Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-05-20FILE DATE Town of Ithaca Planning Board Tuesday, May 20, 2008 215 North Tioga Street 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Chair, Rod. Howe, Members; Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Fred Wilcox, and Hollis Erb, Alternate Kevin Talty absent. Staff Present: 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: Katherine Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Melinda Staniszewska, Coddington Rd Marian Rogers, Coddington Road Tessa Flores, Compton Road Joel Harlan, Newfield Michael Talarski, Simsbury Drive Brian Noteboom, Empire State Carpenters Michael Welch, Rich Road Rick Couture, Ithaca College David Herrick, TG Miller & Associates Tim Schmalenberger, MSI Howard Blaisdell, Moody Nolan Chairperson Howe opened the meeting at 7:04 p.m, and indicated the fire exits. Chairperson Howe stated the notice(s) of public hearings had been duly posted and published. PERSONS to be HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Distribution of the Cornell Transportation- Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS). Discussion and schedule of review. Katherine Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agent for Cornell University You now have in your possession the Draft Transportation- Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement and we have also handed out a tentative schedule for the review of this document. And I just wanted to mention a couple of things and then give a very brief overview of the schedule. I wanted to remind you that this phase of the project now is what s called an adequacy review, so your job at this point in time is to review this document and determine that it is adequate, which means that it in fact PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 2 includes everything that the outline, that the scoping document says it would include. So that's what you are measuring it against at this point in time. We are not really debating, maybe, the merits of the analysis or, it's really, have we done everything that we said we would do based on the scoping document. SEAR technically requires that you make a determination of adequacy within 45 days. I think, given sort of the unique nature of this project and perhaps the magnitude of it, we've assumed that it might be more comfortable for the Planning Board to have somewhat more time than that, so we have in our outline, suggested slightly more than that. So we are anticipating that after tonight, the next three Planning Board Meetings, this would be an agenda item and that we would be available to answer questions, and have working sessions on the question of adequacy and then anticipating, possibly around July 15th, actually a determination of adequacy. Jonathan and I spoke earlier today and one of the things that we talked about is whether or not in this phase, it would be useful for the Board to have the transportation engineers at one of the Planning Board meetings. Certainly we would anticipate that that would be the case when you're reviewing the substance, you know, whether or not that's something you would like during the adequacy, I think probably you need to get into the review a little bit and then we can make that determination. So I think, you know, and maybe on June 3rd we can begin to have some of those conversations. Again, according to this tentative schedule, we've, if adequacy is determined sometime in July, we are then, it then becomes available for public comment, but, recognizing that the summer is not a great time for public input, a lot of people, as a courtesy that many people are on vacation, we've really identified a public hearing in September after school is back in session and people are sort of back into their regular routines. But what that does afford, I think, is a longer period of time where it is available for public review, so while many people are on vacation, most people do not go away for two months. So hopefully there is enough of a window there that could accommodate that. And then, under this scenario, closing the public comment period in late September, and then assuming approximately two more months to really work through responding to the comments, the final TGEIS and then the preparation of Findings and then the adoption of Findings. Another piece of this project, I will remind you, is something that we're calling the TIMS, the Ten -Year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies. We have a draft TIMS. It's very near completion as a draft, and we're anticipating submitting that to you on June 3rd. That is, also, just so you know, it is very much a direct outgrowth of the mitigations. So when you review the mitigations section of this, a lot of that really becomes, the TIMS, Cornell University is really viewing that as sort of their strategic transportation plan, so it really comes from the TIMS, and we'll be submitting a draft of that to you also, but just so you understand, it's not like that's going to look radically different from things that you already have in here. And I think that's about what I need to say at this point in time and I would be happy to answer any questions. And I' sure we'll have lot's of time to do that in the upcoming months. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 3 Chairperson Howe — We just want to thank you for the bags too, to carry our notebooks... Ms. Wolf — I think that was Susan's suggestion and we took her up on that. Board Member Hoffmann — That was very nice, but I would like to thank you especially for a time schedule that isn't too tight. I find it's very difficult to deal with big projects when there is this pressure to hurry up and get it done quickly. Board Member Wilcox — Of course, I would look at Jonathan for a schedule, not Katherine for a schedule. Mr. Kanter — Well, this looks pretty good on initial glance. As Katherine mentioned, we did talk about it on the phone today and it's going to be a flexible schedule and it will be adjusted as time goes on because dates, things happen, dates may change and.., vacations, things like that so this is really just a start. Board Member Wilcox — How much are we bound by NYS SEQR Law, in terms of things must be done in a certain timeframe? Mr. Kanter — Only to the extent that the applicant would want to be following the SEQR timeframes and in this case, Katherine has indicated that Cornell is actually offering this more flexible schedule, so as long as there is an understanding between the Town and the applicant... And in addition, this is not a true project in the sense of a physical project that needs to be approved. It's really more like a program, so there's a lot more flexibility, even under SEQR, with that. Chairperson Howe — Any other comments or questions for Katherine? So, happy reading, right. Ms. Wolf — I'm glad it's in your hands now. Thank you. Consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), located on the eastern side of the Ithaca Colleae campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -122, 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 conditionina 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 Parkina spaces (687 displaced spaces and 315 new spaces), relocating overhead power lines, constructing a new loop road, walkways, access PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 4 drives, stormwater management facilities, lighting and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Chairperson Howe — I will just read this for the benefit of the public, so they understand what the Findings Statement is about. Each involved agency must prepare its own written SEQR Findings Statement after a Final EIS has been filed and before the agency makes a final decision. The Findings certify that the requirements of Part 617 have been met. A positive Findings Statement means that the project or action is approvable after consideration of the Final EIS and demonstrates that the action chosen is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practical. The Findings Statement considers the relevant environmental impacts presented in the EIS and weighs and balances them with social, economic and other essential considerations. Findings of each agency must be filed with all of the other involved agencies and the applicant at the time that they are adopted. So we have before us the Draft of the State Environmental Quality Review Findings Statement for this project. Are there any questions? And you may note, well, one thing that we can certainly look at when we talk about the preliminary site plan approval, is, if there are items in here that get referenced that we want to make sure end up as conditions in the site plan approval, just so we don't lose track of them...and I know Susan spent some time today identifying some of those as well, so just keep that in mind, that there might be some things that you want to move forward as conditions for the preliminary site plan approval. But for the Findings itself, questions... 'comments,. I Board Member Riha — Maybe Dan can answer this. On page 5, under B, Stormwater Management, under Water Quantity. It says " Stormwater retention practices will be designed to maintain the peak discharge for the 10-.and 100 -year storm events at predevelopment levels and 24 -hour detention of the 1 -year storm event in order to protect downstream channels and erosions. Design will also need to ensure that the 25- and 50 -year discharge rates are maintained or reduced to...." Well, wouldn't the 25M and 50- year peaks automatically be reduced if the 10- and 100 - year.... Mr. Walker — Not necessarily. I mean, if you design for 2 points, it may be possible there may be slight increases in the intermediate, depending on, especially in a more complex watershed where there's travel time and peak discharges can vary so much. Generally, if the ... the State requires controlling the 1 -year, the 10- and the 100 -year, but we also look at the 25- and 50- just to look at the whole range. Board Member Riha — Okay, I so we're saying we want to see that in the stormwater management plan, which would be part of the.... Mr. Walker — Right, and generally all the calculations have been provided for those. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 5 Board Member Riha — Okay. Chairperson Howe — Eva, do you have any questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I was wondering, how do you want to do this? Do you want to go through the Findings page by page? Do you... Chairperson Howe — You know, I'm actually all set, so I will just say that.,Ahere are some things that I want to make sure end up as conditions, but I don't have any questions. So maybe that's just one ... so Eva, obviously you have some questions... George.... Board Member Conneman — I wondered if David Herrick or somebody would comment on what's on page 11 and 12 relative to the trail, since that was an issue at our last meeting. Chairperson Howe — Well, certainly we are going to have him address that as part of the site plan review. This is more the SEQR...George, if there's something in here that you have questions about in terms of have they looked at this issue, taken into consideration environmental, community issues to the extent that they can. I may not have communicated that well, so Susan, feel free to chime in if I'm not explaining exactly what the Findings Statement is versus what we talk about in preliminary site plan approval. Board Member Conneman — The only question I have is at what point do we raise it? Is this the point to look at what changes they've made to the trail? Because I... Chairperson Howe — I think we will ask them to review the