The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2008-04-22FILE DATE Sid -a� PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rod Howe, Chair; Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Fred Wilcox, Susan Riha, and Hollis Erb STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS: Rick Couture, Ithaca College David Herrick, TG Miller Architects and Surveyors Tim Smallenberger, Sub - contractor with Moody Nolan Maria Coles, Common Council, City of Ithaca Stephen Rogers, CoddingtonRoad Melinda Staniszewska, Coddington Road Rich DePaolo, Lakeview Road Call to Order: Chairman Rod Howe called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and stated there were no Public Hearings scheduled for this evening. Neighbors were notified about the scheduled discussion regarding the acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center. The fire exits were identified and he requested that cell phones be turned off. Chairperson Howe — Maybe we will just talk a little bit about the process for tonight and see if we are in agreement on how to handle that. I think we will first see if there are any persons to be heard, even if it's for the Athletic Center. Just spend a few minutes on that, and then we might ask Staff to just talk briefly about how this comprehensive document came together. I mean, it's pretty self- evident, but maybe just a couple of ... a few minutes about how this came together. Then I would like to recommend...) don't think we'll need a formal presentation for this piece, certainly we have folks here to answer questions that come up ... I would like to recommend that we start first with the four pages that have been noted with some specific input needed from us. Cover that, and then we'll ask what other issues we need to cover, and go from there. We will probably talk a little bit about, if we need to be reminded, about what goes into a Findings Statement, and Jonathan has actually brought copies of a Findings Statement from a previous initiative, EcoVillage Second Neighborhood, just to remind us what goes into a Finding Statement. We'll have discussion, obviously, and then I think I would like to recommend that we vote on this (FEIS). PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 2 Then move into a discussion and probably ask for a bit of a presentation on any changes on the Preliminary Site Plan Approval. So sort of really do a couple of these and we'll start with the FEIS. Does that make sense? (Board Members nod agreement) Chairperson Howe — Are there any persons to be heard this evening? Persons To Be Heard Person #1 — Thank you. I am Maria Coles, I represent this area of the City on Common Council for the City of Ithaca and I want to thank you, very much, for this opportunity to address this group, and I apologize for not having done so earlier. I am very aware of the City's comments that have been sent to all the proper authorities about this project, and, but, I'm not here to talk about that. I'm not here to talk about traffic concerns, which are very serious; I'm not here to talk about stormwater runoff, which is also a huge concern of mine. My immediate concern, to me, tonight, is the trail that is part of the project. Now, as Jonathan knows, trails are very important to me and, in fact, I have been working with members of the Town Board on trails for West Hill. This planned trail is not, in my opinion, a good thing to do, and I say so on the basis of knowing what I know about the attitude of some students, certainly not all, that is quite frankly, appalling. What do I know: One constituent of mine told me that she heard a ruckus in her backyard and she went out to investigate what was happening, and she found one very drunken student on the brink of falling into the gorge and a spit second, his friend, who was just behind him, pulled him back. She was able to call the Ithaca Police and they were collected into one of the police cars and taken to the hospital. Now, the reason why I have gone through this story is because the concern about student behavior on South Hill is two -fold. It is for the safety of the students themselves who do not know what they do at certain times. And I know that repeatedly ambulances and police cars have had to be called to literally save their lives. A trail would not allow such an access. I would also like to say to you that the, whatever the problems are with Coddington Road with pedestrians, that should not be a reason for building a trail that would then visit whatever problems might be (inaudible) to pedestrians on Coddington Road onto people who are virtual living and quite frankly need to get up in the morning and go to work. I suggest that the way to remedy the problem of pedestrians is to make sure that you do have a sidewalk on Coddington Road and not impose this dreadful burden on residents, and believe me, I know what a burden it is because it has taken a good five years for the City to begin to get the problem under control. And as I said, it is a two- fold problem. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 3 So, I do hope you keep this in mind. I do plan to also contact Ithaca College about this because it is not something that should be overlooked. That is the concerns that I have and some of my colleagues on Common Council have. Thank you very much. Person #2 — Steve Rogers. I think you are sort of familiar with our position on the planned path. We're opposed to it. I will hand you a petition that we passed around amongst the residents who will be most closely affected. I will read it to you, it's very brief. Chairperson Howe — Can you speak louder so that people behind you can hear as well. Mr. Rogers — Sure. We the undersigned residents of Coddington Road in the City and Town of Ithaca owning properties located in the 100 and 200 blocks of Coddington Road, extending from near the City line to the back entrance of Ithaca College oppose the Phase 1A segment of the pedestrian bike trail proposed by Ithaca College as part of its Athletic and Events Center project. The proposed trail will bring foot and bicycle traffic along our back property lines, infringe on our privacy with dusk to dawn lighting, create noise at all hours of the day and night, and produce litter and opportunities for property damage. The trail will deprive us of our right to enjoy our homes and yards in peace and quiet and will have a profound negative effect on our property values. As residents and tax payers, we expect our municipal representatives, elected and appointed, to protect and improve our neighborhoods. The place for pedestrian bike traffic is on a sidewalk and bike lane on Coddington Road. We strongly urge the Town of Ithaca to work with Ithaca College, Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca to take steps to design and construct a sidewalk and bike lane in the urban corridor of Coddington Road from the back entrance of Ithaca College to the City line. And I'll hand this in. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? Person #3 — Thank you. My name is Melinda Staniszewska, I live at 220 Coddington Road. I bought it recently and it's my retirement home and I intend to resurrect the garden that was left behind by the original owners who happen to be the Hockett family for which the Hockett Family Recital Hall is named in honor of their donation. It's a beautiful house. It has a 200 -foot lot. Toward the back I have some peace and quiet. Toward the front, I have Coddington Road, I understand that. You have my comments to the impact statement that I sent to you and I'm trying to point out to Mr. Walker that we have wetlands behind us. The fill hill and Z Parking Lot have caused a lot of runoff and erosion and the property where they were going to consider this trail is wet to this PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 4 day and we haven't had rain in over 10 days. There's discolored water in this area, and I'd like to see it, if not form a wetland, I'd like to see it reforested and remain as land that compensates for land that may be taken away elsewhere. The Hocketts never had water in their basement and over the years, recent owners have had water in the basement. I have had to install a sump -pump that works even now even when the surface water is not from rain. So we know that we've got shale, it's that kind of land, and the amount of paving above our properties have increased the water in basements of my neighbors as well. I have spoken with them and I have talked with people who have been there for over 10 years and they have all seen an increase in the water flow underground. So I thank you for my comments. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? Person #4 — Hi. Rich DePaolo, Lakeview Road, Ithaca. I presume that we are fairly well along in the process, but I would like to speak to one element of the project. In case I haven't addressed it before, I think that the eastern -most connector road, or whatever it is that is proposed to be built through the woods there, that to me is the most objectionable and potentially most intrusive component of the project as it currently exists. I can understand the designer's desire to keep the pedestrian ways within the exterior loop, and that's all well and good if your looking at the project as sort of an insular, utopian society within this little bubble, but it's not. And I strongly recommend that you do whatever you can do, given the realities of the topography there, to ask Ithaca College to share that burden so that we are not unnecessarily clearing trees where they wouldn't otherwise have to be cleared. And that keeps the entire project, the perimeter of the entire project as far away from the neighboring Coddington properties as possible. So I understand that (inaudible) but I just wanted to state that for the record. Board Member Hoffmann — You mentioned something.... if you wouldn't mind coming back up again ... (Mr. DiPaolo returns) ... I noticed that you had provided, you sent a letter and you provided some maps with an overlay of the planned proposal, and it was very helpful. I noticed that it looked like you perhaps had been using an older plan... Mr. DiPaolo — I was using whatever map I got from the DEIS. So, I referenced the figure in the letter ... I'm song, I don't have it with me right now. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't know if you want to come up and see what we have ... does somebody know what page the photos are on ... Ohl I found it., there is a loop road which connects the large, elongated lot up hill from the Towers, through the forest with the parking lot in front of the Events Center...that seems to be gone ... that seems to be gone now. That loop road seems to be gone now. Mr. DiPaolo — Is that gone because it's not part of Phase 1 or is that gone ... just gone? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 5 Board Member Hoffmann — Well we can confirm it with the applicants, but I don't see it on any of the plans that we have gotten more recently... Mr. DiPaolo — Okay. Thank you for that. I was referring to the other part of that road that connects to the existing entrance off of Coddington Road right now. The eastern- most part, not the southern -most part, but I appreciate you bringing that up and I will take a look at that again. Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — There's like an extra loop that was there in the photos you sent us but that seems to be gone. Mr. DiPaolo — Well, it was in the DEIS so I don't know if that really reflects what is currently being proposed or not. Board Member Hoffmann — It would be nice if somebody came up and confirmed that. Chairperson Howe — Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. We're going to move forward then, and, again, I think this is pretty self explanatory but I.., is there a staff person who wants to briefly say all the work that went into this and the discussions. Mr. Kanter — Maybe Mike could just give the Board a flavor of what Staff did with the applicants prior to this being put together. Mr. Smith — We had, obviously, as you can see in here, we have all the public comments, the letters that were submitted, along with the meeting notes from the public hearing. And taking those, and with the applicant, went through and grouped them together, organized them into what was the substantial comments. They are split out, which ones were site plan, those types of comments, then they were grouped together, you can see in that matrix and then put together, answered the questions with the response, and then from there, there was two or three that needed additional comments, are the ones that were highlighted for the Board to look at. But most of them were stormwater, transportation, those type of things were grouped together so it wasn't multiple responses, but at that point....And then you can see, in the back, there are a couple of additional appendices that the applicants have provided with some of the new information on the wetlands, or some of the other supporting information. Chairperson Howe —Anyone have questions about... Board Member Erb — I thought it was quite a bit of work and quite helpful. Board Member Riha — Good job. Board Member Wilcox — I was surprised to see the letter from Joel Harlan, Board Member Thayer — I was too. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 6 Board Member Wilcox — I was... surprised, but also impressed. Board Member Thayer — Apparently he's been ill or something... Chairperson Howe — So I think we agree that we will turn our attention first to pages 16, 27, 30 and 31 and we will find what are the issues we want to talk about. So if you want to turn to page 16, and this has to do with the pedestrian bike trail, and in the letter from Mike and Jonathan, there's also some potential language that could be added if you think it makes sense to add. And do you want ... the County TIP, do you want to just comment on the County TIP and what that reference is? Mr. Kanter — Well, that's the County Transportation Improvement Program, which is where funding for projects like Coddington Road would come from. So I think the statement we provided is pretty self - explanatory but basically the summary is that there is no funding for this part of Coddington Road for any part of the road improvement project. And now even the remote part of Coddington Road is in question because there was a lawsuit brought by Town residents in that area and the Supreme Court basically supported the opposition... well, supported the claims against the project at this point. So I think the County is trying to figure out how to even get that part of the project back on the table. Chairperson Howe — And I believe this is one of the changes that has been made to the site plan review altering the course a bit of the pedestrian trail so if we have questions as that comes up. Susan? Board Member Riha — So I had a couple of questions. So Jonathan, there is almost no chance right now that in the near term that sidewalks will be put in along Coddington Road. Mr. Kanter — Well, not unless the Town Board decided to entirely fund a sidewalk project regardless of the road improvement project. That is always a possibility, but that is not something that has been done before. Board Member Riha — Okay because I'm concerned that there's a way for students from Ithaca College to safely walk between Ithaca College and the downtown of Ithaca. It just seems like we need to address that issue and without that sidewalk it means they are walking along the edge of or walking along a path. They already seem to be walking along that path. When you look at aerial photographs there's already a path there, but say they were forced to move down and walk along Coddington Road that would be their only alternative, right? Mr. Kanter — Yes. And, you know, actually, I mean this is staffs point of view, I think, but the formalizing of those informal walking areas on the campus will certainly make them safer. They will have the blue light and emergency phone signals and all that. So, you know, potentially, there's an opportunity for the College to take a hold of that situation and improve it as opposed to let it deteriorate further. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 7 Board Member Riha — So one more question. Their proposed path would connect to, what is it called, the South Hill Walkway? Mr. Kanter — South Hill Recreation Way, Board Member Riha — So there's no plan to not allow a two...end the South Hill Recreation pathway, right? I mean these students go along that pathway, right? Board Member Erb — You mean to close it? Board Member Riha — To close it? Mr. Kanter — There are times of the night when nobody is supposed to be on that pathway because it's in effect a park and recreation facility. So it supposedly closes a half hour after sunset, but ... and the Town certainly has no plans at this point to light the South Hill Recreation Way. Board Member Wilcox — If I may, the South Hill Recreation Way is not ... its primary purpose is not for Ithaca College students to move from one place to another given its location on the east side of Coddington Road. There are probably some students who live on Pennsylvania or Kendall that might be able to take advantage of it. The purpose of the path here, the trail here that has caused as much controversy it is, is to get students who live on this particular side of campus where the athletic and events center is located, to get them to the intersection of Coddington Road and Hudson Street, Board Member Riha — And then they'd go down Hudson Street. Board Member Wilcox — And then you have sidewalks, which take you down Hudson Street or wider shoulders on Coddington Road if you are going to head towards some of the fine food establishments located on south hill. That's its primary purpose right now. Board Member Thayer — So we relocated that or the applicant has relocated that trail within the College itself, right? Board Member Wilcox — It's been moved so many times I'm not sure... Board Member Thayer — I wonder if they're really familiar with that and if we could see where it is now as opposed to where it was it might clear up some issues, perhaps. Board Member Wilcox — How many maps did you bring? Chairperson Howe — Well and we have it in the site plan review. Board Member Thayer — I wonder if the public is aware of the fact that it has been moved. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 8 Board Member Wilcox — That it has been moved again. Chairperson Howe — So let Eva say something and then maybe you are able to comment on how you are seeing it changed based on comments. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I think their comments on page 16 and the ones on 26, 27 are connected. Board Member Thayer — I do, too. Board Member Hoffmann — One of the things that I remembered when I was reading this is when Cornell University renovated Maplewood Apartments when Shirley Raffensperger was supervisor in the town, if I remember correctly. It was possible at that time to work out an agreement so that Cornell University and the Town jointly arranged to finance and build a sidewalk for those students as well as everybody else in the town and the city to have a sidewalk from Maplewood apartments up to East Hill Plaza and I don't see why that couldn't be done here. It would mean that Ithaca College would have to help finance but it's in their interest, I would think, for their students to be able to travel safely and it's in their interest as well, I would think, to be good neighbors to the people who live along Coddington Road. It seems to me that that would be a desirable solution in this case. Not to have the path in the back of these residents' back yards, but to have an actual sidewalk on Coddington Road, which would benefit both Ithaca College community, both students and faculty and staff, as well as residents in the City and the Town. Board Member Riha — I hear what you're saying, Eva, but it seems like we have so many problems getting residents to agree to have sidewalks, but maybe this group would be more in agree ... I mean having almost run into 4 pedestrians on Hanshaw Road when I drove here tonight... Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not talking about sidewalks along the whole of Coddington Road. I'm talking about this stretch between the back entrance from Coddington Road into Ithaca College and up to the City line or wherever the sidewalk is that exists now to make a continuous sidewalk to downtown or other neighborhoods. Chairperson Howe — Did somebody want to comment? Board Member Riha — Yeah, because given that that's a County road, is that even a possibility? Board Member Thayer — That's the problem. Mr. Walker — It is a County road and the Maplewood apartments that Eva is talking about that was on, I forgot the name of the road now... Board Member Hoffmann — That's on Mitchell Street. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 9 Mr. Walker – Thank you very much, Eva. Mitchell Street — there's a connectivity between the Maplewood apartments and the East Hill Plaza area, which was a critical thing and it was a combination of Cornell providing funding and the Town built a walkway along Mitchell Street between... Cornell built it at the Maplewood Apartment site and the Town built it between Maplewood, along the cemetery property, up to the Ide's plaza area and then actually the Ide's people built it through their site and then, you know, there was a consortium. Board Member Hoffmann – Cooperation. Mr. Walker – There was cooperation. There are some differences. They are both county roads. Mitchell Street had an obstacle being the wall at the cemetery but there was sufficient space between that and it was fairly level so it was not very complicated to build it. It did not require any additional easements beyond the highway right -of -way. On Coddington Road, there are issues about what the County actually owns and can utilize on that road and the topography is a little more complicated because of the steepness of the slopes up to the houses. Could it be done? Yes. It would require probably a higher level or higher cost per foot than we did on Mitchell Street and much more cooperation and easements or acquiring land from neighboring residents, but ... because we have the houses so close to the road on Coddington Road. It could be done. I think the path that Ithaca College has or is proposing behind the houses down to the Hudson Street Coddington Road intersection is a very good solution to providing a path for the students to walk on. Granted it does not actually improve the pedestrian traffic right on Coddington Road, but there should be no need for them to go on Coddington Road if they meet down at that intersection on the back lot path. So anything is possible. 1. Board Member Hoffmann – Yes, but I'm looking at not just Ithaca College, but Ithaca College and the rest of the community. And something that would benefit everybody, seems to me, to be better. And perhaps the County could even, even though the County didn't get money to do this, outside money, to fund this, maybe it could be funded jointly with the County as well. Chairperson Howe – I think tonight we have to be careful to focus on what we have control over and I'm not actually opposed to the trail for the reason that Dan has articulated. I do want to see it as the language here suggests, mitigated, to have reduced impacts. Maybe you could just explain how you are seeing changing it from previous proposals. And if anyone needs to come up and get a better view... David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors The changes that we made and I do believe they are depicted in, specifically drawing LH102, include moving the trail as far west as possible towards the toe of the existing fill slope. The previous proposal in the prior preliminary application had the trail centered more within that open space between the property lines and toe of the fill slope. So our alignment change has been to push that as far west as possible. There are numbers that are quoted in the FEIS as to what the minimum and maximum separation distances PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 10 are. The property that isn't owned by the College on Coddington Road, the parcel furthest to the north before you go into the City of Ithaca, the separation from the property line to the edge of the trail is roughly 10 feet. As you progress to the south, you get down to number 220 and the separation distance from the trail to the back of the property line is over 100 feet. So there is 10 feet to 100 and 10 feet roughly is the swing in the range of distances. We've also included within the uphill side of the trail an additional swale that would be collecting any surface water and ground water that may migrate out of the fill slope, which is piped or conveyed down into the new wetland stormwater management practice. So we think this is as positive of a response to mitigation as can physically be done at this point short of some of the deliberations you are having now regarding a completely new location. Chairperson Howe — And if you note in the suggested language it does talk about needing more plantings, certainly careful lighting, consideration of lighting. So I think that there's some ... I think that there's some good language here. So what I think we are going to have to do is just get a sense from the Board whether we're comfortable. We like some of the language in this document put together by Michael and Jonathan and how we move forward. So I've already expressed that I'm comfortable. Why don't we go around just so we have some sense and whether we can move because we have enough... Board Member Hoffmann — For the reasons that I already stated I would prefer the sidewalk along Coddington Road over this walkway. What I didn't state is that I feel that because of this walkway being lit and because as we have heard from many of the residents it's likely to be used at all hours by drunk people, mainly students I imagine, that it's too much of a disturbance to them on their property. They are going to get disturbed from traffic on Coddington Road in their front yards as well as in their backyards and I think that is asking too much when it would be possible to have the sidewalk going not that much further away and the sidewalk would benefit other people in the community, too. Chairperson Howe — George? Board Member Conneman — Well I'm a little...) would prefer the sidewalk solution, too, because I think to infringe on the neighbors is not very fair. Chairperson Howe — But is it fair to say there is not a sidewalk solution right now? Board Member Conneman — Well, lots of times we hear there is no solution, but... Board Member Riha — Well, I guess I also see looking at LH102 that this sidewalk would actually be much closer to their house ... their houses than the proposed path. So if we are assuming there is the same number of drunken, rowdy students they are going to be passing even closer to their houses. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 11 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but they are probably going to be there anyway, I suspect, along the street. Not just walking, but in cars and making all kinds of other noise. And I think in your front yard you tend to expect to have disturbance from traffic. And so I think that would be preferable if they could have some peace and quiet in their back yard. Chairperson Howe — Larry? Board Member Thayer — I'm comfortable with it. We need to talk about the lighting. We need to talk about some more shrubbery like you mentioned. I think they've done everything we've asked them to do. Board Member Riha — Yeah. I'm comfortable because I just feel like we need a welklit path for these students to travel along and given that the likelihood of getting a sidewalk the Coddington Road is not very probable in the near future, I think it's only responsible that Ithaca College propose something like that for its students and for their safety. Chairperson Howe — And I think, just so I'm clear, that all we are looking for in the FEIS is the kind of language that is here already. Board Member Riha — Right. Chairperson Howe — It would be in the site plan where we would look for the specific plantings and the kind of lighting. Board Member Thayer — Right. Mr. Kanter — Actually in the findings statement as well you can start getting more specific about those things. Chairperson Howe — Hollis? Board Member Erb — Everything Susan as soon as we do even more mitigation raise the issue of fencing or the kind c able to pass through. But at this point I I would rather get them farther away on College has to maintain the sidewalk. Chairperson Howe — Fred? just said. I'm going to be comfortable with this on it. I am expecting that and I'm even going to f dense shrubs that won't allow students to be see it as a limited pool of drunken students and Ithaca College's own property and where Ithaca Board Member Wilcox — Couple of things. Maria Coles brought up an interesting point about the ability for emergency personnel to get to a person distressed on a sidewalk at a public thoroughfare easier than one could do it for example on a trail. And the point is well made, but we could when we go to site plan review ask that these particular trails be wide enough and built so that an emergency vehicle could traverse and get to PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 12 someone at a blue light who is in distress or needs help or a buddy who has called in a distress call. Someone talked about the expectation of peace and quiet in their backyard. You know, I don't know if your property borders a College I'm not sure what your expectation is of peace of quiet in the rear yard. I also have lived ... I lived on Juniper Drive for 18 years. So drove up and down Coddington Road everyday more than once, especially in the spring and fall when I saw the students at 1 am and 2 am walking up and down the middle of the road probably not knowing where they were. It is dangerous especially on a warm night. We need to get them off the road. I'm concerned if you put a sidewalk they would still walk up the middle of the road. I'm concerned if you put a path on Ithaca College's property they're still going to walk up the middle of the road, but at least we have a safe alternative. You know. At least they've got something. Right now they do not have a safe alternative. They have a narrow road. The houses are close to the road. There is a steep slope on one side as Dan knows. The property owners probably own out to the...probably own the right -of -way anyways based upon some of the court action that has gone on recently. I'd love a sidewalk there but it isn't going to happen —not soon enough. Site plan, we'll worry about the lighting. We'll worry about shrubbery to possibly visual screening and possibly some noise screening. Lights will have to be designed so that they focus down. Emergency vehicles will have to be.. to get there. Board Member Thayer – It's an interesting note that it actually could enhance the property values. Board Member Wilcox – The statement is in here that the path could enhance the property values. It is. Who wrote that? Mike? Jon? Another member of staff? Mr. Kanter –Which part? Chairperson Howe – Property values could potentially be enhanced by a trail. Board Member Conneman – Would you include a fence, Fred? Board Member Wilcox – Would I put a fence? Possibly. Possibly. Yeah, Board Member Hoffmann – I think a sidewalk could happen. It's just a matter of us having the will to require it and that's what happened up at with Maplewood and East Hill Plaza. Board Member Wilcox – I don't want to get into a public argument. We can't tell the County what to do number 1. Number 2, ignoring the issues of that corridor, unlike the Mitchell Street where you had how many property owners, Dan? 4? Mr. Walker – Basically one big ... well you had Cornell, Ide's, and the cemetery. Board Member Wilcox – Here we have each individual homeowner who is a property owner who would have to agree to give up land. Potentially. Potentially each property PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 13 owner.. we have this court case going on, I understand that, but it's possible that each homeowner may have to give up a piece of land and there are a sizeable number of homeowners. Mr. Walker — That depends on the configuration of the road, too. I think they could stay within what's considered the right -of -way. A sidewalk on Coddington Road if I was the engineer trying to build it would definitely be on the downhill side of the road, the side away from Ithaca College, which they have a crosswalk to get over there anyhow, but if you put the sidewalk there it is literary within 10 feet of front stoops of the houses and people are parking their cars there now. There's a lot of coordination. The principal advantage... Ithaca College controls the site where they are proposing the path. They have really no absolute control over what happens on Coddington Road. So they have the capability and the right to make the path happen. It's a given. It can be done. There's a lot of unknowns on Coddington Road. Board Member Wilcox — Let's go back to the East Hill Plaza or the Rite Aid when we wanted a crosswalk across Pine Tree Road. We couldn't say to the developer you will put it there. They essentially had to negotiate with the County because it's a county road. I'm not sure that we eventually got what we wanted but we certainly got something there. Chairperson Howe — There's lots of topics we have to cover tonight. So Eva, is there something. ..is there a new comment about this issue or can we move on? Board Member Conneman — Well, I guess my comment is the people that commented, would they feel more comfortable if there was a fence there? Chairperson Howe — Well, it probably depends on what kind of fence and.... Board Member Conneman — Well I know that. Board Member Riha — But again, the way this is worded, it seems that would be open during the site plan review. We could get into those discussions. Chairperson Howe — Did you have something to ... do we want to take comments? I am sort of reluctant to have a give and take and I think we have a lot to cover tonight. So I'm looking for all of you to help me make a decision whether we move on or whether a public person wants to talk... Board Member Hoffmann — I've said what want I wanted... Chairperson Howe — I'm talking about... Board Member Riha — I think we need to move on. If we have time maybe at the end we could... PB 4 -22 -08 Pg, 14 Board Member Conneman — Well, I didn't want to preclude not discussing the fence. mean that's... Chairperson Howe — Well, and I don't think we are. I mean I think... Board Member Conneman — You're sure? Chairperson Howe — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Okay. That's in the minutes. Board Member Riha —No, it's a... Chairperson Howe — George, if we approve the language here, when we get to site plan review we have the option of ... have lots of options on screen. Mr. Kanter — Rod? Chairperson Howe — Yes? Mr. Kanter — As I said, even before you get to site plan specifically and again you can talk about that tonight when we talk about ... (not audible)...but when we get to the findings you can be as specific as you want about mitigation measures. In fact, you should be. Chairperson Howe — So lets move on and if we have time we'll go back and open it up for comments. I think we have in essence covered on page 27, haven't we? This is also about the sidewalks on page 27. So I'm not sure that there's further ... from staffs perspective, was there anything further on page 27? So let's move to page 30 and I think there was some new information we were going to be given tonight about the number of residences close to the alternative sites. Is there a handout related to that or you're just going to show us or ... yes please. Mr. Herrick — Yes, there is a handout and Matt has rushed over to the office to bring it back over. We printed them out, but forgot to bring them with us. But in a nutshell, what we were asked to do was to provide an illustration that would clarify for the Board those properties that are approximate to any of the alternative site analyses that were completed as part of the DEIS. Our current proposal within the Town's typical 5-600 foot radius touches 115 neighboring properties. Some of those properties being Ithaca College lands. The other two alternatives that located the facilities on the west side of campus would impact or touch within that 500 foot radius anywhere from 90 to 98. Now, the 90 to 98 also realizes that in those alternative site configurations, there was still utilization of the Raponi parcel or the proposed site for replacement fields, replacement parking that were displaced by any of the other sites that were evaluated. So there's a combination of properties on the west side of campus as well as the east side of campus that were within that 500 foot zone for the 2 other alternatives and we PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 15 have the illustrations that ... I apologize that they are not here, but they will be in about a few moments. Chairperson Howe — So are there questions, comments about that? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — That still doesn't consider the impact on residential areas that are further away outside of that 500 foot limit. Mr. Herrick — No. No. There's no evaluation of anything outside of who is within 500 feet of any of these alternative site configurations. Board Member Hoffmann — But I think that the impact from further away can be very great, too if not as great as on the immediate neighbors. Board Member Wilcox — If I may? If I may? Board Member Hoffmann — Go right ahead. Board Member Wilcox — I'm sorry. Why ... I know the answer. Why did you add this information to the environmental impact statement? Mr. Herrick — It was felt that comments raised by members of the public should be answered with respect to... Board Member Wilcox — Correct. Correct. Mr. Herrick - ..:how many neighboring properties... Board Member Wilcox — And in looking at the alternatives, the thought was is that one of the things you didn't express was how many neighbors or how many residences are impacted by the various alternates. Mr. Herrick — Correct. Board Member Wilcox — And that was the sole purpose for providing this information. Mr. Herrick — Yes. Board Member Wilcox — The purpose is not to ... the 500 foot was not an arbitrary limit drawn. It was ... (not audible) ... was not to say only 98 were impacted. It was simply to give us proportions based upon the alternates. That's all. Mr. Herrick — Correct. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 16 Chairperson Howe — I mean we might have had more questions if saw that there were 30 residences within 500 of one of the alternate as opposed to a number fairly close. So thank you, Fred. So I don't know that there is a lot of discussion on this one. Board Member Hoffmann — I still feel very strongly about it whether we discuss it or not. That's all I have to say at the moment. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — I would hate to take too much time away from the discussion. Chairperson Howe — Well, no, Eva, but what else would you like to say about this? I'm not sure it's... Board Member Hoffmann — No. That's it. I told you. Chairperson Howe — Okay. And we'll see the...when the handout comes we'll look at the handout. And then if you want to turn to page 39, this and you can see the comments that Jonathan and Mike ... this had to do with forest mitigation and you can see that there was not a precedent in the Town for forest mitigation. Yes, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, there is one instance where a piece of forest, it's the McGowan woods in the orchards area which has been set aside to not be touched. Its land owned by Cornell University and it was done when that became Precinct, and I always forget the number ... you have to rescue me, Jon. Mr. Kanter — I think its 7. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Okay. Board Member Wilcox — SLUD 91 Board Member Riha — I can comment on that, Eva. McGowan's wood is the only forest that was never, ..it's the only land on the lake's sediments in our area that was never put under agriculture. So McGowan's wood is a very special wood. It was never farmed. It was harvested over time, but never farmed. There is nothing like that on this particular piece of property. There are a few larger trees probably because of homestead stuff, but there is not old growth forest. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I just wanted to bring up this one case that I am aware of. Board Member Riha — Right and for sure we do a lot of research there. I do, too. So wouldn't say it is anything equivalent... PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 17 Mr. Kanter – If staff had considered that to be a comparable set aside we would have mentioned that. Chairperson Howe – So is there other comments about response related to that? Okay. So now I think we go back...) mean the easiest thing for me to do is maybe just look at the table of contents and talk about what else do we want to go back and talk about more fully and maybe it's helpful to just first develop a list. So, Susan, what are some issues that you might want to talk about specifically? You don't have to use the index if that's not helpful. Board Member Riha – Yeah. I just wanted...) guess I wanted to be clear on the stormwater pollution prevention plan, but 1 wasn't sure where we're supposed to that here or doing ... I always get confused about that — whether we are supposed to be doing it as part of the SEQR or the site review. Mr. Kanter – Yes. Well, to the extent that you had questions about how responses were addressed to comments and questions that were stated. Otherwise, we will be talking about the site plan itself later on tonight and also the findings are going to be really important in terms of stormwater, .,what the Board's actual reaction to the way the stormwater plan was done. Board Member Riha – Okay. So the things I was concerned about ... I mean some of the people who commented brought up this in -fill issue. I guess in -fill must have occurred, if I've got this right, in the process of building Z Lot or some... Board Member Erb – They talk about fill hill and diminished sunsets. Board Member Riha – Well the diminished sunsets, I mean I felt bad, but I wasn't as concerned as they mentioned that they felt there's been a change in the drainage and there's runoff water cascading down slopes and storm sewers and whether as part of this proposal that issue is being addressed. Mr. Walker – Okay. The Z Lot fill in the area of the Z Lot has been growing for a number of years. When they did the, I believe it was the new business school, there was a lot of material taken over there during different projects. It's been under development for the last 8, 16 ... 8,16 to 18 years. They've actually... there was worse drainage problems there 15 to 20 years ago and then they put some diversion structures in and put that little stormwater pond at the end as part of one of the projects. Board Member Riha – Now that wetland problem now appears in the plans, is that going to be ... Mr. Walker – It will be rebuilt and enhanced. Board Member Riha – And bigger. Because I'm concerned if there were already possible problems that were maybe only partially addressed that when they are doing PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 18 this that they think about addressing problems that are existing in addition to new stormwater runoff problems that ... issues may arise from this particular development. Mr. Walker — The stormwater pollution prevention plan addresses the changes in runoff by the completion of the parking lot and then the roadway. And with the pathway and the diversion above the pathway they'll be directing more of that flow directly into that pond before it goes down slope another 100 feet. That has always been a very wet area and very difficult area and I'm sure there are some other things we can do that could be done to enhance it. Part of the problem is that it is shallow to bedrock in that area and a lot of the water problems as I understand it are groundwater type problems falling through the bedrock. So short of putting in a slurry wall and draining it, there's not an awful lot that would change in that area. The surface water can be dealt with and insuring the surface water doesn't percolate down through there are some things we can look at there also. Board Member Riha — Yes. It seems like that might be critical because if. ..otherwise once it percolates down they're going to have a hard time controlling it. Mr. Walker — They'll just have to pump it out of their basement that's all. We will be looking at all ... all that water problem. Board Member Riha — So we're going to do more of that during the site plan review or that will be discussed. Mr. Walker — That'll be discussed... we' re looking at the details on that now. Chairperson Howe — Was there anything else, Susan? Board Member Riha — That was my main concern. Chairperson Howe — Hollis? Board Member Erb — One member of the audience who spoke this evening talked about how wet the area was between Z Lot and the back of those properties and I think we are talking about that right now. I wanted to ... I double checked and went back to some of the wetland maps that we had and I want to make it clear that on none of those maps is there actual wetlands in the area between the Z Lot and Coddington Road, going straight between Z Lot and Coddington Road. It might be squishy land that is wet, but I's not wetlands. I'm putting quotation marks around that and as long as... Board Member Riha — It wasn't mapped as one. Board Member Erb — It was not mapped as wetland and as long as we believe these maps, I wanted that to become clear. Because one neighbor did refer to it as wetland area. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 19 Mr. Walker — It's wet land as opposed to a wetland. Board Member Erb — Yes. Chairperson Howe — Hollis, did you have other issues that you wanted to bring up on the FEIS? Not the site plan review. Board Member Erb — Right. Not the site plan review. On this. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I was busy coordinating my maps for that. Site plan. Site plan. Site plan. Site plan. No. Chairperson Howe — Fred? Board Member Wilcox — No. I'm all set. Chairperson Howe — Again, this is probably more of a 'site plan review, but I was intrigued by the comment from the Conservation Board for the Town of Ithaca where they say they are not persuaded that the cooling tower's utility value overcomes its visual impact and then there is a letter, I believe from, well it's from Howard Blaisdell that talks about that and I think you try to make the case that it does,, 'could you just address that for a couple of minutes. The environmental impacts of the cooling tower because it is quite a visual impact. Mr. Kanter — Rod, could you just refer to the comment number? Chairperson Howe — It's part of ... it's D(4)(4). I'm song, I(1)(2). Does that help? There I no page. Board Member Riha — Yeah. I think it's alternative energy considerations. Chairperson Howe — I believe this is in the Appendix. There's a letter from Howard that talks about this. So again I realize this is probably morphing into site plan. Mr. Kanter — Well, again, anything that is raised as a comment or an issue in the comments to the DEIS if they are considered to be substantial issues need to be addressed here. So you just need to figure out if that was done adequately enough. Howard Blaisdell Again, my name is Howard Blaisdell, project manager with Moody Nolan out of Columbus, Ohio. Project architect for the A and E Center. The design of the tower is intended as a working ventilation system for the building that where ... by the use of the tower we have ... the fieldhouse is otherwise a large volume of air inside the building that has to be cool and heated year round. As we looked at alternatives to reduce the energy use for this fieldhouse to improve cooling and improve heating during the temperate times of the year we looked at a number of options as to what could assist in reducing the energy load and improving the airflow and air quality within the fieldhouse. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 20 The tower design that we show allows us to use the natural stack effect of the air within the fieldhouse that the warm air within the fieldhouse rises, whether it's the athletes on the floor or spectators, it rises within the fieldhouse. It rises through the tower and is exhausted out of the top side of the tower. The height of the tower creates enough stack effect and enough differential pressure to allow the air to be pulled out of the fieldhouse and allow cool, fresh air, to be pulled into the fieldhouse Where it is then distributed at a lower level to enhance the heating and cooling of the fieldhouse so that ` during the temperate times of the year the building can reduce its heating and cooling load and reduce its energy use by the use of the tower. It takes advantage of prevailing winds. It allows for the difference in height between the west side of the tower and the east side of the tower is designed to separate and create that stack effect that improves the ventilation of the tower. So we found that we were able to create a reduction in the energy use for the building from about 7— 45 degrees, I believe, to about 80 degrees. That during that temperate range we are able to simply turn off the ventilation system in the building during those periods of time ... during most of those periods of time that creates that energy savings. Board Member Erb — Where are the natural air intakes? Mr. Blaisdell — The air intakes are on the west side where there is some glass that faces the west side of the ... towards Ithaca College and on that side in the glass we have sections of louvers that there ... then bring the air into the tower. On the taller portion of the tower for the exhaust we have louvers primarily on the east, but some on the north and some on the south to exhaust the air out of the tower. Chairperson Howe — And I know you've talked about that before, but it's just helpful to kind of be reminded. Eva, do you have a comment? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I just want to see that I understood you correctly. Are you saying that it can be as warm as 80 degrees outside and this effect will still work? Mr. Blaisdell — Yes. What happens is, if the temperature is further outside of that range we may supplement with some cooling inside the building, but because of the normal stack affect we're actually ... one of the things ... I don't know if I addressed it here is the fieldhouse... inside the fieldhouse we have to maintain at least 30 to 40 feet clear. We then have the structural height inside the fieldhouse and the peak of the fieldhouse is about 55, 60 feet above the floor level. By using this mechanism, we are able to only have to heat or cool the bottom 15 to 30 feet of the space. We don't have to cool all 50 feet of volume. We can reduce our cooling amount by only having to cool the lower portion. And so by bringing this in, even if it's up to about 80 degrees, the hot air at the ridge line of the fieldhouse would be warmer and so that hotter air would be exhausted, the cooler air brought in, and then it could be cooled further as needed. Board Member Hoffmann — Very clever. I have one other question. At the end of your letter, you say that solar energy, because several people brought up the possibility of using solar systems, and you are saying it would be too expensive at this time, but it PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 21 might be a viable future item and it could be addressed then using solar panels. So my question is, is the roof going to be built in such a way that it can accept solar panels or some other alternative way of creating energy? Mr. Blaisdell — Sure. The roof has been designed to meet all current codes and standards, which has a certain amount of weight allowed for snow in this area and the understanding is that the solar panel rays are getting lighter and lighter and at some point in the future would not be a significant impact to the weight load on the roof. This is truly an engineered building rather than a pre - engineered building, which you might have in a warehouse, which would not have as rigid a roof. So the understanding is that in all likelihood we can't guarantee it because we don't know what will be chosen, but in all likelihood it would be able to support that in the future and we're seeing more and better technology coming out. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Mr. Blaisdell —Thanks. Chairperson Howe — My only other comment, but I don't...thank you... Mr. Blaisdell — Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — There were a lot of comments in here about traffic modeling and I never know. It always feels like you're just hoping people that people are getting their numbers right. Tim Logue, I think in particular, had a lot of comments in here about traffic modeling. Board Member Wilcox — When I see sources cited that, you know, makes me feel better when someone says there are going 3 or 3.5 people per car at an athletic event. If it came from a book and you can cite the book and... Board Member Erb — That pleased me, too. Chairperson Howe — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Where were we? On page 39, 1 think is, ..on page 9 1 have written a note to myself that there was mention of Six Mile Creek, but now I don't see it. Anyway, I remember somewhere in here there was mention, I believe, it was the lady who lives on Coddington Road and her letter mentions something about runoff into Six Mile Creek and I had at some previous meeting talked about the importance of Six Mile Creek and the potential of water going from this site into Six Mile Creek and creating problems, not just in the City watershed, but then maybe the creek carrying water into the Cayuga Lake, which is the Town's water source and I thought that comments made at earlier meetings would also be made part of the,. this document, but I don't see any comment to that effect in here. So I was just wondering why that is. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 22 Was it only comments made at the meeting where there was a public hearing that goes into this document? Mr. Kanter — No, but then again, this process has been going on for many moons and you would not tend to include comments that were made well before the EIS was even accepted by the Board. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't remember any more because I haven't gone back to the minutes to see when I might have made that comment but I know I made it and there were other comments, too. For instance, having to do with a Conservation Zone on South Hill, which is not mentioned anywhere here and the map at the back that shows the wetlands doesn't even mention the Conservation Zone. Joanne Cornish, who was a planner in the Town at the time when we worked on that has mentioned that; at least that's in the document. But I'm a little concerned that there have been comments, not just made by me, but by other people on the Board, too, that perhaps are not in here and for that reason I hope to evaluate it. Mr. Kanter — All I can say is that any comments that were made during the process that actually involved from the time the environmental impact statement had been accepted as complete by the Board through the public hearing on the EIS and written comments received, that's what would be in here. Not things going back 3 months before the EIS was...so I don't know. I can't respond to you if something specific that was said at some point was or was not included, but I mean I think there was a pretty good attempt at including the full record that actually pertained to the EIS itself. Board Member Hoffmann — All right. Thanks. Mr. Kanter — Was one of the concerns, though, that you're trying to get at that that the wetland mitigation areas may be in or impact the Conservation Zone areas. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. That has been a concern all along. Mr. Kanter — I think that can be easily answered because the... Board Member Hoffmann — Or that runoff in general might be contained... Mr. Kanter — That part of it I don't know. I'm just thinking about the wetland mitigation areas which are not in or near the Conservation Zone. Board Member Hoffmann — And the point being that Six Mile Creek is an area that we take drinking water from and which then runs into the lake where we also take drinking water and that's the important point. Board Member Wilcox — Though the Ithaca College property would have no impact on the City's drinking water supply as its pulled out of Six Mile Creek at least half a mile, a mile north of that spot, roughly from where they are. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg, 23 Board Member Hoffmann — But it certainly has an impact on... Board Member Wilcox — It still has an impact on ... potential impact on the water at Six Mile Creek and on the lake. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Ms. Brock — Eva, doesn't the information about the stormwater pollution prevention plan deal with your concerns about the runoff? Board Member Hoffmann — Well I'm not sure if it extends to the concern about the quality of the drinking water. Ms. Brock — Maybe Dan you can talk about the SWPPP requirements that affect not only quantity, but also quality and what some of the different measures are that pertain to that. Mr. Walker — Right. The SWPPP requires both buy -in control and water quality control and that's why their utilizing the constructed wetland areas and stormwater facilities have 4 bays to take out heavier sediment and then the vegetative filtration areas to filter out other pollutants. And this kind of development, the primary pollutants are going to be sediment during the construction period. There will be some additional pollutants because there is more impervious surface, you know, debris and bird stuff accumulates on the roof so it gets washed off faster, but the measures that they are putting in will help to alleviate those. I don't anticipate any hazardous chemicals unless there is a spill or something in this area, but that's controlled under other considerations. Again, the biggest potential source of pollution is the parking areas and the roadways in this project. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, my major comments as always have to do with noise and the light and the glare. On page 19 there are two diagrams of the public address system and some discussion about that. It looks like there is a proposal of an alternate public address system that puts ... instead of three speakers mounted on the press box in back on the western side of the bleachers in the field, there would be two address systems on one pole as the picture shows and my question about that is, the comment first is it looks like you are creating a somewhat unbalanced sound system and I don't understand why there is not a speaker on either side of the bleachers. And it seems to me if you had a speaker on either side you would get a more balanced system and you could lower the volume, which I would think would be the desirable end result in order to cut down on the noise. So I wanted to ask why are you proposing this alternative. Chairperson Howe — I think actually we just asked them to look at an alternative for comparison sake, but do you want to respond to the sound? Board Member Thayer — It also says that they are going to monitor the events and then bring it back to us after the event so that we can evaluate the monitoring. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 24 Board Member Hoffmann — Does that mean we have to be out there and listen? Board Member Thayer — Well, I'm not clear about that. Mr. Herrick — Yes, the additional analysis was in response to the Board's stated interested several times and seeing what a different configuration would produce. And what you have, yes, you've correctly interpreted is two speakers that are placed on one of the proposed poles and the analysis indicates that the resultant noise dissipation and thus that what's experienced at the residential properties is in essence the same. While there could be an alternative configuration of speaker placement, we won't see any substantial difference in noise at the residential properties from either configuration. So it's the College's preference and the designer's preference at this point to stay with the three speaker system, which does give you the balance distribution that you mentioned could be made available with a slightly different two -poled version. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, my point was it looks like there's a potential for having a lower volume of sound at the far edge of the field, at the eastern edge of the field. If you try to arrange a balanced system under the alternative method. Mr. Herrick — And I ... your interpretation of that figure is correct. Yes. You do see that... Board Member Riha — Yeah. Because the speakers aren't pointing in that direction. If you put them on each side then you wouldn't get that little bit more of a ... but in any case I think the objection to the two poles was that then there would be poles. Mr. Blaisdell — The objection to two poles is the intent in this area is that you've got the lacrosse and soccer field. The intent is that there is a future track and a second pole, if it's to be distributed and not allow us to use the speaker mounted on the building would put the. second pole close to the finish line of the 100 meter dash and finish line of the distance races. It might become a visual impediment to the spectators in the spectator zone. However, the point had been made on both studies that the sound levels created by both...by either speaker system was below the threshold of the ambient noise at the property line and that it was not an impact on the surroundings. Board Member Hoffmann — I took some photos myself yesterday and today and Fred has them and you may passed them to ... I think all of us on the Board have seen it so you may pass them to the applicant to look at. The one that you might be particularly interested in seeing and I didn't want to bring this up before because we have always talked about how this will be seen from public places, but the glare you can see and the photos taken today is taken from my yard and this is glare for about an hour from about 4:30 to 5:30 from existing roofs, which you can locate the roofs on the photo that I took yesterday, which is in the bunch and you wouldn't guess that those roofs would produce glare, but they do and so I am personally very much aware of glare that is caused by roofs and I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who sees this glare and I'm pretty sure that there is going to be glare, which will be equally strong and disturbing from the athletics and event center roof. already have and other people do Mr. Herrick — Okay. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 25 And that's a big problem to me in addition to what , I'm sure, too. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to tell you that there is another picture there where I found a piece of paper, and Rod saw it, and we compared it with a little patch you have of gray in this document on page 21. 1 found an identical shade and I pasted it onto one of the printouts. Can you see it? Mr. Blaisdell — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — And it looks like it doesn't stand out all that much, but when you know how much glare it can produce, it's a problem. And I wanted to just share that with you as well as with the rest of the Board. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — And I would like to have them back. Board Member Wilcox — She's sharing her opinion, not her photos. Chairperson Howe — And do you know the matte that you've chosen, would there be an expectation that it would have less glare than some of the existing roofs that Eva saw the glare this afternoon. Mr. Herrick — Perhaps you can help me here. I think we are looking at the roof of the science building, which is... Board Member Hoffmann — I can show you the building on the larger photograph. You can probably locate it yourself. On the photograph, the full page photograph. Did you give it to them, Fred? Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. It's on the bottom. Board Member Hoffmann — I think you can see that building. It's visible as sort of a gray rather straight building. Board Member Thayer — Can I just say that my experience from West Hill as far as glare goes during the sunset hour is mostly from windows and the windows are really, especially at Cornell are blinding almost sometimes between that hour of sunset. Mr. Blaisdell — Our understanding of the roof in question is that it is a metal roof, metal standing seam roof, which typically has a higher glare co- efficient or has a higher light reflectivity co- efficient as visible light than you would have with a membrane roof. So that you would be nature of the roof and the finish between the gloss finish of a metal PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 26 roof and a matte finish of a membrane roof would in itself have an impact on the amount of glare. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you put that in slightly different words so that we understand whether there would be more glare or less glare with the roof you are proposing? Mr. Blaisdell — The roof we are proposing would have less glare because it is not as shiny and so when it reflects the sun the shininess is what creates the more glare and by having less shininess and less gloss, it would have less glare. Board Member Hoffmann - ...create this glare. Mr. Herrick — Yeah, it's the blue standing seam metal roof on the health and fitness center, which is right in front of the outdoor pool. Board Member Hoffmann — And then there's a second one, too, which has somewhat less. Mr. Herrick — Yeah. I think that's one of the ... well to the south there is a little bit and that's coming off, again, a metal roof on one of the quad dorms and then I think further in the background is the roof of the science building, which is just in front of Williams Hall. Board Member Hoffmann — Now those are roofs that we approved and when you look at them in a photograph you wouldn't guess that they would give this kind of glare and we certainly didn't suspect it when we approved the buildings. Mr. Herrick — Well, I think to be fair to this proposal we have suggested through the materials that we provided that there will be times of the day when the sun does have the opportunity to reflect off this roof. So at least in this case we are suggesting to you that there is the possibility of that to happen. Chairperson Howe — But I think they've tried to choose a finish that will reduce... Board Member Hoffmann — I hope. Chairperson Howe — Eva, did you have any other issues? Board Member Hoffmann — Now. Let me see. There were some discussion about the older trees, both on page 14 and on page 31. On page 31, response C3, you say it is your intent to avoid 90 percent of trees greater than 18 inch in diameter on the project site. How are you going to do that and make sure that they survive? Mr. Herrick — Well, there certainly will be some vegetation loss where the track and turf field will be proposed, but there is. the little ecological community that we are looking to PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 27 preserve is that triangle space between the turf field, the new road and the garden apartments. So the balance of the site, yes there will be some trees that may exceed that dimension that are going to have to be removed, but to the extent that we can adjust the alignment of the project we will do what we can. Board Member Hoffmann — But what you're saying is you are going to cut down about 10 percent and save 90 percent of the trees that have an 18 inch diameter or more. Mr. Herrick — Of the specimen trees, but there will be a lot of trees that are under that dimension that will come down. Board Member Hoffmann — But I was asking how you can do it, but I guess... Board Member Wilcox — Well I think the answer is that it's not like they are going to keep 9 out of 10, it's just that 90 percent of them are in an area isolated where they can be protected. Board Member Hoffmann = I understand that, but... Board Member Wilcox — How do you do it? You put fencing around it. Board Member Hoffmann — I was wondering which ways because a tree is very sensitive... the roots of a tree go out very far and they are very sensitive to being disturbed. So you have to stay away quite far from the root system in order for the tree not to die a few years after you've done this. Mr. Kanter — I think that might be something t o and the site plan for coming up with mitigation protection. Chairperson Howe — Anything else? keep in mind for the findings statement measures that would help to ensure that Board Member Hoffmann — Well let me see. The last thing...let me see if I can find this and someone else can go ahead in the meantime. Board Member Conneman — Rod, I made my note concern of stormwater management and drainage, but if Susan is satisfied, I am because she's the expert. Board Member Riha — We're going to discuss it more later. Board Member Conneman — The other about reflection off windows. When m, always sung the song about golden wind true. That the windows... campuses tend see lots of times. So that's all thing is I wanted to backup what Larry said daughter was a Girl Scout, the Girl Scouts )ws. I won't sing it for you, but I mean that is to reflect a lot of sunlight and that is what you PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 28 Chairperson Howe — Did you find yours? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, ah, and I don't know if it's appropriate to bring it up here or when we talk about site plan, but there is a planting plan for the Z Lot and it mostly has deciduous trees on it and I couldn't find any shrubs. Were you able to find any shrubs, Mike? Mr. Smith — No. I took a close look and just found the deciduous. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. It's LP102, and there aren't any evergreens. So I'm wondering why you chose a planting plan like that for this, which I would hope would hide the cars because the cars are very visible as you can see from my photos, from a distance and the lights will be too. So the plantings will be very important. Tim Smallenberger My name is Tim Smallenberger. I'm with NSI. I'm a sub - consultant to Moody Nolan, who are the landscape architects on the project and our initial thought was to ... evergreens, really, not indigenous to the area any great degree as far as big masses. So the initial thought on this whole landscape plan was to try and stick with really the indigenous plant pallet for the area. Could there be evergreens added in some of these areas and you spoke about this earlier, yes. We would tend to want to group them. But the idea around Z Lot was as ... obviously it's a large fill slope, you know, heading up to where the parking lot sits on the surface and by the trees staggering across that whole hillside, the canopies of the trees really kind of make a larger mass and certainly the ones that are probably within the top 15. foot of the hillside are going to give you the most impact in that area to help screen. Granted that is certainly in the foliage time of the year. The question is, do we vary from, you know, kind of the theme of trying to stick with the indigenous material to add evergreens to help with the screen and /or do we look at the evergreens, let's say, down towards closer to the lots, let's say, just south of or just east of the trail that's proposed through there if the trail, obviously would stay. So I think it's kind of a screening study. We're planning on putting a trail in there. I think we could certainly bury it to some degree as we kind of get into the very specifics of that site plan. But that was our thinking going forward. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand and I sympathize to a certain degree, but I think evergreens might be important. How about there is this row of trees evenly spaced along the perimeter of the parking lot itself on the eastern, southern edge, well also on the western edge I guess. Whereas the trees on the slope are more randomly planted according to the plan. Mr. Smallenberger.— Along the top edge of the lot. Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — On the top edge it looks very evenly spaced out and so that doesn't look so naturalistic as the rest of it could look. But what I wanted to ask or suggest to you, since these trees are going to be fairly small, it will take a while before they fill in and really hide the cars in the lights. Could you at least intersperse those PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 29 trees with some evergreen shrubs that from a distance might block the view of the cars at least? Board Member Riha — Is this more site plan? I mean we're trying to get the wording in this environmental...? Board Member Thayer — Exactly. [General agreement amongst the Board to Susan's question.] Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — Well that's why for site plan. But at least you understand... I was asking whether it was better now or Mr. Smallenberger — I think that's a logical comment, yes. Chairperson Howe — So what we have to decide tonight is whether we are comfortable moving forward on the proposed resolution, but it might be worth... Jonathan, I think you have copies of what a findings statement looks like just so we kind of know what the next step is once this is approved and all of the different agencies will have a chance to submit their findings. Correct, Jonathan? Maybe you can just walk us through this a little bit. Not the document so much, but the process of the findings statement. Mr. Kanter — Well, yeah. You know a lot of this, a lot of what's in the findings statement is format and requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act itself. This one that we are handing out that will come around in a second was the findings statement the Planning Board did for the EcoVillage second neighborhood and the amendment of the zoning for that project. And again, this would be the next step in the process after the Board accepts the final EIS as complete and then circulate a notice of completion, I guess you would call it, of the FEIS because the Planning Board can't take action on the findings until allowing the minimum timeframe, which I think is 10 days from the acceptance of the FEIS to move on to the findings and actions. And obviously the Board can't do any of its actions, preliminary site plan approval, special permit, until the findings statement is adopted by this Board because that in effect is your conclusion of the SEQR process. Chairperson Howe — So it's possible, though, that we would be acting on the findings statement at the same time that we would be looking at the preliminary site plan. Mr. Kanter — Yes, it's possible and even likely that that could happen. It's in effect ... It's like when we do a typical project where we have the environmental assessment form and the Board does the neg dec and the resolution for the negative declaration and then moves on that meeting to the site plan approval. In this case the actions that are being PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 30 requested of the Board, I think, is the first step is preliminary site plan approval for the whole phase 1 a project as well as final site plan approval of some of the elements that, you know, we can discuss that further. Some of the elements of the site plan parking lots, undergrounding of electrical and things like that. So any way, this was just to give you an idea of what a recent findings statement looks like. We don't do too many of these; we don't do too many environmental impact statements, but this is again, a pretty large project as we all have seen. So the idea of the findings statement is basically to provide the rationale and the basis for whatever decision the Board was going to take. Whether it be approval, approval with additional mitigating measures beyond what has already been incorporated into the project or denial of the project. Whatever it is that the Board is going to do, the findings statement has to provide the statements of fact and law which would allow you to move onto that final decision. I don't know if you had anything you wanted to add, Susan. Chairperson Howe — Susan, did you want to add anything? Ms. Brock — Not on this. I actually had some comments on the FEIS. Chairperson Howe — Go ahead. Ms. Brock — Did you want to finish discussion...? Mr. Kanter — Well, if there are any questions on this...? Board Member Riha — Well this is the type of thing the Planning staff would draw up after the acceptance of the FEIS? Mr. Kanter — Could you repeat the question? Board Member Riha — So this is the kind of document that the Planning staff would draw up after approval of the FEIS for consideration by the Planning Board? Mr. Kanter — Yes. And this which is why when we do.. think we would like to get that might go into this. It's there are going to be some from the Board on, would be drafted entirely by the staff on behalf of the Board, .if we do tonight conclude with the acceptance of the FEIS, 1 3 little bit more sense from the Board of some of the things sort of the step in between the site plan approval, but I think specific things that we might want to just get some feedback Chairperson Howe — Yes. Susan? Ms. Brock — Okay. I have a couple of comments about or questions for you rather as to whether you think the FEIS responds to all the comments that were identified as significant. And also a couple of corrections to page references. The first comment on page 7, Al notification of construction noise. Several commentors requested neighbor notification before construction took place or a construction plan for weekend days. The PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 31 response states that the construction will comply with the Town's noise ordinance, but doesn't directly address the request for neighbor notification. So you either need to state explicitly we feel that compliance with the noise ordinance is sufficient and no notification is needed or if you believe notification would be a reasonable mitigation then you should state that here, too, and state any other comments you want to make in that regard. Board Member Hoffmann — I also thought that in the earlier documents there was a statement about the fact that they were going to try to avoid weekend days so they would avoid Saturdays, but here it's listed as certain regular hours on Saturday. It doesn't say anything about trying to avoid a Saturday. Ms. Brock — I don't remember. Chairperson Howe — So how do we feel? Do we feel that notification is something that we want to specifically add and that would be notification for ... I think somewhere it said there would be no blasting. So when would we see that notification... Board Member Wilcox — Proper notification is before the project starts you notify everybody within 500 yards or 500 feet that there will be construction on Saturday for the next 3 years. It's worthless. So that's what I'm trying to get at. What do we mean by notification? It's got to be valuable. Do you know what I mean? It's got to assist somebody in saying I think we'll plan to go to the park that day. You know? I'm trying to understand... the applicant is on notice in this document by saying, you know, we will be ... there will be construction activity during these hours during these days of the week. Board Member Thayer — Period. That's all you can do. Board Member Wilcox — I don't think notification serves a purpose. Chairperson Howe — Anyone want to disagree? Board Member Wilcox — But if they're going to blast, then they better...then they've got to comply with lots of other... Board Member Erb - Are there some weekends that we could protect like the 4"' of July weekend? Mr. Walker - It will be covered up by the firework noise. [laughter] Male - You wont' get contractors to work July 4 th weekend. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 32 Board Member Erb — No, but I'm trying to be very ... are there some holidays, which traditionally might be outdoor weekend holidays in a household that we could work to mitigate and say the weekend closest to the 4th of July you won't work on Saturday. Board Member Conneman — Memorial Day, Labor Day, 4th of July. Mr. Kanter — I think the comment had to do with simply notification, not restrictions and now you are getting into restricting when construction should and should not occur, which is not what the comment was. It may have been a concern, but that's not how the... Board Member Erb — That's true, but if the issue is notification, and we now have been assured that there is not going to be blasting and notification is a general thing —be prepared for the next many, many months that there might be work on Saturday. That's a long period of agony and I understand that we don't want to, I wouldn't want to unduly restrict the construction project or to do it in an illegal way, but could we at least give the neighbors some relief and say a mitigation strategy that we would consider would be to declare a very small number of weekends to be off limits. Chairperson Howe — I don't know. Susan, can we do something like that? Ms. Brock — Well I think you can do it in the findings as a mitigation to impacts that were identified in the DEIS even though that particular comment wasn't raised and wasn't addressed in the FEIS. Board Member Erb — I mean I'm trying to interpret some of the concern of the neighbors. Ms. Brock — So we wouldn't do it here in this document because what I'm trying to do is get this response to match to the comments that were made. Board Member Erb — I apologize. Ms. Brock — No, no. Don't apologize. So you can deal with that issue, but you won't be dealing with it here in this particular document. Board Member Erb — So I'm record now, if an issue to mitigate as a very small number of weekends to be declared sacrosanct for the sake of the neighborhood. Ms. Brock — So we can say here add a sentence at the end, given the fact that the applicant is proposing to operate or conduct construction operations on Saturday, there is no need for individual notification to neighbors. Chairperson Howe — So you want us to specifically have words that says no notification is necessary because you just wanted to match the concern that was raised? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 33 Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Howe — And what does it mean, what would kick in if for the Town Board to determine the construction noise as unreasonable? Would it be that complaints were received and then the Town Board took this up to talk about it? Mr. Kanter — I think there are two parts. One is complaints of unreasonable noise. The other is, I think we still in the law have limitations on when construction equipment can start up and when it has to stop, but I forget what those are, but Dan is probably looking it up right now. Chairperson Howe — So I think we were saying, basically, what you said, Susan. That notification would not be required. Board Member Hoffmann — And that would be true even if there is blasting to be done. Mr. Kanter — Even more so because blasting does require certain kinds of notifications of neighbors within a certain distance of a blasting zone. Board Member Hoffmann — Because damage could be done to their property. Mr. Kanter — In fact, if it's traffic on the street they will stop traffic temporarily while the blasting goes on. Chairperson Howe — So maybe except for if there was a need for blasting, which at this point they are not saying that. Are all those yellow stickies comments you need to...? Ms. Brock — Yes. Some of them are very quick. Mr. Kanter — That's hardly any for Susan. That's really... Ms. Brock — Some of them are just page references. Board Member Hoffmann -- Susan, can I ask you a question before we go on? If we accept this document, the EIS tonight as complete, which includes some of the language and the responses saying certain things, can we still, when we do the findings statement go back and handle things like this even if we have essentially accepted this? Ms. Brock — Yes because this document is responding to significant comments that were submitted and so to the extent that there are issues raised in the DEIS and mitigations proposed that you want to pick up on even though they weren't discussed. in the FEIS you can do that in your findings where you set out the required mitigations. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 34 Ms. Brock — Or conditions that can be imposed when you make your decision. The conditions you want to impose need to be related to the information in these documents. The next comment is on page 13, response C1 dealing with the wetlands mitigation plan. The applicant's plan right now is planning to mitigate at a ratio of 1.5 acres replacement lands for every 1 acres of disturbed wetland. The last sentence says final wetland mitigation ratios, however, will be determined through negotiations between the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers. So we have their plan right now, which is a ratio of 1.5 to 1, but we don't know what the final ratio will be. Do you want to specify that it needs to be at least 1.5 to 1? Board Member Erb -- Yes. Board Member Riha — Ugh. I just want to say for the record, I'm ... but I don't want to bowl up these whole procedures, I think there's a lot of issues with doing these kind of wetland mitigation strategies. So I'm not sure that we are going to be helping things out by putting more of them in. We've talked about there's a problem getting them to succeed. They are not going to be like the wetlands that they're supposed to be replacing. No, those are ephemeral woodland wetlands that have little things in them that run around and there's salamanders and so on and these are going to be like fragmented and so, a whole different type of wetland in a whole different location, which is going to require a lot of disturbance. So, you know, I know that's the policy and this is what we've got going, but you know, I think in a lot of cases it is not necessarily accomplishing in the larger framework what people might think they want to accomplish. In fact, I like the idea and maybe, but that's kind of a future thought about getting conservation easements for other wetlands if you're in it as opposed to a field with artificial wetlands. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, in a sense, that's really the wetlands banking kind of issue. Board Member Riha — Which I think in the long run might make a lot more sense. But anyway, I actually had that highlighted, but I wasn't that concerned whether or not we put in more. Chairperson Howe — I agree with what Susan said so we don't feel a need for... Ms. Brock — Okay. Board Member Erb — I do. I would like to see it not lower than the 1.5. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else agree with Hollis? I have to give Susan a sense... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. At least because we were given some numbers for the failure rate of artificially created wetlands and it was very large. So... Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 35 Board Member Conneman — I think I agree with Hollis. Board Member Wilcox — What do we do if we ... I'm sorry. Maybe I'm missing something there. What if we specify 1.5 and the Army Corps of Engineers comes back and says 1.3? Board Member Thayer — Good point. Board Member Wilcox — We'll adjust? We'll override the US Army Corps of Engineers? Board Member Hoffmann — We will also, could also then consider something like Susan was proposing, doing it an entirely different way, but at least we have some protection by putting in this ratio of 1.51 Board Member Wilcox — Do the ratio. Chairperson Howe — I still think that there's four of us who feel the language is okay the way it is. So we'll leave it. Ms. Brock — The next one is a correction of a reference on page 14, response C4. Right in the middle it says ... it's addressing concerns listed in C(5)(1) and I believe it is referring to this very comment, which is C(4)(1) and there is no C(5)(1), Board Member Riha — Yes. Right.. It is. I think you're right, Susan. Ms. Brock — On page 24, response F1. This is responding to a number of comments about various impacts from the pedestrian trail. The response is dealing solely with the crossing issue. A number of the comments, at least 2 of them, dealt with the student congregation and noise issue as well. And that needs to be addressed. Perhaps it was addressed in one of the other comments and we can cross - reference it. Board Member Riha — It was addressed in an earlier one. Yeah. D1. Ms. Brock — The comments that we were given tonight prepared by staff dealing with the community impacts of the pedestrian and bike trail. The response to D1, do you want to cross - reference that? So just say also see response to comment D1. Okay, Page 30 response H1, we were handed some maps tonight, but we have no text. We need to come up with some type of response to insert dealing with the adjoining properties for the alternative sites. Board Member Riha — Well, we could change that to ... are these still pre - calculations or are they ... have they...? Chairperson Howe — Were those numbers still, it says preliminary calculations, but I think those were numbers you shared? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 36 Ms. Brock — Why is my version different? Mr. Kanter — Is it? Ms. Brock — Yeah. My version actually only has one sentence in it. Mr. Kanter — I think you have the earlier draft and I think we sent replacement pages, but I don't think it got in there. Ms. Brock — Oh, okay. I didn't recognize those. Chairperson Howe — So I think the language that is there can be turned into a statement because I think those are the numbers that you shared, 98 residences and 90 residences. Is this something you... Ms. Brock — No. I just didn't have this language. All right. So what we got tonight backed that up so we don't need to change that statement. Okay. Mr. Kanter — How about saying accompanying graphics have been supplied documenting the above? And then we'll have to make sure those maps get put into the final. Ms. Brock — On page 33 under clarifications, J(1)(3), a comment was or a question was asked whether the lighting would be in use only during the time people need it or would the fields be lit automatically. The response says the lighting will be turned off at 11, but it doesn't actually address the comment or the question whether they'll only be lit when needed. I think we were told verbally at a prior meeting that in fact the lighting would only be there and be lit when needed. And if that's the case, then we should state that in this response. Board Member Erb — That's a very good pick up because I had asked that and received that assurance before. Ms. Brock — So at the very end just state the lighting will be in use only when ... well, how about subject to the above because it's stating when it's going to turn off. So subject to the above, the lighting will be in use only when needed. Page 35 response J5, there's a reference to the DEIS on noise impact section and I believe that instead of being on page 71 it's on pages 63 to 65. On page 36 J(7)(1), the request was made to...for information about whether the entrance ... I'm sorry ... whether people coming to major events would also be restricted as to which entrance they could use. The response only discusses after events are over which exits people can use. I believe the College is not planning to restrict how people enter the campus for events. Is that correct? So we should state that just so that's addressed. So just add a sentence stating there will be no restrictions regarding access to campus entrances prior to major events. Is that clear enough? Okay. One more, on page 38 J12, there was a comment made about effects on property values and the response is that impacts to property values were PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 37 considered during the public scoping process and were not deemed to be potentially significant. Can we state here a sentence why that was found not to be significant? Chairperson Howe — I don't know where that came from. I don't know how it was determined. Ms. Brock — Or can we state in addition, you know right now, and have a statement to justify this is not going to be looked at further in this document? Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry. What did you just say? Ms. Brock — Or we can put aside the scoping issue and have an independent statement in addition and state why its not believed to be something that needs to be dealt with further in this document. I think Jonathan had a statement again and what was given to us tonight stating that trail can enhance property values. So we could refer...cross- reference that response again. Chairperson Howe —If you think that helps. I'm not sure it addresses... Board Member Riha - It's really the Z Lot they don't know the proposed trail...yeah, guess it is a trail. Yeah, so I guess you could refer back to... Mr. Kanter — If it is dealing with the trail then we could cross_ reference it. Board Member Erb — Was it simply the speculative nature of not being able to say one way or the other what the effect would be? Board Member Conneman — What is the proof? Board Member Thayer — Yeah, really. Ms. Brock — So we could say in addition see response to comment or see response D1. Board Member Hoffmann — See response what? Ms. Brock — D1. Board Member Wilcox — Before you go on, well, finish up Susan and then I have a question. Ms. Brock — That was it. Board Member Wilcox — A couple of meetings ago we were talking about economic impact or property value impact and you said that was something that could be not considered? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 38 Ms. Brock — That might have been something relating to impact on businesses. Board Member Wilcox — From the Walmart case? Ms. Brock — Yeah, I don't remember. You can... Board Member Wilcox — There was something you couldn't consider. Ms. Brock — Right. So if you think a business is coming in and they're going to be so competitive that they are going to drive another business out of business, that's not something you can properly look at. That type of impact is not one that is appropriate to look at under SEQR. If in fact though a proposed use is coming in that maybe will cause an entire area to become vacant and the properties to become Boarded up and to become blighted, that would be something you could look at. Board Member Wilcox — Okay. I'm just wondering why that would have come up in our discussion. Ms. Brock — I don't know if that was in relation to... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, I can't remember but there was something you said couldn't be considered in a DEIS. Okay, Board Member Erb -- I wonder if it was while we were considering the Holochuck development? Board Member Wilcox — That's possible. Board Member Erb — And the same issue of neighbors worrying about property values and we got into that discussion. Board Member Riha — I think you're right. Board Member Wilcox — Is it possible you said that impact or potential impact on property values was not something that could be part of a DEIS? Ms. Brock — I don't know. I would have to look at it. Board Member Wilcox — You're certainly not saying it now because this section is talking about property values. Ms. Brock — Right. Yeah, I need to look at the SEQR handbook because that has a whole section on that and I just don't have that with me tonight. But I think for our purposes we can at least refer back... Board Member Wilcox — This is fine as revised. PB 4 -22 -d8 Pg. 39 Ms. Brock — Right. I think for our purposes... Board Member Wilcox — We're okay. Ms. Brock — We're addressing the issue. Board Member Wilcox — Okay. Chairperson Howe — You're all done, Susan? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Howe — Jonathan or Michael, was there anything else from your perspective? Mr. Smith — I'm all set. Chairperson Howe — So would someone, of course there will be changes... Board Member Conneman — A2 should not be. ..(not audible)... Board Member Erb — Yes. Susan emphasized the lack of the second "1 -y ". Chairperson Howe — So we have before us a resolution to accept the final environmental impact statement as complete. Is there someone who would like to move the resolution? Board Member Riha — I'll move it. Chairperson Howe — By Susan, Board Member Thayer — I will second it. Chairperson Howe — Seconded by Larry. Are we also saying that we want to include the language from Jonathan and Michael's memo or D1 in the FEIS? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Board Member Riha — And the corrections that Susan just made. Chairperson Howe — And I think the resolution says ... (not audible)... Ms. Brock — I don't think it does. I think we need to add them. Board Member Riha — We need to add it to the resolution. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 40 Ms. Brock — So in Whereas number 10, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed and revised ... add the words and revised said FEIS at its meeting on April 22, 2008. Now therefore be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the FEIS dated April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008...the rest of that paragraph can remain the same. Chairperson Howe — Are there any other changes that anyone else...? All those in favor, raise your hand. Its unanimous. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not entirely convinced myself that it really is complete, but I'm voting for it anyway to accept it anyway. RESOLUTION Chairperson Howe — Okay. So I think the next... Jonathan, you would like us to just spend a little bit of time on what we would like to see go in the findings. Perhaps that is a bit of a review of things we had already talked about. Correct? Mr. Kanter — Yeah. I mean just so we, staff, so you know staff has some sense of direction in terms of what we are going to be drafting for you. I mean without prejudging anything we're assuming that based on the plans as they've been revised up to now, which has already included a number of modifications along with whatever mitigating measures and strategies the Board comes up with in the findings statement that this will be a finding to approve the project. I mean that is sort of the most basic assumption that we need to know. And then from there I guess we would try to get some specific direction on some of these things we've been talking about tonight as well as some other things that you've had on your minds, which kind of starts getting into the site plan stuff, too. So maybe this is a transition into the discussion on the site plan, too. Board Member Riha — But just for clarification, Jon, the findings are basically to say what we saw were environmental impacts? They are coming from the SEQR process or...? Ms. Brock — I'll read you what SEQR says has to be in the findings. Okay. There are 5 things. One, consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS. Two, weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations. Three, provide a rationale for the agency's decisions. Four, certify that the requirements of the SEQR regulations have been met regarding EIS's. Five, certify that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 41 Mr. Kanter — So if you look on the last page of the findings statement, you will see the certification includes a number of those statements that Susan just read. So, again, we didn't intend for you to look through this too closely tonight, but simply to give you a feeling of what one of these would look like and what the draft that staff will be working on will kind of look like by the time you get it. Again, this was a totally different project and had all kinds of different things involved with it. Board Member Riha — So what kind of timeframe, Jonathan, would you be expecting to produce a draft? Mr. Kanter — I'll look over at Mike. Well, I mean the soonest we could possibly do it is by, assuming we could send the notice of completion tomorrow, which isn't necessarily reality, you would have to leave at least 10 days open after that notification is distributed before the Board could issue findings. Of course that is assuming that staff will have had time within that 11 days to draft it and get it to the Board. So the very soonest or we are thinking about at this point probably has to do with the upcoming Planning Board schedule, too. And the May 6t" meeting is the next meeting, right? And that's basically two weeks ... wait where are we now? Board Member Wilcox — Two weeks from today. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. That's two weeks from today so that was the earlier date on the tentative schedule. I would say that's probably not realistic. It's possible, but it's not likely that we would be able to get it to you in time for you to really look at it reasonable and make some good judgment. So I'm thinking it will probably be the May 20 meeting. Chairperson Howe — It wasn't clear to me from your memo, obviously you put together the findings, but it sounds like you allow findings of other involved agencies. Do they give you...? Mr. Kanter — No. Actually, no. They make their own findings at the time when they are making whatever action ... you don't know, really, what other agencies ... how they are going to be involved in the process or the timing of it. The one that we do have a pretty good idea of is the Zoning Board that will be looking at height variances. Actually what we will attempt to do is draft the findings statement that could be used by the Zoning Board to also address the height variances because many of those issues are going to be identical and similar to, you know, the visual impact issues that we've been talking about. So hopefully the Zoning Board would be able to rely on the Planning Board's findings to adopt their own findings, which would probably be in a somewhat more simplified form, but would in effect mimic many of the same statements. Chairperson Howe — Well, things I heard us talk about, which is just sort of recapping some of the key things is stormwater management. So 1 don't know how much we have to say about each of these, but certainly stormwater management was an issue. I think the issue of planting more diverse set of trees, evergreen trees, the protection of the PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 42 trees, just the trail and lighting, screening relating to the trail. Restricting perhaps some Saturdays during the construction process. What else did we talk about that we want to see in the findings? Board Member Wilcox — Traffic. We haven't talked about tonight, but it's an important component. Mr. Kanter — You might want to. What about traffic would be important? Board Member Wilcox — The diversion of traffic towards the Route 96B entrance /exit to the campus facility. Board Member Riha — So anything...) mean for clarification, there are some things Ithaca College has already said they are going to do, but do we need to repeat those in the findings? Mr. Kanter — I think so. Board Member Riha — Yes. Okay, Ms. Brock — All the mitigations should be spelled out. Board Member Riha — Have to be spelled out. Good. That's a good point. Board Member Erb — Two additional things that keep reoccurring in my head about the traffic is first of all I know it's a small number of car trips, I believe, but we are potentially preventing some car trips that go back and forth from the IC campus to the Cornell campus, which is a positive thing. Those trips where the teams were being sent across the valley to use other facilities. And the other thing that keep occurring in my head is that I'm really taking it that the worst -case scenario possible was being modeled for an evening, rush