen again so we can let the Board know. Mr. Herrick - I certainly will. Mr. Kanter — Or when you anticipate it will happen. Mr. Herick — I am surprised at how much wind there is on the hill, so, we need a very calm day to make this successful. Board Member Hoffmann — If I can add to that ... I think Jon said when you anticipate it, it's nice to know about it a few days a head of time because sometimes one has other things scheduled... Mr. Herrick — Well our idea is to put them up early in the morning and leave them all day so ... we did it successfully for the Pine Tree Road project and I am hoping to repeat that. Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:21 p.m. PB 5/15/01 Page 38 SEAR Determination Frandsen 23 -Lot Subdivision, east and west sides of Park Lane south of John Street, Richard Wallace, Guttman & Wallace, 411 North Tioga St., Ithaca John MacNeill, 12 North Main St., Homer William Frandsen, Orchard St., Spencer Mr. Wallace — I am here to represent the developer, Mr. Frandsen, in this, in the matter before the Board this evening, which I understand is on the agenda for consideration of preliminary subdivision approval. The project before this body tonight is one that was begun 40 years ago, back in 1967, and it was, in essence, related to the Eastern Heights subdivision which was commenced back then. Mr. Frandsen's subdivision, which was. job #6701- 008 was a subdivision of 61 lots on Park Lane 40 years ago and Mr. Frandsen has been successfully and as a good developer and neighbor of the people of this community, been developing those subdivisions over the last 4 decades. Back in 1967, in fact, there was preliminary approval for all 61 lots, including the current proposals, so that there is a certain extent to which one might legitimately argue that we've already been here and done this, but we are certainly happy to recognize the need to be here and come before the Board for further approval for this last phase of this development. This involves 2 new roads and the documents are comprehensive and are before the Board.. Both are located off of Park Lane and they are natural continuations of the pre - existing developments. Starting with an easement Town. of Ithaca in order to been a good steward of the many documents and a resolution, in. its current fc evening be passed. granted by Mr. Frandsen some 40 years ago to the enhance stormwater runoff and since that time has land and has come before the Board here with many, detailed stormwater plan and is asking that the )rm that has been proposed before the Board this Ifa A take the liberty of assuming that the Board has reviewed all of the documents and the plans and the recommendations of the various bodies. The reason that there is a difference today from 40 years ago, frankly, is because the regulations pertaining to stormwater have been somewhat dramatically altered over that period of time and as this Board knows, Mr. Frandsen will be required to get approvals and permits and discharge permits from the New York State DEC. One of the reasons for the large volume of detailed maps is because his engineers, in recognition of that very fact, have gone to great lengths to make sure that all of these issues are accounted for, including one of the 23 lots being specifically for the purpose of stormwater management. PB 5/15/07 Page 39 And. we are here before the Board this evening to ask if you have any questions of us. We're prepared to answer any questions you may have and asking you to approve the resolution that has been. put before you. Chairperson Wilcox — The first item, as always, is the environmental review. So we can start there. Eva; you always start ... come on. Board. Member Hoffmann — I'd just as soon have someone else start. Chairperson Wilcox — What are our concerns this evening? Stormwater management, construction in and around steep slopes and potential impacts and how they will be mitigated, what else are our primary concerns this evening? Board Member Hoffmann — one of the concerns that I. have made a note of here is how to handle the. ..this is a wooded area, and how to handle keeping some of the woods on the lots and not having it turn into just impervious surfaces and lawns. And we had a case of Burns Road, not too long ago, where we tried to preserve some of the wooded areas and it didn't work. We didn't do a very good job of it, so I am thinking we need to be more careful this time... about that. But I don't know what kind of restrictions one can set up because the houses are not going to be built by the subdivider. Board Member Howe — Well I have the same issue and I don't know if it's so much environmental or more site plan...it's .the idea of clustering. We always come up with, when do we think about clustering for a site and is this an example where partly to protect some of the existing woods, that it's a possibility. But I don't know if that's SEQR or that's more of a site plan. Chairperson Wilcox — It certainly has an impact on the review. Because if we made he determination that clustering .would be appropriate or reasonable, probably on the Brian Drive side, I don't think it makes sense across the street....then that changes things significantly in terms of the environmental impact of the project. Absolutely. While we are sitting here discussing... does... is the...to the north of this is John Street, is was that also part of the Frandsen subdivision from before? John MacNeill — No ... excuse me...I am John MacNeill...) am the engineer for Mr. Frandsen, I was also the engineer for Eastern Heights incorporated who did the property north of the. Frandsen property. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's talk about believe is why you are here this evening, stormwater management first, which I Mr. Mac Neill — Alright. Mr. Frandsen hired a firm called Envirovision Engineering, I always say it wrong so I thought I ought to read it, I think it's on the. PB 5/15/07 Page 40 cover sheet of the plan you have, at the bottom. Envirovision prepared the plan, stormwater plan, a copy of which was submitted to the Town. We had a meeting back' in September of 05 to discuss that plan a.nd some suggestions and revisions were made to that plan.. So there was an addendum to that plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Could someone provide an overview of "the plan ". Mr. MacNeill — I'm sorry... Chairperson Wilcox — Could someone give us some overview of how you propose to deal with stormwater drainage on the property. Mr. Mac Neill — Yes. If you all have a copy of the plan to look at... Chairperson Wilcox — Which specific map are you referring to? Mr. MacNeill — I'm looking at map 1 of 7 which is Lyon Drive... (There is some confusion and shuffling of reaps, not everyone is on the same map) The original stormwater protection. plan showed a collection ditch along the south line of Mr. Frandsen's property. It included a detention basin and a sand filter to take containments out of the stormwater. At that time, at our meeting that time, it was discussed in doing that we would remove most of the trees along that south line and that was.... Mr. Hebdon — Hang on ... it's the fourth page ... in your packet, it's the fourth page on the package ... that will be the one.... Mr. MacNeill — What Envirovision did was revise the plan and put collection, stormwater collection ditches on the edge of each lot. If you look at that plan you will see, common on the edge of each lot, that there's a dry swale easement ... can you...the idea was that because of the lay of the land, the slope of the land, water that lands on the property would run across and into those individual ditches along side each of the those, and they would collect the water and filter the water, So it would take a while for the water to filter on down through and then it would come, in the roadside ditches, to a detention basin, which is shown in the, sort of the lower left hand area, there are two basins. They're actually on ... well, I don't know if you can see it if I hold it up, but it's these two ... the upper basin is part of the detention basin, but it also serves to filter any containments that fall on the road. Water comes off the road into the roadside ditches and come down into that first basin that's near the road. It also would hold some water and the remainder of the water would go down into the detention basin that's just more of this perimeter, the south line, so there are two basins, PB 5/15/07 Page 41 The basins ... There are two reasons for this system. One is to filter the stormwater to remove silt and gasoline or whatever containments are on the surface of the soil and the second is, one of the regulations said that you can not discharge any more water from your property than it would be before the construction was done, so that any additional water that comes because of the construction or the project and houses and so forth, would have -to be retained and that's why we have the retention basing. Just the same amount of water is going to run off and down and eventually into the stormwater system of the Town. So that's the reason for the detention pond, I hope I am coming across okay. Any other questions about that part of it? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we actually had some experience recently with individual swales on each property and I'm not sure we're particularly happy with it. Mr. Hebdon — it's working now. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry... Mr. Hebdon — Well we have to separate the treatment from the person doing the work. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, let's be careful here, but go ahead... Mr. Hebdon — Do that, we may put some more language in where we strengthen the do the work first, then allow permitting for building permits and stuff like that. Everything has to be done before any building permits ate given out or any lots can be sold off or something along those lines that will help preclude some of the problems we've had currently. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there not an advantage to...l am not a big fan of big detention basins because they can ... they can be an amenity, but sometimes there not, they're just kind of a hole there, but the issue of having a swale on each property requires each property owner to maintain it... Mr. Hebdon — Yes, and at that point that's when we, that's part of the reason we've gone to the easements and inside each of the deeds when they are sold is a piece that says it is your responsibility to maintain. Chairperson Wilcox — So as proposed, the Town would have an agreement with each lot owner? Mr. Hebdon — There would be an easement on each, just like we do with a water line or a sewer line or anything. We have agreements with each owner for that. We're going to get into doing this more and more. You are going to see agreements for stormwater management. PB 5/15/07 Page 42 Chairperson Wilcox — And we have a standard agreement that has been adopted by the Town Board and often we have stormwater facilities for a subdivision where the Town has access to those facilities. But usually it's a detention pond or other related structures. Here we would need to have, potentially, an agreement between the Town and each lot owner. Ms. Brock — Well we haven't done that in the past. I think what Creig's referring to is simply an easement that. would permit the Town to access the property and do whatever work is necessary. Mr. Hebdon They are going to look very similar to a sanitary sewer or water easement. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Hebdon — That we'd have to have if they were going to... Chairperson Wilcox — Would we have this agreement to actually go on the land and perform maintenance and be reimbursed? Mr. Hebdon — I'm not sure we would be reimbursed any more than we get reimbursed for the water and sewer that we work on., It's pretty much being looked at ... The easement would read very similar to a water or sewer easement, where basically, if the water line breaks, we have the right to come in there and clean up what we see needs to be cleaned up and get it all seeded and so on and walk away. And that's basically the sort of easements that you'd be looking at for each one of these. Board Member Riha -- How elaborate is it to maintain these? Over the long term? I mean, over the short term it doesn't seem to bad but it sounded like these dry soils need, maybe, in a 5 to 20 year period, need to be re- graveled or something... Mr. Hebdon — That's something that comes ... These are dry swales, so that I'm not sure of the sand filtering, if they got a lot of sand and stuff... Board Member Riha -- Yeah, it sounds' like gravel and soil on top of grass and so on... Mr. Hebdon — Right, and I don't think it's the type where you have the pipe coming out the bottom ... I haven't really had the chance to... Board Member Riha — Yeah, some do have pipes I guess. PB 5/15/07 Page 43 Mr. Hebdon — Yeah, those you have like 15 years and you have to go in and take the gravel out and replace it and ... because the sediment and stuff like that. So there is a definite cost to doing that type of stuff. Just like a pond, you know, if they build a pond and put a pond in. There's a cost to go in and dig the sediment out of that also. Board Member Riha —. So even with the gravel, after 15 years, all the soil won't be kind of filter into it and it will have to be excavated and re.:. Mr. Hebdon — It might need to be, yes. There's still ... out on how long those things last. It will look like just a dry grass swale, the owners, the big .thing is they can't fill it. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I'm worried about the owner filling it or planting a tree there or... Mr. Hebdon -- ...or put leaves in it and all that type of stuff and they're required to maintain it. Usually they are in such a way that you can mow it. Board Member Thayer — They need to cut it. That should be part of the maintenance I would think. Because if it gets tall grass in there, it's going to defeat the purpose of it I would think. Mr. Hebdon — Sometimes yes ... Yeah, you'd have to look at each one. I mean, sometimes tall grass can actually help filter some of your containments out, but with it being a dry swale, there's not going to be enough water sitting in there long enough for it to do a whole lot of benefit. Board Member Thayer — So visually, it's just an indentation right? That's it. Mr. Hebdon — Yeah, visually it just looks like they have a ditch in between two of the houses as you walk down through there. Board Member Riha -- I have a concern too about the retention ponds, but I'm not sure if some of these specs have been redone since this June 1, 2005 report, but when you look at these upper pond, lower pond, the...you, know, how much free board they were going to have ... To me, it didn't look like a whole lot...on that table 6 on page 7, and they said, "unfortunately site limitations include lack of space and shallow depth to bedrock and it may get very difficult in providing additional freeboard for each dry pond. Mr. Hebdon — We ... What they show in stormwater pollution prevention plan, what they had talked about, we addressed and if you looked at C103 in the stormwater pollution protection plan, it's a completely different looking plan than what they submitted, based on that same comments that we had when we talked to the... Board Member Riha going to be greater... some depth, and it topography and you excavating... PB 5/15/07 Page 44 -- So that is the free board on these retention ponds are I mean, you know, a retention pond, you want it to have seemed like that's going to be a problem given the might not even know until you get out there and start Mr. Hebdon — On the next page... Chairperson Wilcox— When you say the next page.... Mr. Hebdon I think it is 2 of 7, that gives you a close up of the proposed and also on the right hand side is some sections, to give you a better idea of what the freeboard and stuff is over there. Board Member Riha -- So this is now like 995 instead of 921? Mr. Hebdon — Right. They moved to a 2 -pond system from that one big pond system. Mr. MacNeill — Can I interject something? The original plans show 1 pond at the street elevation, but how can you get the water up to the street? Plus, when you had the pond at that elevation, the slope off the edge of the pond would eliminate the lot and the house on one side. It was so high up that by the time you built the pond and the dyke around it, it had....the slope off that higher pond would've gone way over on the adjoining properties. So when I spoke to Dan Walker, we talked about putting the ponds in series ... one pond higher and another pond lower, so we wouldn't be going off our own property. We still hold the same amount of water, but it would be in 2 ponds and at a lower elevation. Mr. Wallace — I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that that might solve one of the concerns I think I have heard expressed. If you have 2 ponds, even though there may be some limitations on the depth you can dig, due to bedrock or whatever. Board Member Riha -- Well the bigger area ... I don't. know if they actually increase the area because the original plans, the first dry pond was fairly large ... long and narrow ... the way I looked at it, which wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but it just seems like there is going to be an issue about how much freeboard because... because if they run into ... you know ... ledge, bedrock, it's going to. be expensive and then they are going to have to think about relocating it. Or maybe they've already tested that, but... Mr. MacNeill — I'm sorry, but in the location where these ponds are, the deepest pond is only going to be 5 feet, and from the work that's been done in that area,. I don't think that we've gotten any rock within 5 feet. PB 5/15/07 Page 45 Board Member Riha — Okay, so then did ... Are there new numbers like this old table 6 that kind of are convincing to people that given the estimated flows for different 1 year, 10 year, 100 year storm events, that you've got the capacity, and you've got a lot of space ... These were not very convincing to me. You only had like a foot, and if you went over that you were going to be... Mr. MacNeill We did compute to determine how much water for 100 storm, which is what everything is pretty much designed for, and determined how much water would have to runoff and how big the pond should be. Board Member Riha -- But for these 2 new ones. Mr. MacNeill Yes. Mr. Smith - i was just going to add that the drawings in this packet here, of the subdivision, these' stormwater plans that are in here are not reflected in the pollution prevention plan that you have. So none of the numbers in there are referenced..: - Board Member Riha -- ...are referenced. So these are really an old plan. Mr. Smith — The stormwater pollution plan is older than any of the drawings there. Board Member Riha -- Yeah, it just would be nice to have some of those table recalculated for the new plan. Mr. Hebdon — That's something you can ask to have done. Chairperson Wilcox — Well of course we can ask. The question is, is it something that we need right now as part of the environmental review? Board Member Riha -- I would like to be convinced, as I said, when I saw this first table, I was pretty iffy that this was going to be sufficient capacity and so would like to see that their, that these new 2 sets are, I'd like to see those calculations to say yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Richard, go ahead. Mr. Wallace — I would note that the proposed resolution does require as, a condition updating all of those calculations. Chairperson Wilcox — Understood. The question before us this evening is, as part of the environmental review, do we have sufficient information to make the PB 5/I5/07 Page 46 determination that there is no significant environmental impact, specifically with stormwater management. That's the question before us right now. Board Member Hoffmann - And this is an area with a history. of drainage problems, from the very beginning, and I would be very concerned if I lived along Slaterville Road, downhill from this proposed new development.. So I think it's important that we understand what's going to go on here before we... Mr. Hebdon — Well, it does go into a piping system that was placed maybe 9 years ago, they put a new piping system down Park Lane and that's a.36 inch pipe system that goes down into Six Mile creek vineyard, I think is the area...lt goes down in there and they have some huge ripwrap check dams,. I guess you would call them, they're oversized, down in that gully that goes down through there, and when we did that, it was assumed that this would be fully developed. So that pipe was way oversized and all the facilities downstream were way oversized. So the question of whether or not the facilities on the Town road can handle it, yes they can. Board Member Riha -- So you are saying both sides of the development, that the stormwater would feed into that pipe. Mr. Hebdon — The Brian Road side of the development. Edwin goes down into another creek that... Board Member Riha -- Because the other one is below Park Road, right. Mr. Hebdon — Right. Board Member Thayer — Is that pipe on Park Lane or is below Park Lane? Mr. Hebdon — The pipe that I am referring to is on the east side, I guess you would say. Chairperson Wilcox — The problem is... Mr. Hebdon — As you are going up the hill on Park Lane, it's on the right hand side.. That's a big 36 -inch pipe that comes down and takes everything from up above. Board Member Thayer — But the one road is above Park Lane, Mr. Hebdon — Yes, Edwin Drive is the one that's below Park Lane and that goes into a creek and we stabilized that creek. That was that Ewing drainage thing we did down below, near Slaterville Road, we went up like 500 feet of the creek, I think, and put large ripwrap stabilizing rock up there. PB 5/15/07 Page 47 Board Member Thayer — So that shouldn't affect any neighbors on Slaterville Road. Mr. Hebdon — No, it shouldn't. Board Member Hoffmann — So you're saying, essentially, that the Town has already taken care of the drainage problem even before this development takes place? Mr. Hebdon — We have take care of the drainage that's been coming off of Park Lane and I'm saying that the drainage that comes off of Brian Drive, existing Town facilities can take care of. Chairperson Wilcox — And by take care of it, that means... Mr. Hebdon —They. have the capacity so that the water that the developer is proposing at this point, flow through a pipe from the lower pond to the large pipe on Park Lane, will not overwhelm Park Lane ... or the structures downhill. Board Member Riha -- That's the Brian Drive one right? Mr. Hebdon — That's the Brian Drive one. Board Member Riha -- And the Edwin one you're saying is feeding into a stream but you stabilized it... Mr. Hebdon — Right, we have stabilized that stream. Board Member Riha -- Are there houses below that stream on this side of 79? Mr. Hebdon -- There's 2 houses on 79 on the uphill side, and that's where the stabilization happened. Below that it just flows straight down into the Six Mile Creek. Board Member Riha -- Were they suffering from problems at all? To begin with? Mr. Hebdon — Which ones? Board Member Riha -- Those 2 houses. Mr. Hebdon — That's why we did the big stabilization, and that was before anything was in there and we split some water and redirected some things. Chairperson Wilcox — How long ago? Mr. Hebdon — About 9 years ago, and we haven't had a problem since. PB 5/15/07 Page 48 Board Member Thayer — Maybe we'll hear about that in the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — We very well might. Okay. I'm not...anything else in regard to stormwater management? Clearly we need and will want to see updated calculations. The question is do we need them today ?. Or do we feel, as a. Board, relatively comfortable with the information that's been provided and the Assistant... You're the Assistant Town Engineer, right? Mr. Hebdon — Assistant Director of Engineering. Chairperson Wilcox — ahhh there you go. ..and we have the Assistant Director of Engineering's opinion of the materials as well. Board Member Riha -- I guess one more question in relation to that is with these retention basins, dry ponds, I mean, maintenance plans because it seems like ... you know, again, inspection, there's sediment removal, but also, even trash removal, this kind of thing....Has this been a successful approach in terms of getting that to happen? I mean; we' talked a little bit about, yeah, they could be nice little ponds but, it seems like, unless somebody is actually going to put a fair amount of effort into maintaining them, they could easily be eyesores. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure if the question is to you or the applicant,, If you have something to say, go ahead and say it. Mr. Hebdon — I can just say, from the Town's side, we have some that we have maintenance agreements with. We have some subdivisions we have taken over the ponds and we . are the ones taking care of the ponds. There's always the problem where these get more and more subdivisions and we get more and more of these ponds, at what point does it become a burden to the Town. At what point do we need to put extra personnel at our maintenance department in order to take care of this. At what point do you need extra engineering help to go out and do the inspections that are required and all the other stuff that's required. But, with the, new DEC regulations, that's a larger policy issue, I think, that's going to be coming up soon. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I also noted the comment from the Conservation Board that you saw Rod, about clustering and was wondering what the rest of you thought about that. Board Member Howe — I think it's worth looking into. I just have a ... this is a step back ... If, for any of these, if we ever decided that B was the answer, what does that really mean? That it's a conditioned, not a declaration... rather than, this is for the EAF, so what does a conditioned negative declaration... Does it give you more oversight in some issues that you're concerned about as you look at the site plan review? PB 5/15/07 Page 49 Ms. Brock — A conditioned negative declaration says there won't be a significant adverse impact provided that certain conditions are met. There's a whole process you need to go through to reach that. Why don't you go on and talk about something else and let me take a quick look at the regulations and then I can come back to that. Board. Member Howe — That might be too much of a tangent, but sometimes when ... I'm just wondering what that gray area is between a negative declaration and a conditioned negative declaration. So, okay. Board Member Riha — I had some other questions on the environmental assessment form, One was, it said the approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes 0% -10% is 700 %. And it just seemed like... there's not a single... none of this property has greater than 10% slope. I mean, even looking at this diagram here ... this looks like more than 10% slope. Mr. Smith — Even some of the road profiles have 11 % or 12% numbers on them, so... Board Member Riha -- And it seems that that means that you have some larger problems. So, so I just wasn't sure why it wasn't filled in that way and then another place was...lt had to do with, I thought.... Maybe I'm missing this again ... in terms of the site and the views involved with the site ... oh, and another one was, were there's going to be any soil removed or rock removed and I'm not sure, because they are going to have to do some regarding, right? And again, they said no, nothing would be... Chairperson Wilcox — Let's ask them directly. Board Member Riha -- Yeah, so not a single rock or piece of soil is going to be removed from this site? Even with all the regrade... Mr. MacNeill -. Can you. ..would you say it for me again. Board Member Riha -- Okay. In part of this environmental assessment form, it said "would any material be removed from the site." And the response was no and yet it sounded like there was going to be a lot of regrading go on and it seemed maybe, that you might be removing some material from the site. Mr. MacNeill — We do have some material to remove. We also have to place some material on the site. There may be some... actually when houses are built, basements are dug, that material will have to be taken from the site. PB 5/15/07 Page 50 Board Member Riha -- I'm just saying, I just read through this form and that's what they ask and ... Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try, it another way. As part of building the roads, are you going to balance, cut and fill? Mr. MacNeill — Yes, as much as we can. Chairperson Wilcox — Well wait a minute. As. much as you can? There's the problem. Mr. MacNeill — Yes. We're going to balance. Actually, we do have to put some fill in on Brian Drive on the south side, in order to have the water in those ditches run to the road. That will take most of our fill. We're actually going to have to take material from Edwin Drive as it's excavated, and bring it up there to make fill. So we, in effect, we may have to bring in some fill to complete the project. And we computed it but, until we get out there and start doing it...it may be:a little bit different. Chairperson Wilcox You would agree that balancing, cut and fill is in everybody's best interests. One .it cuts down truck traffic, it cuts down many, many things. Even though you may spend a lot of time and money moving dirt around in order to create the road and other structures that need to be built. Board Member Riha -- And then, my.other question here is... "does.the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community," Well, you guys said no, but when going and looking at that site, I mean, it has spectacular scenic views and so I was also concerned. But maybe that's not part of the environmental review. Chairperson Wilcox — It is and we certainly... Board Member Riha -- The houses would not block the view of the ... the new houses ... are they going to block views, because currently, the views that you're getting from the current houses are very beautiful and you would expect that any new houses would not be impacting... would be built in a manner that wouldn't impact the current house's view. Mr. MacNeill — Yes, except that it's on the very ... sloped away. Board Member Riha -- Right. It could be done...I could see, because it's so steep of a slope, that you could, but you wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way, depending on the size of the houses and where they're located. Mr. MacNeill - Okay. Doesn't the Town have, and I am sorry that I have this question for you, oversight on what's built on the individual lots? Doesn't the PB 5/15/07 Page 51 person who is going to build on the lot have to bring his plan for the lot and so forth... Chairperson Wilcox — Then what's to address ... in terms of building permit... Mr. Kanter — But it doesn't have the same kind of site plan control that the Planning Board would normally have. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. It's not something that this Board would normally see, for example, it's simply.. Mr. Kanter — Unless the Planning Board conditioned approval of the overall subdivision with certain things. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but normally... Mr. Kanter — But that's kind of difficult to do though without knowing height of buildings, or type of buildings, or... Chairperson Wilcox — But nonetheless, there are wonderful views across the vineyard, for example,... Board Member Riha -- Right. Board Member Thayer —Absolutely, Chairperson Wilcox — Which do exist. I tried to get, when I visited the site, I didn't want to try and meander all the way up where Brian Drive is going to be so I actually went up on John Street, which is the one next to it, above, and kind of caught the view from there. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that's what I did. Board Member Riha -- So I was just concerned, since this is below, this development .is below that site, whether this development could impact the views you're getting further up slope. Board Member Hoffmann — You know, it's interesting... We don't generally consider that. What an individual house can do to block the view of another individual house when we have looked about protecting views, it's been the kind of views you can see from public places. Board Member Riha -- Yeah, so that's why I didn't know if 14 meant "does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community '..'I'm sure they are important to the community up there. PB 5/15/07 Page 52 Chairperson Wilcox — Well, if we believe there are scenic views, then we modify ... we have the (inaudible) ...to say there are significant views in that area. But the market, I think, usually determines who gets the view and who doesn't because they can price the lots higher up the hill with a slightly higher price, for example and if you want to build on the lot that's higher, significantly higher than the lot below you so that they can never obstruct your view, given a normal 36 ... maximum 36400t building height, that's what you do. Board Member Hoffmann — But one of the things we can do of course, and it comes back to clustering, we can say the houses have to be located in this one spot here. Permitting some open space across which other people can enjoy the views. And there are other benefits with clustering, too. It's an interesting question. Chairperson Wilcox — We should ... who wants ... any one of the 3 gentlemen... the Board has expressed an interest in possibly clustering on 1 part of this, would any 1 of the 3 of you want to address that specifically. Mr. MacNeill — I'm sorry, I didn't hear... Chairperson Wilcox — I apologize for mumbling. The Board is talking about, is discussing the idea of why not cluster the subdivision on the Brian Drive side. Clustering has many benefits in that it would ... it would probably reduce your infra structure costs, it would cluster the buildings, taking up less footprint on the land, it would certainly have a beneficial impact on the vegetation that's there. Now, some developers are very ... think that clustering is advantageous to them, they think that there's a market ... some developers don't, frankly. I want to hear what you have to say about clustering on this site. Mr. MacNeill — Well I think what I would rather do is ask Mr. Frandsen, who is the owner of the property, his feelings about clustering as ... that's actually smaller lots with open spaces. Chairperson Wilcox — Smaller lots, clustered together, with a lot more open space ... and if you're going to speak I need to get you near that microphone for 2 reasons, 1) it records you and 2) it amplifies for the members of the public. Mr. Wallace — I actually, if I may, speak for Mr. Frandsen. Having