hour event let out. And it's hard for me to even imagine a major event that would actually let out at rush hour, but that's really the worst -case scenario and I keep thinking of that as being the worst -case scenario and expecting most of the users to just be on campus anyway. To me that is an important part of my process in this. Chairperson Howe — It feels like we are just repeating things, but if you think ... noise and lighting are certainly things we want to see readdressed, I guess in the findings statement. Board Member Hoffmann — The impact of the whole building and cutting down all the trees for the area where the building is going to be and the field is going to be and the track and the tennis courts and all that. Those are big impacts to me in different ways. Mr. Kanter — And it's fine, you know, to indicate what the impacts are and the degree of significance you think they'll have in the findings statement and still come to some conclusion about them. You may say there are impacts, but in balancing, you know, the PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 43 benefits of the project versus the impact created, etc., etc., etc., or if you feel the that the impacts are so large and they can't be mitigated and it doesn't balance then you are going to be having to go with a different determination, but I mean that's just the process. That's the way it works. Chairperson Howe — Is that enough to... Mr. Kanter — I think that's a good start. By no means did we mean for this to be it because I think there's going to be a pretty long and full discussion once we distribute a draft and the Board is going to have to decide your own wording and whether it's reflecting... Board Member Hoffmann — Did you mention impacts of the lights? Chairperson Howe — Yes. We talked ... well then I think we'll turn to start a discussion of the preliminary site plan approval. Maybe you could just highlight, I mean obviously we talk about the trail, but I think there are some other things that have changed to the preliminary site plan approval, if you could just highlight those changes for us. This is, again, just phase 1 a that we're talking about. Mr. Herrick — We covered probably 50 percent or greater of the changes that have been made already and discussing the pedestrian trail and its realignment and the additional landscaping that has been proposed with it together with the stormwater management strategies, but the other significant change that you did not see in the earlier site plan submission was the addition of the pool building and that now is on the site plan and the architect, Howard Blaisdell, can certainly run you very quickly through what that entails and what the facility will include. Mr. Blaisdell — Ithaca College had been fortunate enough to receive a grant to include the pool in this first phase. The project had always been including it as part of the master plan for the overall project. It had always been planning the stormwater management practices for the overall project, but at this time Ithaca College is fortunate enough to pursue with the aquatics complex as part of the building. I'll point it out on the site plan, but the building plans should be included in your packets and submittals. The pool is an addition to the main fieldhouse on the south side of building is directly attached to the building. It is not a separate structure. It is actually attached to the building. Just kind of pointing out the pool area is attached to the building on the south side in an area that in the previous plans had been left as green space in anticipation of the pool. So as we've been adding the pool it had a very minor impact on the number of parking spaces that we had and mostly used the space we preserved for the footprint. Second item that had come up since the previous plan was the desire to have a weight room as part of the project. It may or may not take its actual form. It might actually be underground, but the thought is that if a weight room was needed it would show up on the site plan as adjacent and attached to the east side plaza of the building. Again, all of these have been included in the stormwater management practices. All of these PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 44 have been included in the other requirements. The pool addition actually has a lower height than the fieldhouse. On the east side of the building it is approximately, the main eave is about 35 feet above grade. And on the west side there is one section on the south side that on the pool is a 50 meter pool and the south side has a diving well. The diving well requires additional head height clearance above the diving Boards, which adds some height to the building. So we've brought the pool up one level. It's not on the lower level such as the fieldhouse and that's mostly because of some rock excavation that we have. We are actually still about 8 feet below the proposed grade at the southwest corner of the pool. So we are still, lack of a better expression, sinking the pool somewhat on the west side of the building. So the eave height on the west side of the building at the diving well, which is the highest point required for the fieldhouse is 46 feet above the pool deck, but again being about 8 feet below grade is about 38 feet. The elevations are consistent with the rest of the building. We are using the same design, language, same ... similar patterns in the windows, still using the same metal panels and blend those metal panels in the facades. We're still using the same tinted glass on the fagade and maintaining core equipment and everything on the very south end of the building so that it is not facing the neighbors. Any questions on that? Chairperson Howe — And I think we resolved the issue; we don't have to have port -a- johns. Mr. Blaisdell — Yes. We did as part of this process in adding the pool, Ithaca College took a hard look at the number of fixtures that were needed for a fieldhouse event being that the understanding is the largest event that would ever occur in the fieldhouse, would be a graduation in terms of a backup rain site for graduation and the determination was that if we were adding a pool, which at its maximum capacity is about 11700 — 1,800 people for a NCAA meet or a high school championship between spectators and people in the pool deck and people in the water. That Ithaca College would oversize the restrooms for that area of the building so that they could serve a crowd of 7,500 people for an event in the fieldhouse. And Ithaca College then took this to the State Board of Appeals for a variance and discussed with them, and I believe there is a letter from Kristie Rice attached to the report, but that it was determined that the maximum occupancy of the complex of this configuration with the fieldhouse and the pool would be about 9,300 people and that the plumbing fixtures would serve...it's an unbalanced load, but it serves about 8,600 people. But the intent is it would serve at least the 7500 people that would be the maximum size anticipated in the fieldhouse. So it does eliminate the issue and concern over any port-a- johns. Chairperson Howe — Do you have other changes to highlight? Mr. Herrick — No, I don't have any other modifications to bring to your attention. We do have some additional details that are relevant to some lighting along the pedestrian trail that we can share with the Board when it's appropriate. Chairperson Howe — Why don't you do that now since it came up earlier? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 45 Mr. Herrick — Okay. What I've placed here for you to review and you also have as an 11x17 in the handout is an example of the lighting levels that will be experienced approximate to the realigned pedestrian trail. First of all we are showing you what the actual fixture is and what the pole heights will be for the lighting that's along the perimeter. It's a 50 watt ,metal halide fixture and these fixtures will be mounted at 12 feet above the adjacent grade. Earlier plans that we had presented had, I believe, 20 foot poles with 250 watt metal halide lamp. So we've downsized the pole. We've reduced the wattage, but the one thing that results in that is an increase in the density. The spacing between the poles now has to be reduced such that the light level that the College needs to achieve along the trail is safe. And the target for minimum light levels along the trail is .5 foot candle, or one -half of a lumen. There's references to what. ..bright moonlight are at night. Other light levels that you may experience out here on the street could be anywhere between 1 to 5. Bank parking lots are typically a lot higher than that. So we are targeting the lowest possible light level that is recommended by the industry. Chairperson Howe — What is the average distance between? Did you say that? Mr. Herrick — It is roughly 55 feet pole spacing. Mr. Blaisdell — Could you add about the light fixture? Mr. Herrick — Yeah. The average light level along the trail is 1.5 lumens and the point -5 being the minimum anywhere between the pole spacing. The other feature that is included in the cut -sheet for the fixture is what's called a house -side shield and its actual physical attachment that goes on the square box that eliminates light spill behind the pole. So its an added fixture that has to be ordered and the College anticipates including that in the fixture and it will help to reduce any light effect beyond the perimeter of the sidewalk and that's going to be placed on the house side, if you will, of all of these fixtures. So within this example of the light levels we're, very quickly, off the edge of the walkway on the house side going to zero influence at the ground. Now it doesn't mean that there's no visual impact. You can, at a lower elevation look up and you can see the underside of these fixtures. That's still very likely a possibility. And something that we can look to address with additional vegetation and screening that you talked about earlier. The lower enlarged site plan simply shows how the minimum light level that has to be designed for here is being achieved. So that is information that is in the first 2 or 3 pages of this handout. In addition to that we have provided details of the turf field lighting poles and the fixtures that will be mounted on those poles and also for the tennis courts. And this is information that's consistent with what has already been developed and presented in the DEIS, but there had been enough comments that people wanted to see what these fixtures would look like on poles that we've provided that detail. Chairperson Howe — Anything else you want to highlight before we see what questions there are? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 46 Mr. Herrick — No. I think that's the summary. Chairperson Howe — Hollis? You had a question? I thought you did. Board Member Erb — I had an earlier question when we were back on the building because I still don't understand where the 15,000 gallon roof runoff tank is. Mr. Herrick — LH 103, Board Member Erb — How I missed it is ... you know, I looked for it and I couldn't find it. Mr. Herrick — Well, it moved. If you were looking for it in the old location you wouldn't find it because it did shift. It's still there. Board Member Erb — LH. I've got to find LH. Okay. I have an LH. Board Member Hoffmann — Would you say the letters again? Mr. Herrick — LH ... 103, And what you see in this sheet is the extreme north end of the fieldhouse and you'll note right adjacent to what appears to be a loading dock, which it is, is a large rectangle, which is the tank you are enquiring about and there's a note there that says roof runoff collection tank. Its located to the far lower left hand corner of... Board Member Erb — Oh. It's way over there. I ... okay, Mr. Herrick — Yeah. Previously we had it at the south end of the building adjacent to the parking lot. A much larger water tank took up the location so... Board Member Erb — Thank you. I'm sorry. I looked for it and I couldn't find it. So where this path comes down between two houses, how was the decision made about which is the house side for the backing on the lighting? ... Or is between the property that is 152 and 200, 1 think they are. Mr. Herrick - I think there would be an opportunity to locate the poles on the opposite side of the sidewalk. They are shown essentially running down the same side and there is an opportunity to stagger them along the switchback so that the house side will in effect be up against the neighboring residential properties there. Board Member Erb — So you're prepared to shift it from side to side depending on what? Which house is closer? Mr. Herrick — Yes. Board Member Erb — Okay. I would like to acknowledge the switch back to take people directly west from Coddington Road as opposed to the curving arch to get improvement. Mr. Herrick — I'm sorry? Board Member Erb — The original plan had people entering end and it was sort of a curving arc and instead there's a brings people up to higher elevation sooner and I liked that. the one house that you're getting closer to on that ... I think think it is. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 47 from the Coddington Road switchback to the west that I felt that it got it way from it's the residence at 200. 1 Mr. Herrick — Or it may be 95, 93 -95. 1 think that's the first property within the City of Ithaca that this project abuts up to. Board Member Erb — I was looking at the old piece for the run of houses that are most behind and the one at the end of its property is the one that's closest to the path. Mr. Herrick — Correct. Board Member Erb — And I felt that the switchback put it a little bit farther way. Mr. Herrick — I understand. Chairperson Howe — What would you estimate the total construction time to be for Phase 1A? Mr. Blaisdell — In all likelihood it's probably in the 20 -22 month timeframe. Chairperson Howe — I believe there was some timing issues for the summer. Some things you wanted to ... like the parking lots and putting the utility line underground that type of thing. That if you get approval, there are some things you'd like to move forward on this summer. Mr. Herrick — Yeah. There are discreet elements of the project that are somewhat disconnected, unrelated to the property A &E site and we did discuss and ask for the Board's consideration to look at what are essentially the remote parking lots as an early step in construction simply because we have issues of having to .provide parking in a timely manner for students returning in the fall. Construction, additional, approval for the A &E center site itself would cramp our schedule to the point where we would not be able to physically get parking replaced in time for the fall. So we will be providing the Town with that discreet package for final consideration. Board Member Erb — I misspoke myself when I said the house at 200 when I meant 210, for the notes. Chairperson Howe — Fred, do you have questions related to the site plan? Hollis, anything else? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 48 Board Member Erb — Is this an appropriate time for me to start talking about screening the path? Chairperson Howe indicates yes. Board Member Erb - Alright. I think I understand that you don't want large cover right next to a pedestrian path. Its sort of out in the country, but shifted out away from the. path I'm very interested in there being as much cover or as much screening as possible and even to the point of not just trees, but perhaps a low fence buried within the stands of trees and the addition of shrubs that it would not be easy for people to push their way through. I would really like to make it very difficult for students to wander downhill off the path. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Board Member Erb — Very far. Chairperson Howe — I'm assuming that 's...other people would agree with that kind of a dense vegetation. I'm not sure ... I have mixed feelings about the fence, but I think dense vegetation or somehow signaling that, you know, you just don't go down there passed certain vegetation. Is that...? Board Member Erb — You know, I mean, it's one thing for there to be a stand of trees, but it's easy to get through a stand of trees. Chairperson. Howe Right, Board Member Erb — Very dense shrubbery, something thorny. [laughter] Chairperson Howe — Did you hear that? Mr. Herrick — As long as it's not invasive, right? Board Member Thayer — Right. Board Member Erb — But I mean it quite sincerely. It's very easy to say don't go below here and we have kids walking the middle of the street at times, unfortunately, but the more you can make it a physical barrier... Mr. Herrick — You mentioned fencing, would there be other alternatives to fencing? Other landform type considerations...? Board Member Wilcox — Can I have a little public conversation with you? PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 49 Board Member Erb — Sure. Board Member Wilcox — Do we see fencing as a barrier meaning its 6 foot high or 8 foot high or do we see fencing as simply a warning, "don't cross this path "? Board Member Conneman — "Don't cross this path ". Board Member Wilcox — Or "don't cross this line "? Board Member Erb — The 4 -foot fence I have to contain my dog would be adequate for preventing most drunken students from getting very far. Board Member Wilcox — I was thinking not a high fence, 8 -10 foot with razor wire, but as part of the barrier system that says "don't cross ". Board Member Erb — Yes. And I'm thinking especially, I'm still sincerely thinking about fence. For example, at the comer where you come so close to the property at, I think 210 is the correct number. Just ... okay, as protection. And perhaps something like that also on the other side, which is the property that might be number 152, the Rogers' household. I like the idea of this path to funnel students off of Coddington Road, but I'd like to make sure that they are funneled. Chairperson Howe — So I think you get the point we're trying to make about fencing. Susan? Board Member Riha — Yeah. The one comment I would make just to travel sometimes on wooded Cornell paths, I mean, for the female students I don't like the idea of having a lot of trees of shrubs around. I mean I like the idea that it is more open and I think a lot of female students would feel safer if they are not traveling through a kind of narrow place with lots of trees and lots of open space. So that's just my impression. Board Member Erb — Right now people could be hiding a few feet away in a front yard. Board Member Riha — I would prefer a fence because its more open and you can see people and where they're at and they're not behind trees. Board Member Erb — Or you could even have the kind of lower fence I'm talking about. Not 2 foot high, but 4 foot high. A little distance between the path and the Coddington Road neighborhood and then plantings on that side on the home side. Mr. Herrick — Well, we could certainly move the plantings closer to that fence. I would suspect to put a fence in would be probably along the back the property line, still within Ithaca College property, but it could be within several feet of that property line if that's an appropriate location and then any additional plantings could be located west of that fence line. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 50 Board Member Erb — I'm actually looking ... I was actually thinking in terms of a low fence being closer to the path than to the property lines because I see it as ... I see that distance as being part of the buffer for the neighbor ... for the neighboring houses and the fence is to prevent late night drunken whatever's getting that close to the property line. Mr. Herrick — Okay. I understand. Chairperson Howe — I think we'll have to see what they bring before us. Board Member Erb — Yeah, but I mean that's what I was thinking. I mean at one point I wondered about throwing up a fence right at the property lines, then I thought no that completely cuts the neighbors off and it allows students right on the other side of my property. I would rather that they were stopped over there. I'd rather they were stopped 50 or 60 feet away from the back of my property. Board Member Conneman — Exactly. I agree. I mean that's ... I think you need a fence. Mr. Kanter — Just for clarification, are we talking about ... what type of fencing? Chain link? Picket? Wood rail? Chairperson Howe — I think we are talking about a natural... Board Member Riha — Yeah. Mr. Kanter — Something more naturalistic. Board Member Erb — I'm looking for it with some shrub barriers to make it just very difficult to get across and I know it's your land and people would have a right to be on it, you would think, but I'm trying to protect the neighbors. Mr. Blaisdell — So however it's done, a dense barrier path that's at the toe of the hill, but the barrier neither because of the sense of security for being on the path, some kind of a physical barrier. that's somewhere between the at the fence line or at the path, but somewhere in the middle is Board Member Erb — There's a swale ... there's a swale down there at the base of that hill. I would think on the path side of that perhaps. Chairperson Howe — Okay. else beslde's...? I think lets move on. I think we've got ... was there anything Board Member Erb — As did Eva, although I appreciate the idea of a canopy going up that hill, I also think there's a visual barrier effect that we're looking for and I would also like at least a few evergreens interspersed in here. I am glad that the Z Lot expansion is away from the properties rather than towards the properties. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 51 Chairperson Howe — Susan? Ms. Neilsen — Wait. Chairperson Howe — Wait. Tape 3 Board Member Erb — At least one neighbor commented about the need to bring students to an access to South Hill when there's already another access, and I'd like to state explicitly, I think multiple accesses, so that loops, for people in the daytime who are actually walking are nice things, so I'm comfortable with the idea that we are providing access to South Hill Recreation Way a couple of different ways. Thank you. Board Member Riha — Well, I was just going to say, I like the idea of using native trees, so if you were going to do evergreens, it would be great to keep them native, as opposed to those awful evergreens that we have put up. And then my only other question is will we have a stormwater prevention plan available when we're going to do the site review? Mr. Herrick — Yes. Correct. On, the majority of the information that is contained in the SWPPP was something that we already prepared as part of the DEIS and it was an extensive... Board Member Riha — Okay, I did some of the modeling... Mr. Herrick — All the hydrology has been done and the routings have been done to show how the practices mitigate the changes in flow. All of the filtration practices have been sized for the areas, the impervious areas that drain through them... Board Member Riha — But we've done some changing, because you initially didn't have that storage tank from the facility, right? Mr. Herrick — The storage tank for roof -runoff it's just an added benefit to the management plan in that some of that... Board Member Riha - Right, right... Mr. Herrick — But we have to accommodate and expect when there could be instances when the tank is full, and therefore there's a bypass so ... so our practices are... conservative from that perspective in that we are going to accommodate a tank that is already full. Board Member Riha — Okay, and then, will there be any discussion of these wetland detention ponds and how much water they can really expect to retain and... PB 4 -22 -08 Pg, 52 Mr. Herrick — Yes. We have a number of different practices. There's the stormwater wetlands that's proposed for the Z Lot, and I think I should just embellish a little bit on what's happening with Z Lot that's different from current conditions. We are proposing, along the perimeter, the uphill perimeter, a swale, a grass -lined swale that's going to collect this runoff, whatever runoff that does come from that parking lot and it's being piped down the steep slope to the practice at the bottom. In addition, we have the swale adjacent to the trail which is picking up any sidehill seepage, or surface runoff. That too being connected to the stormwater wetland, so there's a couple of conveyances here that are going to take care of runoff generated from this lot. Inaudible Board Member Riha — Yeah from what you had before, so that swale near the path, actually, if there is some issue with some of this groundwater seepage, might pick that. ...if you had more groundwater seepage, it might pick that up. Mr. Herrick — Seepage that would be coming out of the fill slope would be picked up by that trench. Right. Board Member Riha — Right. Okay, Mr. Kanter — So will the Board have all that sort of put together in one package when the preliminary plan is under review? Mr. Herrick — We will be compiling the SWPPP, and the SWPPPP has a lot more to it than just the stormwater management approaches. It has requirements for inspections, and forms and things that go, that go closer to construction than simply a stormwater management analysis, but that's going to be developed and submitted by the end of this week. Mr. Smith — And we do have a new Stormwater Law which outlines a lot of the elements that need to be included and that.... Board Member Riha — Right ... that was just recently passed... right... right... Board Member Thayer — I would just like to thank you guys for listening and changing all the comments from the people and us, and we are going to continue to cuss and discuss, I'm sure, the noise and the light situation and the path and the traffic, which we are going to have to continue to do, but, you're certainly following what we are asking, and we appreciate that. Board Member Conneman — My concern is the neighbors, and I think the fence and the other things that we've discussed make that much better. That protects the students also. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sitting here feeling fact that we have to deal with young adults that intelligent enough to get into College, and we protection so they don't hurt either themselves property, PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 53 very discouraged and sad about the are at least 17 years old, I believe, had to make sure -that we put up or other people, or other people's Board Member Riha — I guess I would like to state for the record that I think we are talking about a minority of students here. I think there's some outstanding Ithaca College students and they contribute a lot to the community. And I know in cases like this we think of the few students at Ithaca College, and certainly there's probably more at Cornell because there's more students ... I don't think Ithaca College has anymore percentage wise than any other university, so I think, just because we've mentioned this so much, we should state for the record that most of these students are outstanding and they contribute a lot. They're working at Longview, they're down at the Commons during the festivals, and.... Board Member Hoffmann — I agree with you, and it's always the minority that causes problems for the majority. The other thing that I feel sad about is that we have to create situations where we feel safe from other human beings. Like you were saying you want an open trail, and lights, and all that. And I assume that it's because you're not afraid of the dogs or the stray cats, it's the people you are afraid of. And that's a sad situation. That's all I have to add in addition to the other things we have said tonight. Chairperson Howe — I'm all set. Anything from this side of the room? Board Member Erb — I would really appreciate some more details about monitoring the noise levels on large events. Explicitly, I was thinking like, I'd like to know what...) made this up just as an example ... I'd like to know, once this is all said and done, the first year of operation, I'd like to know what the 90th and 50th percentiles of the noise was during the two largest events you have there. Just to get a sense of whether it's actually similar to what was being predicted by the models. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Chairperson Howe — Is that something that would show up.... Mr. Kanter — The Finding Statement would be a good place to start... Board Member Erb — And I just made that up. I was looking for something with a very high level and then a typical level for at least the two largest events. Chairperson Howe — It's somewhat similar of what I think we asked of the Vet Facility in Forest Home. Mr. Herrick — And we have offered that already and... PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 54 Mr. Kanter — So then again, I think the Findings will have to then again repeat what Ithaca College has already offered and then what Planning Board members have said they wanted and it will be a collection of sort of everything we've heard so far. Board Member Hoffmann — I just thought of something... Board Member Riha — I thought we were still doing site plan... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, but it's hard to separate Findings from Site Plan because they are very related... Board Member Hoffmann — I just thought of something that I would like to see also, and that is, it may be there but I seem to have trouble digging it up....What is the total number of events, big events, medium size events, even small events, that would attract traffic from outside of campus that will be coming about because of this new facility, in addition to the events that are already happening? I'd like the total. It's somewhere...) remember ten major events a year but I wasn't sure if that was events using this new facility, or if it also included already occurring events like... Mr. Couture Eva, I did send a letter to Jonathan and it was included in the FEIS that dealt specifically with the number of events, including athletic events and non - athletic events. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Is that in the paperwork we got? I know I read a letter from you that was in here, but I don't remember that it had that information. Mr. Herrick — Appendix B is the location of the letter. (Paper shuffling and people talking but not audible enough to distinguish) Board Member Riha — I mean, we know it's here, so I think we can... Chairperson Howe — We have a few other things we need to get to, so I think we're.... Mr. Couture — Can I ask a question? We just want clarification on the schedule for the Findings so we can... Chairperson Howe — Jonathan, can you just... Mr. Kanter — I think it's fairly unlikely that we will have this at the May 6 Planning Board meeting because of the short time period that we would have to even draft it and get it to the Board. But that's my opinion, at this point. Mr. Couture — So we could check with your office in a few days... PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 55 Mr. Kanter — You can check, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's going to end up. I mean,, if you'd like, I will just make a statement tonight saying it's not going to be on the May 6 th agenda, that might be easier, but, of course it's up to the Chair and the Planning Board. Chairperson Howe — I don't know, what else is coming before us ... I mean, that's not so much the issue, what's coming before us, it's just the time period between now and May 6th Mr. Kanter — Correct. It's just a very constrained timeframe. Ms. Brock — It's a really important document too. Mr. Kanter — If it had been at the April 15th meeting, and we hadn't shifted this, it might have been a little bit more possible, but because it's two weeks from tonight, we have to get the materials to the Board a week ahead of time ... it's going to take us longer than a few days to put the Finding Statement together. Mr. Couture — This would go to the May 20thh*? Mr. Kanter — I would assume so. I think that would be a good assumption. Chairperson Howe — Okay. You all set? Mr. Herrick — I think we were going to clarify where the letter was... Chairperson Howe — We know it's there... Chairperson Howe — So thank you very much. Other Business Seminars and Public Meetings were discussed. The Agenda for the next meeting was discussed. Minutes ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 040 Minutes of April 1, 2008 Town of Ithaca Planning Board April 22, 2008 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman, WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from April 1, 2008. PB 4 -22 -08 Pg. 56 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on April 1, 2008. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Erb and Wilcox. NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Riha The motion was carried. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 10:03p.m. submitted, Paulette N"eMien, Deputy Town Cl TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday April 22 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center (Overall Project) 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 -119 41 -1 -12.29 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of +/- 300,000 square feet of indoor athletic facilities including an indoor 200M track with practice /game field, Olympic size pool and diving well, tennis courts, rowing center, gymnasium, strength and conditioning center, and floor space for large indoor events. Outdoor facilities include a lighted artificial turf field, a 400M track with open space for field events, and lighted tennis courts. The project is proposed in several phases and will also include the construction of +/- 1,002 parking spaces (687 displaced spaces and 315 new spaces), relocating overhead power lines, constructing a new loop road, walkways, access drives, stormwater management facilities, lighting and landscaping. The Board will also be discussing the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center (Phase 1 A). The Phase 1 A portion of the project includes the field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, and an all - weather turf field with seating and lighting. This phase will also include new and expanded parkin' g facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. No actions on the site plan or special permit will be taken at this meeting. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, 3. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 4. Approval of Minutes: April 1, 2008, 5, Other Business: 6, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street April 22, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name /Plo 2�r kuVj 614 p ��-S -Cjr� F�MAt 1�iJ�5> A yL. rr Address �Uta G,Ile 1`tiWoYNdza i C� I'Ll 51 6AM9 i jc1 J7F 00 Gad ��`v3�S OH/ o