developed properties for, the same way, for the better part of half a century, this current methodology is what he is truly comfortable with and in terms of the issue of the view on a sloped development... and this is just a knee -jerk reaction, so please bear with me, but if one of the concerns is to mitigate a negative environmental impact of the absence of a good view from an uphill neighbor ... Mr, Frandsen and others have developed the entire side of that hill, up above these proposed developments, if I'm not mistaken, and so that, should this body, or any other PB 5/15/07 Page 53 body mandate that clustering was a requirement in order to develop the remaining parcels, it would in effect be a governmental determination as to which neighbors views were obstructed by the cluster and which neighbors had a clear view. I'm not quite sure how, really by fiat, if not by some other basis, one might decide which uphill neighbors were behind the cluster and which uphill neighbors weren't. One of the advantages on a sloped development of a non = cluster development is that there's ample space between all of the houses, so that nobody ends up with an entirely obstructed view. And I may be mistaken about this, but I don't believe that there are unlimited height restrictions for the building of residential properties in the Town of Ithaca. For example, someone couldn't build a tower there, and so that, I think in terms of mitigating against the negative environmental impact of views, a non - clustered development might actually be preferable to a clustered development. Chairperson Wilcox — I think the issue is are there significant views from this property...the answer is yes. If there are significant views, then, is there something we, collectively, think should be done. It's a totally separate determination. I think we agree that there are scenic views from this location... okay. A little bit more on clustering. You said Mr. Frandsen with not ... He's comfortable with this sort of development, I'm not going to call it cookie- cutter but, traditional subdivision. Mr. Wallace — Yes sir, and in fact, this is the schema of subdivision that. was granted preliminary approval 40 years ago by this same body. So this is what's been intended all along. I think that the stormwater mitigation efforts that the assistant engineer spoke about are, I would venture to guess, designed with the fruition of these 40 year old plans in mind, and that to do something different might have. more negative environmental impact than to do what's proposed, .I would respectfully suggest that. William Frandsen, 19 Orchard Street, Spencer I am the developer. 1 have done the other part of the subdivision. Ultimately, when everything is subdivided, each individual person that comes and looking at a house, they want to own their own piece of property. They don't want their house built half connected to another home. I think this is ideal and it has worked very successfully with me for 50 years. Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, there are individuals, maybe myself included, who are interested in more of a clustered environment. Whether it's a condominium or a townhouse. And we have developers who believe there is a market for it. It's up to this Board. Board Member Howe — Do we have to make the SEAR determination before you open it up to the public? PB 5/15/07 Page 54 Chairperson Wilcox — I would be concerned, Susan, you are sitting over there next to me, thank you very much, I would be concerned that we make a determination based upon a conventional subdivision and then we change it to cluster and we have made a SEAR determination on what's proposed. So, you were going to look up... Ms. Brock — I looked in the SEQR regulatil proposed may result However, mitigation modify the proposed will result." up conditional negative declarations, right... They' re defined ins as "a negative declaration in which the action as initially in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts . measures, identified and required by the lead agency, will action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts The process by which you would do that would be to require the completion of a full environmental assessment form, which we do have, but, you also have to have a coordinated review. And this review has not been coordinated with the other involved agencies. The Town Board will at some point; have to accept the roads and other public infrastructure, and there's a ... I think the possibility that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to grant variances for some of the lots that are deficient in terms of lot depth. Mr. Kanter —And DEC probably.. Ms. Brock — And DEC with stormwater, right, and there probably other agencies... there may be other agencies too. So you couldn't do it tonight. You'd have to do a coordinated review first, and then at the end of that whole process, you can consider a conditioned negative declaration in which you say we find that there is no potentially significant environmental impact provided that these mitigation measures are implemented and we are requiring that they be implemented for this determination to be valid. Board Member Howe — But we can do much of that any way even by saying that there's a negative declaration but we're still saying that these things need to be addressed, in site plan. Ms. Brock — In the subdivision approval... right, but the difference is if you think that there's the potential for significant adverse impact, you should give this...you should either run it through the coordinated review process and give it a conditioned declaration or you should make a positive determination. If you feel there's no potential significant adverse impact, you can nonetheless impose conditions in the subdivision approval to address impacts. You have found that they don't rise to the level of requiring an environmental impact statement, but there's still adverse impacts, they're just not significant. And this Board has done this many times in many, many other subdivisions and actions before you, where you've made a negative determination but then you imposed conditions to address runoff, steep slope issues, erosion, view shed, all of these kinds of PB 5/15/07 Page 55 things that you are talking about tonight. So you really have all of these different . options before you as to how you proceed, depending on whether you feel there is a significant impact. Chairperson Wilcox — That can not be ... that has not been mitigated by... Ms. Brock — That has not been... right. Your options are, a negative determination, because you feel there aren't any potentially significant affects, you feel they are significant, but they can be mitigated, you can do a conditioned negative declaration, if you go through the right process, or you can do a positive declaration... positive determination. Chairperson Wilcox — SEQR law ... I love SEQR law ... we spend more time on SEQR review sometimes than we do on ... which is fine ... it's appropriate... absolutely. So where are we going to go. with that. Board Member Howe — That clarified, to an extent, but it also raised some questions in my mind, like, hmmmm, maybe this is one of those examples where we need a coordinated review, so I am not sure...l am curious if anyone else feels that maybe we lean more towards a conditioned or negative declaration. Board Member Riha — which is a negative ... or a negative with conditions... Board Member Howe — The language is conditioned think we can address all of the issues if we go with the past ... We're all just cautious that we've had sc well in the past and we want to just avoid... . negative declaration. And I he negative, as we have in �ne things that didn't go so Chairperson Wilcox — Though as Creig has pointed out.. one in recent memory may have had more to do with the developer... not the. plan, but the developer and the failure to properly implement the plan. Board Member Hoffmann — But that comes back to our, to the wording in our resolution, maybe being a little insufficient. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we can put all the verbiage in we want, if they're not going to ... we don't do enforcement, and if the developer is not going to do what they are supposed to do, then we send out the enforcement people, which is what happened. Which is what happened in that particular instance we're talking about. I am trying to be polite here and not naming names... Board Member Hoffmann — But what ... are you talking about the one on the corner of Burns Road? Chairperson Wilcox — No, I'm talking about the one on South Hill on 9680 PB 5/15/07 Page 56 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes right, but there is another one which, I think is more similar to this one, where there were many more trees removed than there should have been. Do you remember that one? Board Member Howe — Yeah, yeah, yeah... Board Member Thayer — Yes, not too long ago. Board Member Howe — And that was just 3 lots, right? Board Member Hoffmann — No, I think there were 5 or 6 lots. Board Member Riha -- And on these kinds of steep slopes, the tree issue is, ..maintaining trees is very important, to reduce erosion during major... Chairperson Wilcox — Do we believe that they have sufficiently dealt with the drainage issues. Do we need to discuss it any further? Board Member Thayer — Creig is happy with it, I am happy with it. Ms. Brock — I have a question ... Who will own and maintain the detention pond? Or Ponds? Are there 2 or 1? There's 2 right? There was originally 1 and then... Board Member Riha -- Is there 1 on the other too? On Edwin? There's 2 on Brian, but then, there was supposed to be 1 before, on Edwin. Chairperson Wilcox — While you look that up, who would own the detention ponds? Mr. MacNeill — It would be dedicated... the 2 large detention ponds and the lot on which they are located would be dedicated to the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — You would want to dedicate that to the Town,. .I phrase it that way only because it would be the Town Board's decision whether to accept it or not... yes... yes... that's the only reason I phrased it that way. Which therefore would make it the Town's responsibility. Mr. Hebdon — Correct, unless you force an association in place. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, and again, that would be a policy decision by the Town Board whether they wanted, would want to accept those drainage structures and the maintenance and liability that comes with it. We were looking up.... Board Member Riha -- Edwin...the other side. There was suppose to be a dry pond up there initially. PB 5/15/07 Page 57 Chairperson Wilcox — What do we wind up with on the Edwin side? Mr. Hebdon — There's a dry swale I believe and there's a long, and there's a small detention in it in the long, and that one also has an easement for us to go . down into. Board Member Riha -- But wasn't there originally, on this older thing, I thought there was then, that swale was going to enter into another dry pond...maybe I had that wrong. Creig. Mr. Hebdon — The existing plan that ... it has a long dry swale on the backside of those lots that empties down ... they do have a structure at the end of it to slow the water down so they can only go off ...what are there ... 6 or 7 lots.there ... they can only discharge as fast as they could've discharged before. So there's going to be some water backing up into that swale until that drains out. Board Member Riha — So that swale is going to serve as kind of a detention pond? Because you can't increase, even in this, right, you can't increase the peak flow... Mr. Hebdon — Right, there will be water backing up into the swale for a period of. time. Board Member Riha — So the swale is going to be like a retention pond because during a peak flow event, you can't have that water entering the stream. It has to be retained for.... Mr. Hebdon — Correct. Ms. Brock — So Susan, do you need those new numbers, so that you can Board Member Riha -- Yeah, you don't' have those numbers, I mean, you had them before, for the old ....you know ... I couldn't ... I could read through this older one but we didn't have it for... Mr. Hebdon — I agree that there's some additional information that we sometimes get between preliminary and final. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, were you going to say something? Ms. Brock — Do we need those numbers to assess the environmental impact of the stormwater management? Board Member Riha — Well, I would say, I mean ... I don't want to seem distrusting of Creig, but without actually seeing it in writing, like we did, as I said ... this one, I PB 5/15/07 Page 58 mean, went through all those calculations, which the new proposal hasn't done yet. We haven't seen that for this new proposal. So we haven't seen this kind of summary, and on this old one, it was a little bit skeptical, to say that there wasn't going to be an environmental impact because some of the clearances were so small, and in the case of the first one, for a 100 year event, the lower pond, the maximum elevation was 1006.4 and the 100 year event was 1006.3 feet... Chairperson Wilcox — Essentially the same. Board Member Riha — Right. So that was pulling it awfully close. Board Member Howe — I think that would make me feel more comfortable. If we were to be able to vote on a negative declaration, just as a double check. Chairperson Wilcox — To have... Board Member Riha — And then see this kind of summary... Chairperson Wilcox — To have those calculations. The choice would. be to hear the applicants, their . agents, the Town Engineer or the substitute Town Engineer or the Assistant Town Engineer, Assistant Director ... I don't think Creig likes the name either ... The Assistant Professional over there ... we can either accept that and conditioned... then do we condition the environmental review on seeing those ... that's very... Ms. Brock — You can't do that. Chairperson Wilcox — That's very odd. Mr. Kanter — I think you are then saying you don't have sufficient information to make the environmental determination. Board Member Riha — That's what I am thinking more. Chairperson Wilcox — And the other choice is to say there are none, based upon the information provided and then we condition final subdivision approval on having it, and if it shows up and is such that maybe we would have made a different decision if we had that information back at, during environmental review, then we have to deal with it then. If we're comfortable, collectively, wanting to see those calculations today, so that Creig or whoever can review them, that's fine with me. That's this Board decision. I am sure the applicant isn't happy. He'll have to come back for completion of the SEQR review and preliminary approval for the subdivision, but we think we need to have that data and that Creig needs to have that information in order to make the decision, that's fine. Board Member Thayer — How does Creig feel about it? PB 5/15/07 Page 59 Mr. Hebdon — Thanks! We've done it both ways. We have done some where we take a look at the ponds and stuff and just say okay, this looks like it's going to work, because it's preliminary still and at what pond do you make them go through all the nifty gritty calculations. You look at the preliminary and you say, okay, this looks like it's going to work, just a gut check, it looks like it's going to work, it looks like all the things are sized right, between preliminary and final, we need the final.. you need to go to your engineer and pay the money to get the final calculations done. We've also had it where it comes in full full SWPPS with every number done... Chairperson Wilcox — Full what? Mr. Hebdon — What...full SWP...oh, stormwater pollution protection plan... Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Mr. Hebdon — where all the is have been crossed and the is crossed ... all the is dotted ... I'm comfortable either way really. Whatever you guys feel comfortable with. If you think that you can't look at this and say, from looking at it, that you think it's something that's going to work, then you're within your right to say we want to see the numbers before we let this one go through. Chairperson Wilcox — And we would. Mr. Hebdon - Well, we would see them before final than before preliminary. But you can ask for those before preliminary. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Board Member Riha — That's what I'm thinking. Chairperson Wilcox — And the issue here I think, has to do with the steep slopes that exist. Board Member Riha — And that you could get shallow to bedrock so you could... Chairperson Wilcox — It's a difficult site to deal with stormwater drainage, no doubt about it. Board Member Howe — I think it makes sense. Board Member Hoffmann — I do too, especially because there were some small inconsistencies in the EAF. Chairperson Wilcox — With the slopes and things like that. PB 5/15/07 Page 60 Ms. Brock — They identified some as being over 10 % ... So the question then becomes is there any additional information you want because there are slopes greater than 10 %? Regarding erosion or anything like that? Board Member Riha — Yeah, that's a good point. I don't know how many of the lots themselves, where the roads are verses the lots, but ... did the plans for the roads, I couldn't tell, did they include the grading on the slopes? And what kind of ... it's hard to tell on... Chairperson Wilcox— It's almost like we have too much information... Board Member Riha — Well these... you have the preliminary, which has the verbal stuff and some explanation of the diagrams ad then just these new diagrams... Chairperson Wilcox — It's not too much, but conflicting information.. And I know was it was provided, for background, but nonetheless, there's a lot here. Board Member Riha — Yeah, like this... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, I lost ... was there a question on the floor right now? Board Member Riha — Yeah we were asking should there be other things we want information on, given that we were a little bit concerned with the way they answered on the original environmental assessment form. And maybe, specifically, what are the significant places on this development that have these steep slopes, how are they going to address them with respect to roads. I'm not sure that's included. Chairperson Wilcox — We have cross sections of the road ... so we know the slopes of the roads, or sections of the roads. Which, 10% slope is pretty steep. Having lived on a road with a roughly 10% grade at the very top, in the winter, trying to get up it. Board Member Riha — I guess what I'd like to see is some effort to look at where you have the most steep slopes and be particularly cognizant of maintaining the vegetation, the trees, and have some thinking of addressing that in some places that have greater than 10% slopes, is there any plan to maintain vegetation. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and if we are going to consider putting some restrictions on the blocks or how much vegetation can be removed and where, then we need that sort of information. PB 5115/07 Page 61 Board Member Howe — It might behoove them to think about some clustering opportunities with that more specific information. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me start making a list here. We want to see: Calculations with regard to stormwater management, so that we can have that as information to consider as part of the environmental determination. Whether there is a significant environmental impact or not. With regard to slopes. We actually have ... we have elevations...these...these are busy... let's just say that these 2 that were provided to us are busy, but they do provide elevations. And it looks like we have....these were ' separate, they were not bound into the book... Board Member Riha — Maybe I didn't get.those... Chairperson Wilcox —This may provide us with what we need with regard to the slopes. I'm just looking at the elevations, and again, the elevations are difficult to read because there's so much stuff...there is so much on the map and also the fact that it's been reduced to 11 x 17, but that's the sort of information we are looking for. It's difficult to discern out of these because of the amount of detail that's on here with all of the other information that's provided. MR. Smith — Fred, the subdivision maps also have the existing topography on them too. It doesn't have the hashing and stuff over the top of it ... The first couple of pages in the packet ... even before that... [everyone gets on the same map} Chairperson Wilcox - Do we think that identifying the areas with slopes that are greater than 10% would be something that we need in order to consider the environmental effects? Board Member Riha — I don't know what we ... but you look at this and you look at lot C9, C11....there are some steep slopes on those lots. Mr. Smith — Yeah, and you could see that, if you walked out onto the field, because some of that has been cut in, you can see those existing slopes. Definitely those spots. Board Member Riha — Yeah, so that would be an area where you would have a high potential for erosion depending on how it gets managed. Mr. Smith — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — So that's something we want to see? Board Member Riha - Yes impacts. Ps 5/15/07 Page 62 Because it would have potential environmental Chairperson Wilcox — Okay ... try to get a consensus here ... if I have 1 person who says we need it and 4 who don't' then....) think the consensus is that this is something we want. Are there other...l am going to give you a chance to speak gentlemen, I am sure there are some comments that you would like to make....Are there other....do you want to talk about clustering? Board Member Howe — Well, I think that will derive somewhat from this additional information. Maybe it's not clustering, but I think there are some lots that you don't,.. Chairperson Wilcox — It's entirely possible that we could determine that some lots just shouldn't be created. As with any good builder, he has shoved as many lots in here as he can. They are 15,000 feet or 15,050 feet or 15, 200 and that's fine, that's fine, that's his job and I accept that. And it's our job to make sure, is it reasonable, given the conditions here. And maybe there are instances where, given the topography, there's no place to build a house. Absolutely. I don't have a problem there at all. Are there other environmental concerns that we have? Okay. If... let me put it this way... if the applicant came back and provided the information that we needed, provided the calculations, the engineering department reviewed the calculations, said that the stormwater management system was sufficient, provided the elevations, I'm not going to say elevations, we would like a map with slopes because it's easier for us to look at so we don't have to calculate slopes, and we have the slopes and we decided that either the lots configured are reasonable or maybe we have to combine a couple of Iots....Do you think we would be prepared to make some kind of an environmental determination? Because I don't want him to come back again, because of another request for information, that's not fair to anyone. Board Member Riha — Fred, does the viewshed thing come into the environmental... Chairperson Wilcox — Again that's up to us. Personally... are there views from this site, ..yes there are. Is that something that I'm concerned about. ..no. I'll let the individual lot owners deal with that as they buy lots or as Mr. Frandsen possible builds homes and they sell. You know, the environmental form says, does it exist. Yes there are views, do we think it's something that we need to deal with. I don't personally, in this case. Ps 5/15/07 Page 63 Board Member Riha — So the fact that it may negatively impact other peoples view... Chairperson Wilcox — The question is significantly affect, yes. Mr. Kanter— One thing to consider is are there any publicly significant views and there is Eastern Heights Park adjacent to it, so if there was some reason why there was a significant view form the park, then that would be something I think you could focus on. Chairperson Wilcox — Of course...then we have the park ... and the park was created with the assumption that there would be subdivision, that there would be people there using the park, yeah...Was anyone here during this subdivision... Board Member Thayer — As far as the clustering goes, I don't look at this particular development as brand new. It kind of ties in with the rest of it and the rest of it is traditional and I think it would be asking too much to.try to cluster this and it wouldn't really look in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Board Member Howe — But I do think we want to look at where there might be some lots... Board Member Thayer — Right, we talked about that. We may have to cut out a couple, three lots. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to give the applicant and his agent a chance to speak because we have been speaking around them. Richard's been making notes... Mr. Wallace — Thank you. Certainly, with regard to calculations for the stormwater management, we are happy to provide those. What I have heard here this evening is a fairly unequivocal opinion that there is ample structure in place to deal with any runoff. Both with respect to a 36 inch pipe and the re- enforcement of the creek so that, frankly, I'm not, and I also would point out that the resolution that's requested to be signed has a very clear provision that the... Chairperson Wilcox — I think that what we are saying to you today, just to make sure we're clear, we want them now. Mr. Wallace—. I understand. Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly they would be provided at a later date, if we didn't think that we needed them now. The Board has made a decision. Mr. Wallace — I understand that that is the request and my comment simply is that we have the calculations that were done in February 2007, revised PS 5/]5/07 Page 64 stormwater management plan was done, and it's referenced in the proposed resolution and it's unfortunate that what the Board has before it this evening, there are only the old pollution plans, but frankly, nobody asked us to bring those others and I suspect the reason why is because it's pretty clear, as we've heard this evening, that structures in place are more than adequate to handle any proposed run off so that, frankly, it doesn't seem fair to be asked to do this. But we are certainly prepared to do it and if the Board asks us to do it, it will be done. Chairperson Wilcox — You have been asked, thank you. Mr. Wallace — And with respect to issues of the elevations and the maps, (...there are the elevations that are clear on the maps of both of the lots and the roads that have been provided. So I guess that what I would respectfully request is some very specific clarity as to what kind of additional information this Board might be looking for. Chairperson Wilcox — What I'm hoping to see is a map similar to the 2 that have been provided with regard to Brian Drive and Edmund Drive as proposed, but instead of showing the contour lines, we have, actually, 1 foot intervals here, which is thank you very much, it would be easier for me to have a map which says, here's an area where slopes. are 0% - 5 %, or 0% - 4.9 %, 5% - 9.9 %, 10% - 14.9°/x, 15 +...I think that's kind of what I am looking for ... Susan is nodding her head... Board Member Riha — And maybe some statement about how. .what kind of protection is going to be put in place for these really steep slopes, to avoid adverse environmental impacts. Chairperson Wilcox — And when you say that, we mean during construction? Board Member Riha — Both during.. but even after the development. If you try and put lawns and driveways onto some of those slopes, you're going to have some major environmental impacts. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a different... unfortunately that's a tougher issue, because he's ... They're gonna sell the lots. Board Member Riha — Yeah, but where do we say. .oh he says these are going to be lots and they're going to have homes and driveways are going to enter into these streets...look at these lots ... C9 and C11...Those are going to be really steep driveways. One would imagine, if you're putting lawn in, you could easily have erosion going on which would then be... Chairperson Wilcox — We can re ... I think Jonathan mentioned before, we can require that certain lots, when sold, or when developed, need to come back to this Board for specific review because we feel there are such concerns about PB 5/15/07 Page 65 those individual lots that we want to see those building plans. It's very unusual. Not in my ... not sure that we've ever done that, certainly not in my memory, but if we believe a lot is so difficult to build upon or could ... would require a review, we could do that. We could also work with the developer to reconfigure the lots, possibly, so that C9 gets a little big bigger so that the buildable area, if you will, the envelope in which you can actually site the house gets a little bit bigger and... Board Member Riha -- Right and somehow the driveway can be put in in such a way that it doesn't go up that steep slope Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. And we can get into that as part of site plan, we can deal with it as part of the environmental review, but clearly, we can work with the developer to change the lots around where we think there are significant issues. Board Member Hoffmann - And one of the things that one can do with clustering is, say, for those lots C9 and C11, where there are such steep slopes from the proposed road, that it seems like it's not really buildable. One could say that those lots are not buildable and you have to rearrange it some other way. Chairperson Wilcox - We have that as part of our review, that we can ... we make the finding that that's not a buildable lot, you know, they're not going to throw away a lot, I think they would adjust the lot lines, and try. to make them a little bit bigger, make some of the other ones a little bit smaller, and that's fine. Board Member Riha - Because in my mind, that wouldn't...that ties to the question of would this have an environmental impact. Depending.on how you configure the lots, you could have an environmental impact. Chairperson Wilcox — So I think the answer to Rich's questions was, specifically, was a map which shows the slopes in, I think I mentioned, 0 -5, 5 -10; 10 -151 15+ would be very beneficial, on both sides, the Brian Drive side and the Edwin Drive side. Because both have.. .the slopes are less of a problem on Edwin Drive, but boy, there's a drop off., there is that drop off there, so I think that would be beneficial. and would help us make the better decision. Does that answer your question sir? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a request. I don't see that there is a key on these two maps, which are called af177 -wds and af178 -wds. There's no explanation of what the crosshatching means. And there are these trees indicated but, are those actually existing trees in those very spots? Have you actually gone out and done survey to that detail? Or what does this mean? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, those were those ... these are the 2 separate sheets that were not stapled into the book. They were provided... PB 5/15/07 Page 66 Mr. MacNeill — These sheets were provided by the licensed surveyor who did an actual survey to determine the grades and they are the grades that he determined in the field, are those that are shown on there. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I see the grades, but what does the crosshatching mean? Mr. MacNeill — I'm sorry. Board Member Hoffmann - There's crosshatching, lines like this, in some areas, what do they mean? Mr. MacNeill — (Chairperson Wilcox goes over to Mr. MacNeill and shows him what the question is about) Let me say that these 2 plans show, the crosshatching is where clearing will be down to build the roads, or build, if you look at the south end or the lower part of the plan, is where the detention basin and so forth would be and so it would have to be cleared, where the crosshatching is, to build the stormwater system. There is a strip across the center where the sanitary sewer is going and it's crosshatched there because the surface will be disturbed there, in order to put the sewer in. And then the crosshatching at the upper end of the plan is where the road itself will be constructed and anything in that area would have to be removed to put the road in. Actually, we don't intend, it's not our intention to touch any trees, big or small or whatever, outside of the area .where construction is going to be, which actually would disturb the trees anyway. We are going to leave all the trees in the area that we don't have to move to construct and that applies on both lands.. Now the reason that on Brian Drive, on the south side of the road, there's a big strip of crosshatch is because that's where we have to change the grade so that the water will go back towards the road. Board Member Riha — So all that will be regarded. That's a lot. Mr. MacNeill — (inaudible)... back in, but we have to raise the grade there so that the water in those detention ditches run.toward the road so that it will go down the ditch. Board Member Hoffmann — So we need to see the grading. after that's been done. Board Member Riha — Right, what it will look like after you've regarded it. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we need that for the environmental view or do we need that for...assuming we get through the environmental review, is that something we want as part of our review of the subdivision? Do we want it now or do we want it later? PB 5/15/07 Page 67 Board Member Hoffmann — I would think that we want it now. Mr. Kanter — Normally we ask for it for preliminary and also, you normally ask for volume of cut and fill materials. Board Member Riha — That would be good too, I think, to know. Board Member Howe — So where are we? Are you giving the public a chance to speak tonight? Chairperson Wilcox — You know, the public's been sitting there and they've been so quiet and we frankly appreciate it. and some of them just left us ... Normally we give the public a chance to speak. Especially when concerns with regard to site plan are environmental so we very often give them a chance to speak.as part of the environmental review and then they get a chance to speak again with regard to the public hearing with regard to the site plan and subdivision: You have been sitting there very patiently... I will give you a chance to speak very briefly this evening, if you'd like to ... as long as you stick to environmental issues ... I assume you live in that area or know something about it and can speak to it and will help us so I will give you an opportunity. I want to make sure I have taken care of these 3 gentlemen right now so they have direction in terms of what we're looking for. I think Richard's all seta From the nod of his head, he may not be happy, but he understands. . Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple of questions. In the EAF it talks about the residential lot division and then it talks about single family home subdivision and it talks about single family home in several places. And -I am wondering, is this land zoned in such a way that only single family homes are allowed? Or why are you talking about single family homes specifically? Mr. Wallace — The proposed development is to sell lots that are amenable to the construction of single family homes, it's what the developer believes is the most market worthy use of this property: Board Member Hoffmann — I don't ... well... I don't know what the rest of you think about this but, we're not even talking about the homes and we will not have any influence on what goes here and it's almost making it sound better than it's likely to be, with less traffic and less of everything, I suppose, because there are fewer residents. Board Member Riha — Right. He's giving the minimum scenario. Chairperson Wilcox — We understand... PB 5/15/07 Page 68 Board Member Thayer — But somebody might want an apartment in there, .,that's what you're saying? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, or we permit two family residences all over the Town, so, I don't understand why it says single family. Mr. Wallace — That's the proposal for purposes of selling the lots. To market them as lots for single family homes. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is sort of a generic term, if you will. Mr. Wallace —Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, used as a generic term. Yeah. We all set? Let's give the public a chance to speak, real briefly, see what they come up with. Yeah, I know,,. it's getting late. They'll be brief I'm sure. So gentlemen, I will ask that you go back and take a sear and we will give the public a chance. Again, I thank members of the public who have been very patient. Let me just give you an idea of where we are. We're not going to make a SEQR determination tonight. We're not going to proceed to a consideration of preliminary subdivision approval. We have asked the applicant to provide more information that we feel is necessary in order . to make that environmental determination. Having said that, here's your opportunity to speak now, you will have other opportunities to speak later, when they come back for ... when we continue the environmental review, we will give you a chance to speak. Should we get through the environmental review and make a determination of no significant environmental impact, then we get to the actual consideration of subdivision, that's a public hearing, you have a legal right to speak. We would be glad to hear you. I will give you an opportunity tonight if you would. like to just chime in on some of the environmental aspects . that you might be aware of because I think that's what's relevant this evening. Again, I will ask your name and address and that you stay to the point: Helene Dillard, 15 John Street, Ithaca I think what I would ask the Board to consider are the environmental impacts of additional subdivision. It's a very steep slope. You really need to go out there and walk it. It's very wet. It's wet on our property. It's going to be wetter below. I don't see how the water can be held back by the 2 proposed ponds. And even though I heard for the first time that water is caught in those 3 foot pipes, I will say, having lived there now for a few years, that on Park Street, when it rains hard, there is gravel, dirt and all kinds of stuff that didn't make it into those pipes. So either the pipes are positioned wrong, or the catch part is not positioned correctly but the water takes the gravel and everything right out into the street and I think if you asked your snowplow people, they would tell you, it's a tough road to plow. It's hard for the guy to get up the hill, it's hard for him to get down PB 5/15/01 Page 69 the hill and that's on John Street. _ I can't imagine what Brian's going to be like. And Park is just about impossible. I won't even go up that street when it's snowing. So, I think those are some real serious concerns. I would also propose a suggestion, and that is, that we do have.the park at the corner and why couldn't. some of this property be purchased to be part of the park. There's a lot of .wildlife there. I think if you had anybody from the lab of Ornithology take a look at it, there's some incredible bird life back there. There are a lot of beautiful trees, awesome vegetation. And so I would just say, it's got real potential to be part of the park. It could also be part of that ... you guys have just finished building a nice trail system along and beside Park Lane, parallel to that. I don't see why that couldn't connect up to the park behind there and be part of the trail system. It would be really nice. So that's my 2cents. Linda Hoffman, 17 John Street, Ithaca. I would just say that I reiterate what Helene has said. I think the aspect of the steep slopes is evident. I think that anybody who walks and comes .up John .Street, Park Lane, you realize that. The only thing that I would bring to the table, and it doesn't probably have a major environmental impact, is that on, this one particular map, which does not have a certain number on it, it gives all the lot indications on John Street ". We have lot 20 and lot 22, which is above us, both of those lots are not developed. But the back end of those lots, both of those lots. have had land filled, okay, so the topography is not normal to what would have been maybe 40 years ago. There is water that collects on that back end of those lots. It's not significant, but it's a low area. It's very wet down there and you know, it's sort of a buffer area, but if you were looking at Brian Drive, and the lots below those, that back end of those lots is going to have, there's that buffer zone, but it is very damp and wet back in there it's not a pleasant place, necessarily, to be. So that's on that lower, back end of that particular street. Because it has had landfill, it has just changed that topography quite a bit at that particular end of the street. And we all are concerned because there is such steep sloping and how you manage that. I lived on Warren Road and we had a creek through our property and the Town had to come out and redo and put in a larger storm drain to drain that water. So we understand that. So we just would like you to take that under consideration. Try to address that. Oh. The other thing is that, how can we receive a copy of this packet? Can we receive a copy of this, before we leave tonight? Or can we come get a copy, you know, at some other point? Is that possible? Chairperson Wilcox — We would love to share copies with you. Mr. Kanter — I could leave mine, actually. PB 5/15/07 Page 70 Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, I think at this point, the question is I don't' want to run out of copies. We get 25 copies, usually, from the developer, I just want to make sure we don't run out. Ms. Hoffman - We would appreciate that. Thank you. Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road Thank you for all of the considerations you've already said tonight. I'm going to try to hit on something that I haven't heard much about, and that is that we're pushing roads, 2 roads, into, abutting on Town parks, which is a good thing because it's access to Town parks. But I don't think I've heard very much about what happens at the end of both Brian Drive and Edwin Street, there's a turn around that's indicated on Brian Drive, and even though it's seriously sloped there, if you look around Town, anyplace that someone can pull o ver and park illegally to access a Town park, they tend to do it. And so, I would just like to hear some longer term plans about how to deal with the exclusive access to the Town's parks that are at the extreme ends of both of these brand. new roads, including what the parking situation might be. And I think that if I were someone in the neighborhood or thinking of buying a lot there, I would really seriously want to know that also. So, and I really hadn't heard that discussed very much. I think these developers did a very nice job in trying to show us trees on the 2, tree sort of maps. If I assume that these trunks are in the appropriate positions, but that we of course don't know what kinds of trees they are, I'd just like to comment that although there are many trunks that are outside the clearance line, if these.-are large canopy trees, I was always taught that the root system extends out as far as the canopy and so I think that we are potentially impinging on a great many more trees, depending on what kind of trees they are in this area than simply the sort of dotted and dashed line would indicate as the clearing line and especially when the trees are only 2 or 3 trees deep to the neighbors or 2 or 3 trees deep into the Town parks. I would like some consideration of the impact of that. And the other potential impact...) honestly don't know whether it's valid tonight for the environmental concern, is that were I a neighbor in this area immediately above John Street, Park Lane, Sharon, those streets, I would really like to know that there is going to be a ruling from this Board that construction traffic was absolutely going to be via Route 79 up Park Lane rather than going up and out. know that that's. the sensible way, anyway, but, you never can tell what some contractor's going to try to do and I think it would just be very nice for the neighborhood reassurance s to hear that you were really going to tell the construction traffic which way to go. ..(laughter)...and I meant that in the nicest possible way ... Of all the things you considered, those are the ones that I hadn't really heard touched on tonight. Thank you very much. PB 5/15/07 Page 71 Chairperson Wilcox - thank you Hollis. We all set. Real quickly, I, some of the, thank you for comments, ladies. I'think w have considered most of what you said or. will consider most of what you said. There's some,. Yll leave it at that. Hollis, think most of your issues are site plan, I know that in the materials there was some question about the hammerhead at the east side of Brian Drive and how we prevent people from parking there. There's also the desire to get easy access to the Town park and maybe a small right -of -way there as well. Hollis is right about ensuring that construction traffic comes off of 79 rather than meandering off of Snyder Hill Road through the neighborhoods, and we'll take care of that at the appropriate time, I am sure. Jon. Mr. Kanter - You were talking about the slope map, on the topo of the map, which I think is good. Is anybody bothered by the fact that the topo map for the Brian Drive site does not have all of the topo shown on it? Board Member Riha - Yeah I was ... did they re -grade all this or what? Board Member Thayer - You're right. Mr. Kanter - And in fact, the topo is available because when you look in the stormwater pollution control plan, those maps have the topo. So what I would suggest is that the new slope map also have the full topo which will be extrapolated from that other map. Board Member Thayer - Good point. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set ... are you all set back there Richard? guess you're. :,all set. ..very good. Thank you all very much. Mr. Kanter — SEQR review...) think Susan wants to... Ms. Brock - If you think you might have any interest in doing a conditioned negative declaration, .then we should do a coordinated review and that takes.... Chairperson Wilcox — I get the sense that we're not there. What we want is more information, which can be reviewed, which personally, I think will support what the applicant said, but we want the calculations. We want to see that. But.. Board Member Howe — It was helpful to just know that. Chairperson Wilcox— But I think, Rod, we're all set right now. Ms. Brock — Okay. I just wanted to know if you wanted to start the coordinated... Mr. Kanter — because if you decide later that you do want to a conditioned neg dec, we'd have to start all over. PB 5/15/07 Page 72 Chairperson Wilcox — I understand. I think we're in good shape, right Rod? Okay. Thank you very much gentlemen, and ladies, I appreciate it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, we got a couple more things to do. MINUTES Chairperson Wilcox — I hereby move the minutes of May 1St... seconded... Eva, you have your changes... 1. Board Member Hoffmann — I have some comments, but I have to abstain because I only had time to read what I said, I haven't read the whole minutes. Board Member Riha — And I wasn't there, so... Chairperson Wilcox — I don't have 4 ... I'll withdraw my motion ... who seconded it....I'll withdraw.... we'll take it up at the next meeting and we will take care of the 1 st at that point. OTHER BUSINESS Announcement from the Conservation Board about the tree planting. Message to Cornell about the Entrance Gateway Do we want to direct Staff, looking at Jon, poor Jon, he doesn't have enough to do and I know that... Mr. Kanter — I'd be glad to do it, I just can't tell you when it would come back. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we would like to pass a resolution in support of this Gateway Entrance which will divert traffic from Forest Home onto the campus from other means, that's the goal, but... Mr. Kanter — Actually I wouldn't characterize it as diverting traffic from Forest Home that implies you are taking it from Forest Home, it is to stop traffic from getting into Forest Home... Chairperson Wilcox — Exactly. That's why Susan said we want to discuss it and get all the verbiage correct. But that's important to us and I think we brought that up actually, Susan, before you were on, when we first saw the plans for the childcare center and we said wait a minute, what about this Gateway. PB 5/15/07 Page 73 Alternates to the Planning Board Chairperson Wilcox = My information is that the Town Board will have an agenda item for their June meeting for alternates to the Planning Board. Is it reasonable to think that they might appoint an alternate at the June meeting? Mr. Kanter — It's possible. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I don't know exactly what the agenda item will be, but if it could include...not sure either ... and I'm not sure the agenda's been created yet, but they would meet the first Monday after the first Tuesday, right, is their meeting time... Mr. Kanter —June 9th, maybe... Chairperson Wilcox — So it is possible that they could appoint an alternate to this Board. That would give us 7 full members plus an alternate. The alternate would come to every meeting, and should a member not be able to attend or should a member not be able to vote, they recuse themselves, for example, then the alternate would vote in their place. So that's the story on alternates. Next Meeting Agenda Mr. Kanter — June 5th meting, we have Cornell scheduled to come in and give an update on the TEIGS because it's been awhile since we've heard from them and that actually might be a fairly... Chairperson Wilcox — Transportation Focus GEIS, yeah, for Susan's benefit. Mr. Kanter — Yes, we have to stop using these abbreviations ... Trinity Lutheran Church is coming in with a new playground structure. Should be pretty basic. Chairperson Wilcox — They're on Honess Lane. Mr. Kanter — Biggs Building demolition. They're proposing a new fill disposal site. They ran out of room at the current fill site and need a little bit more space. There is another site at the hospital property which looks like it could be fairly... Chairperson Wilcox — We could ask them about the one we discovered when we approved this project. The one that they had down the hill next to the trail. Mr. Kanter — And then there's a sketch plan for the Cayuga Cliffs subdivision, off of Route 96. That's the remaining, speaking of slopes, sloping property, behind PRI and in that area. The back part of the slope is in the conservation zone. There are some interesting things about it that we won't tell you about now, but... PB 5/15/07 Page 74 Chairperson Wilcox — I know some things just through other committees and groups I sit on. Mr. Kanter — So that's coming in for sketch plan. We thought we would have the Cornell Sailing Center in but apparently they still need to do a little bit more work, so that will be.... Chairperson Wilcox — Is that it? Sounds like fun. My word is that.your boss is doing just fine. I'm not sure when he'll be back? Mr. Hebdon — Maybe next week, but probably after Memorial Day. Board Member Howe — Should I have said that my boss was in the audience tonight? Board Member Riha — Helen Dillard, she's the head of the Cornell Cooperative Extension. Board Member Howe — Was I the only one that missed the visit to the Caremoore property? Will there be another chance ... I really wanted to get there and I just got held up. Chairperson Wilcox — It was a hayride, with refreshments. Motion to adjourn at 10:05. Respq�q%ully submitted, c Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 15, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Child Care Center project located north of Cornell University's A- Lot parking area along Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 14- 4-2.2) and the Town of Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low Density Residential in the Town.: The entire project includes the construction of a +/- 14,880 gross square foot child care facility for approximately 158 children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along with new parking, stormwater facilities, lighting, and landscaping. The portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a sidewalk, utility lines, and a fence. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoetzlein, R.A., Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Moakley House Renovations, 213 Warren Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The alterations include replacing the roof shingles, installing pitched roofs over existing flat dormers, replacing windows, replacing an existing chimney with a new metal chimney, and adding a new stone veneer to the exterior facade. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Charles B. Ackerman II, LeChase Construction Services, LLC, Agent, 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: LaTourelle Country Inn — Pool, 1150 Danby Road. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed pool project at the LaTourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The project involves the construction of a new 20 foot circular outdoor pool on the north side of the existing building near the spa addition. The project will also include two hot tubs adjacent to the pool, a 10' x 10' equipment shed, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and three new wooden gazebo's located around the property. Walter Wiggins, Owner /Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the Final Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 1015 +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Copies of the Final Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (607- 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website: www.town.ithaca.ny.us. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, May 15, 2007 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Child Care Center project located north of Cornell University's A -Lot parking area along Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 14- 4 -2.2) and the Town of Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low Density Residential in the Town. The entire project includes the construction of a +/- 14,880 gross square foot child care facility for approximately 158 children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along with new parking, stormwater facilities, lighting, and landscaping. The portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a sidewalk, utility lines, and a fence. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoetzlein, R.A., Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed alterations to the Cornell University Moakley House located on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course at 213 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The alterations include replacing the roof shingles, installing pitched roofs over existing flat dormers, replacing windows, replacing an existing chimney with a new metal chimney, and adding a new stone veneer to the exterior fagade. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Charles B. Ackerman II, LeChase Construction Services, LLC, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed pool project at the LaTourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The project involves the construction of a new 20 foot circular outdoor pool on the north side of. the existing building near the spa addition. The project will also include two hot tubs adjacent to the pool, a 10' x 10' equipment shed, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and three new wooden gazebo's located around the property. Walter Wiggins, Owner /Applicant. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 23 -lot subdivision located off Park Lane south of John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 56 -3 -13.2, 56 -3- 13.36, and 57- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of two new Town roads 4to provide access to 22 new residential lots and one lot reserved for stormwater facilities. The proposed Edwin Drive is located on the west side of Park Lane and will contain 6 residential lots while the proposed Brian Drive is on the east side of Park Lane and contains 16 residential lots. William P. Frandsen, Owner /Applicant; John S. MacNeill, Jr., Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, May 7, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 c _ Wednesday, May9, 2007 I THE ITHACA JOURNAL :` At- g Wit h• new r ' ° -pa nwater <facilifies; 'and landscaping'., on of, the4pr,?"ect I wlthinr °the': -I owl at`,LI3 v n u v a e = n Town:.of Rhaca Tax; P: No: 681`9, -Low_ N aids -16 residential lots : Nilliam t P - _,?f,,randsen Dwner /Applicant;• John S , MacNeill; Jr.; Agent , v, Sgid`Planning Board will; at said tim "e and said;Plac.6 heardll persons in'support of such matter or objections. tiier'eto','. Persons >may ap ont 6Ats7 or :other 'special ;II; need's; will-.'be °provided with` assistance as•necess6i eN�ry, -,upon; request `Persons, desiring assistance, must, make . such a " request -nor, less' than 48 "hours prior to ;'the. time t:of -the .public;' hearing Kanter, AICP, ector of Planning .'- 273 = 1747' Dated Monday, Ma 7, 2007 Pula) sh Wednesday;'' IMM Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street May 15, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You (Name rt'�i S `s A7r�clr� r� J Address �- 61c c. 17 S .1 lA c AJ 1 �:l re R83 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 May 15, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: May 7, 2007 May 9, 2007 Qo-p � Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 91h day of May 2007, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 «