changes when we get to the preliminary site plan. Board Member Wilcox — Let me offer the following; this is also a document created by Staff, therefore, the expectation is that most of our questions would be addressed to Staff. Chairperson Howe — This is meant to ... has this addressed the questions that we've come up with as well as comments that have come up in our public hearings? Ms. Brock — Uhmmm. ,lust to go back to George's question for a moment. George, if there's something about the new information that was submitted that you think should lead to a change in the wording of the Findings Statement, then it would be appropriate to discuss it now. On page 12, at the top though, it does say, it does provide for the fact that there may be changes, if the Board wants, to the location of the trail and buffering, and that type of thing and that would all be reviewed during site plan review. So I think that that language is sufficiently flexible enough to accommodate the fact that we now have some new drawings that show some changes to the location and buffering and that type of thing. 6 PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 6 Board Member Conneman — If you say so. Ms. Brock — But if there is anything in the information that was submitted recently... Board Member Conneman — No it's just that I thought that was a change from what we had discussed earlier and. ..But if we do it later, that's okay with me. Ms. Brock — And as this was worded, it was contemplated that there could be changes, so I don't' think any are needed, to the Findings Statement, Chairperson Howe — I was just trying to go and see if there were other quick things, but why don't, Eva has some things, so why don't we of go there... Board Member Hoffmann — Alright. I will start at the beginning of the document. On page 2, there's the summary of potential impacts, and under Land, it mentions at the end "impacts to slopes exceeding 15W but I don't see anything in the more detailed description of the land, potential land impacts, which talk about the slopes, in particular, and I am just wondering, did I miss something? Chairperson Howe — I am turning to Staff, as Fred indicated, to some measure, we will be turning to Staff to see if there is clarification... Board Member Erb — Could it be encompassed in the working about some of the wording about the grading during the construction? Ms. Brock — Yes, and it's also something that is taken into account in the erosion and sediment control plans and that type of thing. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that it didn't get lost... Ms. Brock — No, I don't believe the Findings Statement itself, once we get into section two, about environmental impacts, has a specific discussion about construction on slopes of that magnitude. It "impacts the slopes exceeding 15W was an impact identified during the scoping process, so that's a correct statement. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Then, moving on to page 4, under Dust, it says "to minimize airborne dust, various methods of control can be implemented" and then it lists various types, and I don't know if we have anything in the documents that asks for any specific ways of minimizing dust. And I am wondering if changing the word "can" to "will", will make a difference here. Because I think that's an important thing to try and control. Mr. Smith — Most of those items listed are, again, in the stormwater plan. Truck entrances, the watering down, and those types of things... Board Member Hoffmann — It says that they will do it or that it can be done? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 7 Mr. Smith — Those are the elements included, yeah, I mean, the truck pads are shown on the plans and things like that... Board Member Wilcox — Whether they do it or not is up to us. Mr. Smith — Yeah. Board Member Riha — But that's part of the site plan... Board Member Wilcox — That's part of site plan... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but since it's in here, I am bringing it up now. On page 5, under what the Lead Agency finds, it had earlier listed something about the protection of trees, I think so anyway, but, I made a note here that there's nothing specifically written here about protection of those larger trees that were going to be saved, and I'm wondering if we have to add something here... Board Member Riha — That's on the bottom of page 7, Eva...the bottom of page 7... Chairperson Howe — And it's possible that we might add a very specific condition to preliminary site plan... Board Member Hoffmann — oka, haven't forgotten anything. At stormwater prevention plan, it's and, I don't remember now why redesign to allow the wetlands to new wetlands, as an alternative. designed, we're just talking abc quality, that might be an option. (, I am going through this mainly to be sure that we the top of page 6, it talks about the details of the under the Water Quality segment, and the wetlands, I have this here, but I have written "consideration of remain, _all of them or some" instead of trying to create I mean, we haven't settled on how this is going to be ut the environmental impact. And to protect water Chairperson Howe — I think that we suggest that there will be a specific, separate site plan approval for the wetlands ... in preliminary... Mr. Kanter — But the Board will need to make a finding as to whether the impact on the existing wetlands will be acceptable in terms of balancing everything. So I mean, we really can't say, "well, it would be nice to also have an alternate that doesn't disturb the wetlands." We have to choose. Ms. Brock — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — But that's a possibility anyway, in my mind, that one could do that. One could try to move things around on the site plan in order to not disturb the wetlands. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 8 Mr. Kanter — Well, you could, if you found that the impacts were so significant that you need to not disturb the wetlands, in which case, then you would be making, in effect, the finding that the plan as proposed is not acceptable. So, I mean, that's a judgment this Board will have to make. Chairperson Howe — And I don't remember us feeling that, worrying that what we've been looking at to date hasn't been acceptable. Board Member Hoffmann — About the wetlands? Chairperson Howe — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — On page 7, this is just a comment that I had meant to make earlier, actually, it talks about the extensive biological assessment of the contiguous undeveloped College lands, and there is a map, at the very end of this document, the accepted EIS, and the type is so small, but if I hold it up, you might recognize what I'm talking about....it's called Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan, Contiguous Lands of Ithaca College, I can't read the date. The plan number is 1/1. And on it, there's text indicating the Unique Natural Area of South Hill Swamp which is all Cornell University owned land, but in fact, there is also a Unique Natural Area that is part of the South Hill Swamp on the Ithaca College owned land but it's not labeled that way. So this piece of land is also a Unique Natural Area and it was our Conservation Board that worked on this and I was on it so I am very well aware of that, and I think...l'm sorry I didn't mention that earlier, but I think that needs to be labeled correctly, to indicate that more of the Ithaca College land is also part of the UNA. Chairperson Howe — Is, this has been, well, I'll turn to the attorney, whether we can change anything in this document at this point.... Board Member Hoffmann — I remember we were told that we could add things in the Findings... Board Member Wilcox — You're not ... I'm not sure you're talking about the Findings though. I mean, you're talking about ... she's talking about the Final Environmental Impact Statement.... Chairperson Howe — Which was accepted by us on April 22 "d Board Member Wilcox — Yeah.... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I remember... Board Member Wilcox — There's no map or drawing as part of the Findings.... Board Member Hoffmann — Unless I am having another senior - moment, I remember that we were told that things could be added in the ... when we were talking about the PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 9 Findings, even if they weren't in the EIS....Anyway, I'm bringing this up, I'm sorry I didn't bring it up earlier... Board Member Wilcox — Before we go on ... I'm trying to figure out what you want to add, because maybe it's relevant... what do you want...? Board Member Hoffmann — I think it's relevant otherwise I wouldn't bring it up... Board Member Wilcox — What do you want to add to the Findings Statement? Chairperson Howe — Not to the map, but to the Findings Statement, Board Member Hoffmann — Uhhh... talks about this extensive biological that Ithaca College owns and this is is not labeled properly. I think it should be added to the map, and when it assessment, it talks about the whole parcel of land a map of that whole parcel, and I feel that the map Board Member Wilcox — Okay, let me take you back again...here's the Findings Statement...how do you think the Findings Statement should be changed? Board Member Riha — I guess...) think this is only referring to the wetlands that are in the area that they are planning to develop, not the.... Board Member Hoffmann — Except that the first paragraph refers to "all" of their land and I thought that there was also something here; they were talking about the fact that if these wetlands are disturbed, there are other wetlands on their land which can be substituted. Or where some of the wildlife. or plants will find habitat, even if these wetlands in this project area are damaged and cannot be properly replaced or the replacement wont' work or whatever" So, that reminded me about this map. Ms. Brock — Eva, would it satisfy your concerns if, when we get the additional site plan approval request regarding the wetlands mitigation, that at that time, along with any other site plan materials, the applicant submits, the applicant also submits a map showing the correct delineation and labeling of the various DNA's? Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe, but now, that. AoAnne Cornish mentioned the Town of Ithaca Planner at the time, Conservation Zone, she mentions sor mentioned before, in this EIS. It just, work ... do you think that would work? Ms. Brock — I believe it would, you know, I just remembered when you said this in her comments that are in this, and she was and she worked on this project, of setting up this nething about these lands, so they have been to add to what I said ... I'm not sure that would Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, then it's fine with me. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 10 Chairperson Howe — Anything else Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. Moving ahead ... On page 9 we are talking about lighting and noise, and Ithaca College offered to monitor the noise situation for a year, which I think is a great, and then report to us what happened, and then presumably we can then suggest changes that can be done if we find that the noise is too loud. What I wanted to ask is if it would be possible for us to consider the same kind of monitoring of the light? To see, if in fact, the light spill and the glare that they are predicting is not going to happen, if in fact that is true, that there is no glare or light spill. Board Member Riha — Well, if there was glare, it would be in violation of the Town ordinance, right? Or you're going to hold them to a higher standard than the Town ordinance? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think that they have essentially limited the way they look at the light and the glare to the immediate neighborhood and I have, all along, tried to suggest that I believe that the light might be a problem to other parts of the Town and the City, downhill from this. And that's why I am proposing that it might be a very nice thing to have monitoring of that. And whether it turns out that the light situation at times, especially if they have a, the stronger lighting that they are proposing to have for televised games, if it turns out that there is glare from that and it violates the Town's ordinance, then I suppose then it will have to be stopped, but, if we don't monitor it, how will we know that? Board Member Wilcox — Here's a. question for you, the way I think.. We struggle with noise and measuring noise, and we've had people .here with quart containers, empty containers of milk to help us understand volume of noise, so we struggle with. Therefore, I think that's part of why I wanted the monitoring. Lighting on the other hand, we get very detailed diagrams to show us where the light is going to end up, number one; if we are going to monitor light the way you're thinking about, do we get ourselves into a very subjective realm of what is glare or what isn't, or what is obtrusive or what isn't. As opposed to very objective, does the light shine down on the property where it's supposed to and not onto neighboring property? Board Member Hoffmann — But that, the last thing you said is what I would suppose the monitoring would do and in fact, monitoring it with, using experts and using equipment that one could trust to do this would be the more objective way rather than a subjective way, I would think. Board Member Riha — But if it's in violation of the Town's ordinance, then presumably the people who are enforcing that code can measure that and correct it. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. But will that happen unless we ask for monitoring? Board Member Erb — Is it possible that this is one of the things that will come out of complaints from neighbors? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 11 Board Member Hoffmann — But they would be subjective is what we would say, or what Fred would say... Board Member Erb — But sufficient complaints from neighbors would then get Codes & Ordinances out to do that monitoring. Ms. Brock — The Code Enforcement Officer. Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, this is just a suggestion I had to try to be as objective as possible, and as scientific as possible, rather than relying'on neighbors... Board Member Wilcox — Gut -feel or... Board Member Riha — Yeah, but the Town Code Enforcement Officer doesn't, presumably, rely on that. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know that ... I don't know that... Board Member Erb — the other thing that might be going on here, and I know I'm making huge assumptions when I say this, is, I bet Ithaca College is paying a lot for presumably the best new technology and would have their own arguments with the company if it didn't turn out the way they hoped. Board Member Hoffmann — But who's going to tell them if it worked out the way they hoped or not? Board Member Erb —(inaudible) ... for the field lighting... Ms. Brock — But there's other lighting on this site, such as along the path... Chairperson Howe — It might not be an issue of monitoring as a year after everything is built, for us to do some sort of check -in, and we will be seeing things across the hill. You know, we can learn from that somehow and say, "Gee, I didn't realize you'd see the lights across the way as much as we can." Board Member Riha — But in fairness then, we'd have to do that with everybody else. Chairperson Howe — So we could do it informally if that's important to us, you know, just to make a note to check in with each other... Board Member Hoffmann — But then what would we do? Board Member Riha — It just seems precedent setting too because... Chairperson Howe -- ...you learn for the future... PB 5.24.2008 Pg. 12 Board Member Riha — We didn't require Cornell to do that on the Animal ... I mean, we'd have to require that then for every major project...in fairness... Board Member Thayer — That's why wed have the lighting ordinance... Mr. Kanter — I wanted to ask Eva.:.lf we did do some kind of monitoring as a condition, what would you say? How would you set some threshold that you're going to be monitoring? It's not even like noise where you can at least say "let's measure above ambient noise conditions" and you have some established figure that you know of today that you can then compare it to later with. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, how is it done with our...using our light ordinance? Mr. Kanter — Well, it's basically somewhat subjective, as the noise ordinance and light ordinance are, with aesthetic, observed features like that. We no longer, in the noise ordinance, have a measurement as the threshold for disturbance, but rather, whether a neighbor considers noise as a nuisance,.. Ms. Brock — Hmmm ... not exactly right... Mr. Kanter -- ...and I'm not sure how you would monitor lighting.... Board Member Hoffmann — I know, but I would be willing to bet that somewhere at Ithaca College or Cornell University there would be some expert... Mr. Kanter— Well, sure, there are experts... but... Board Member Riha — I have two concerns. One is that they have already met the requirements of the Town ordinance, with the shielding and the wattage and so on, so they've met those requirements, and then to come in later and say "well, that's not good enough... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, so why do we want to monitor the noise then? We might make the same assumption about that... Mr. Walker — I think the lighting is a lot easier to make a determination immediately after construction, because the, they provided the photometrics and we know what the light densities are supposed to be. The anti -glare shields are very easy to determine whether or not they're effective in preventing side - glare, which is pretty well written into our regulations, and we'll be able to tell the first time they turn those lights on where that light's going. With the noise, you know, they may not have a big event for two years, and monitoring the noises... there's less ... it's more of an art than a science, where the lighting is more science than the sound is. So I'm comfortable that we'll know if there's a problem with the lighting immediately, so they'll have to correct that to keep it within the bounds that they said they would... i PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 13 Board Member Thayer — So Eva's asking who is going to do that checking, I think. Mr. Walker — That would be between the Code Enforcement and then the Engineering Department and the Planning.... Board Member Thayer — She just wants to be assured that it will be done. Mr. Walker — It will be done. Same with the stormwater.. . Board Member Hoffmann — Now if you say they may not have a big event for two years, that means our monitoring plan for noise is no good because that's for one year. Chairperson Howe — My guess is they'll have a big event within one year... Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. ..we can guess, but that's not the way to do these things. ..we don't do it by guess... Chairperson Howe — Eva, why don't you move on to your next issue. Board Member Hoffmann — Next one has to do with...it's on top of page 12, it has to do with the pedestrian and bicycle network, and, the, I'm a little confused, because the plans and the text have talked about this proposed trail between Z Lot and the Coddington Road residences as a "walking trail" most of the time, but the latest plans say "bike trail" and some of the text says "bike and walking trail" and I am concerned about combined biking and walking trails unless there are clear marking because very often there can happen dangerous situations between bicyclist and pedestrians. So that's one of the things I wanted to bring up. Chairperson Howe -- So that can be moved into a condition, just to verify that they have stripes or somehow are delineating, and we will be able to address that when you give us an update on the proposed reconfiguration. Board Member Hoffmann - And then, I still think that a sidewalk would be desirable and I remember, -Dan, that you said the sidewalk should really be on the other side, that's the most practical side for a sidewalk, and that may very well be, but in this particular location, between Hudson Street and the Coddington Road entrance to Ithaca College, I think a sidewalk on the College side, on the western side of Coddington Road, is very important and I don't see that there will be a problem about eventually having two sidewalks there, but starting with this one. That's just my very strong opinion... Chairperson Howe — But that's not.. Mr. Walker — That's not even part of the project... Chairperson Howe — That's not part of the project.... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 14 Board Member Riha — This is the SEQR component... Chairperson Howe — You're talking about a sidewalk on Coddington, right? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Howe — And that's.... Board Member Hoffmann — That's right ... Everyone starts talking at once, can not discern who is saying what. Mr. Walker — That's not even being considered as part of the project because... Board Member Hoffmann — But we have talked about it before, and I still feel very strongly about it. Mr. Walker — I understand. I believe that the pedestrian access that they are providing between the College and the intersection between Hudson Street and Coddington Road is the best solution to keep people totally off Coddington Road in that section. Even if you had sidewalks, we'd end up with very narrow sidewalks with curbs right up against the traffic, and that's not the best thing. Board Member Hoffmann — But as we have said, at other meetings, and as we read in the minutes that we just read for this meeting, students are going to be on Coddington Road anyway, most likely, and it's dangerous. So that's why I think a sidewalk would still be desirable. Moving on, under Transit Service, on the same page, how do we know that TCAT doesn't want to change the bus routes or schedule, as a result of this project? As it says in the first sentence? Board Member Wilcox — It doesn't say that. Board Member Hoffmann — "Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit has no plans to change the current bus routes... Board Member Wilcox — Right. Has no plans. It doesn't say they aren't. Board Member Hoffmann -- ...as a result of this project." Board Member Wilcox — It doesn't say they aren't, it says they have no plans; they may have plans at a future date.... Board Member Hoffmann — I apologize for misspeaking; I should have read it the first time through. How do we know that? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 15 Mr. Walker — Well, can I speak to that ... weIve been meeting, I've been meeting with the community group, IC Community Group dealing with disturbances the students cause and one of the things that the Group has been discussing with TCAT and Jennifer Godsend, who is on the Transportation Group and on the TCAT Board I think, they have started running additional busses for Ithaca College students at night, to make it more convenient to go back and forth, and there are discussions ongoing about improving their service, maybe with smaller busses and things, so, there is an interest in providing transit from downtown up to Ithaca College on a regular basis. The plans aren't set firmly yet but they are trying different things. The biggest problem is they can not get the ridership. They're talking 200 riders for the whole weekend on a half -hour bus circuit, so, there's an education process that has to happen and Ithaca College is very proactive on wanting to do that. So there are efforts that are being done there and whether it's related to this, I'm sure there will be additional transit trips for large events up here because people will need transportation back and forth just like they do at Cornell. Ms. Brock — Eva, that statement comes right out of the EIS. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Thank you. And then, I think, I am close to the end here...at the bottom of page 13, it talks about "event traffic management" and it mentions that there might be or it's planned, that there will be "up to 10- annual non- athletic related indoor events". And then, "the facility would also host many indoor and outdoor athletic events" and it gives a number of spectators for each. And I come back to the question that I've had before about what is the total number of events and last time I was referred to a letter in the appendix of the big folder that we got and there are two letters missing in my folder. I am missing appendices 7 and 9. No, 8 and 9. And one of them is supposed to be a letter from Rick Couture and then the other one I don't remember, but I spoke to Hollis and she has the letters and none of those letters refer to the number of events so I am still asking that question. Chairperson Howe — Mike, do you remember seeing any references as you pulled together material specific to the number of athletic events? Mr. Smith — In the FEIS, the final version here in Appendix B, there's a letter dated April 2nd that outlines several of the events, the non - athletic and the athletic events. Chairperson Howe — And does it give numbers? Mr. Smith — Yes. For non - athletic events ... the athletic events ... it says, "Many during the course of year. There could be 15 to 20 events held on the artificial turf field. Of those events almost all will attract no more than a few hundred spectators. The only games that attract a crowd of 1,000 to 1,500 is men's lacrosse game and that happens once every other year..." That type of thing. Board Member Hoffmann — Is this a letter from Richard Couture on April 2, 2008? PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 16 Mr. Smith — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — I read that letter and I don't see those numbers here. Do you see those...? Chairperson Howe — I think there's another letter... Mr. Smith — There's two letters back to back. Mr. Kanter — It's the second one. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Now I see it. Thank you. That's been a long hard struggle to get those figures for me. So that means if there is 12 to 16 ... oh, this is 12 to 16 non - athletic events per year and then it says where's the figure for athletic events? 15 to 20 events held on the artificial turf field. Chairperson Howe — Eva, can we move on to your next item since we know that the numbers are there? Board Member Hoffmann — On page 14, under discussion of alternatives, there's one item there that I don't remember that we discussed and I would like to be reminded if we did. Its number 5, an alternative scale of development and facility design among the alternatives. Mr. Smith — Its one of the alternatives in the DEIS, in the alternative section. Board Member Hoffmann — It's discussed there? Mr. Smith — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but I don't remember that we discussed it at one of our meetings. Board Member Wilcox — We many not have. We may not have considered it important enough or relevant enough to actually voice opinions or concerns. Board Member Hoffmann — You're right. Well, that's it. Chairperson Howe — And George, were you all set? Okay. Larry? Susan? Hollis? Fred? Board Member Wilcox — Page 4, under Construction Traffic, which is the second paragraph if you will. The end of that portion says, "Ali parking and staging could be accommodated on site. There should be no cuing of construction related traffic on area roadways, no long term street closures..." etc, etc. Therefore I think it should say "and therefore no significant offsite adverse impacts related to construction traffic" since it PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 17 seems to be focused on the fact that the facility, the current Ithaca College land is sufficient so they won't have to park construction vehicles on the road or that sort of thing. Make sense, Michael? Mr. Smith — Yeah. Board Member Erb — Say it again please? Board Member Wilcox — The last line or the next to last line ... the last full line would read, "No offsite parking and therefore no significant offsite adverse impacts related to construction traffic". Then on the next page, Page 5, under Water Quality, maybe this is just the verbiage that is being used. It talks about ... stormwater detention practices will be designed. I think of structures as being designed, not practices being designed. Is this me or what? Board Member Riha — That's the standard wording. [laughing] Board Member Wilcox — Okay. Okay. That's fine. Mr. Walker — It's used as a noun so it's either practice or structure, but they aren't all structures. Some of them are vegetation so... Board Member Wilcox — But the language is clear to the engineers and the Susan Rihas of the world and things like that okay. Okay. That's it for me. Chairperson Howe — Any further comments from staff about...? Susan? Ms. Brock — No. I reviewed an earlier draft of this before it was sent out so the version that was in your packets incorporated all of my comments already so you don't have to sit here and listen to them. Board Member Riha — Thank you, Susan. Board Member Thayer —Yeah, Board Member Wilcox — I have a question, based on the County's letter; do we need a super - majority vote to accept the findings? Chairperson Howe — Not for the findings statement. Is that correct? I think it's... Ms. Brock — Right. I think it is for the plan approvals.., Board Member Wilcox — Just for our ... once we get to site plan approval... PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 18 Ms. Brock — And special permits. Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution? Hollis. Is there a second? Second by Susan. All those in favor... Ms. Brock — Wait, wait, wait. I have one change on the resolution. On the last page, paragraph 2, a little paragraph 2, the second line states towards the end "the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable ". Strike the word "the" before "one" so that it reads, "the action is one that avoids or minimizes ". The certification we're supposed to make the wording of it is actually in the SEQR regulations and it doesn't have that word "the" there so we're being completely consistent with regulations and adding the word "the" there actually changes the meaning quite a bit in a way that places a very heavy burden on you. Board Member Erb — That is acceptable. Chairperson Howe — That's acceptable to both of you? Board Member Riha — Yeah. Ms. Brock — And do we need to make a reference to the revision made tonight to the findings statement? The one that Fred just brought up about off -site impacts. Let me just look at where we referenced it. I think its okay. We don't actually date it, do we, anywhere? Mr. Kanter — No. We just say... Ms. Brock — ...the findings statement is what we say. Mr. Kanter — Right. Ms. Brock — Then its fine. I don't have any other changes. Chairperson Howe — We have a motion and a second. All those in favor raise your hands? Any opposed? Any abstentions? So one opposition. The res... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 19 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — 044: SEAR, Adoption of Findings Statement, Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center, Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 41 =1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41442.2, 41 -1 -24, and 4244.2 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This project is the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 414-30.2, 41 -141, 41 -1- 12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 142, 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. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent; and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and height variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College athletics and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1, 2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 20 regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS (dated November 27, 2007 and amended January 8, 2008, January 15, 2008 and January 22, 2008, with further changes as discussed at the January 22, 2008 Town Planning Board meeting) as complete on January 22, 2008; and 8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the DEIS on March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the DEIS until March 14, 2008; and 9. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated April 3, 2008, regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 22, 2008, accepted the FEIS, dated April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, as complete; and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of FEIS, issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12; and 12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 20, 2008, has reviewed and discussed the Findings Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on May 20, 2008, does hereby adopt the Findings Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 2. That having considered the Draft and Final EIS and the relevant documents incorporated therein, and having considered the written facts and conclusions in the Findings Statement relied upon to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 through 617.12, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby certify that: PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 21 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; 2. 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 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. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: Hoffmann The motion passed with a super - majority of 6 to 1. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Now we are going to move on to: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddinaton Road campus entrance. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11. 41 =1 -12.2, 41444, and 42=1=9,2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase 1A includes the field house, a rowing facility, weight trainina 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 parkina facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new liahtina and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca Colleae, Owner /Applicant: Richard Couture, Agent. Chairperson Howe — This is a public hearing as well. What's the'. would you like to first hear from the public and then have our discussion? Board Member Riha — That's a good idea. Board Member Thayer — Sounds good. Board Member Erb — Yes. Chairperson Howe — Okay. This is a public hearing for the Phase 1 of the Ithaca Athletic Center so I'm going to open it up for comments. If you would like to address us, please just come to the microphone. Melinda Staniszewska, 220 Coddington Road First, I have a petition that reads, 'We, the undersigned, ask the Town of Ithaca to give immediate attention to the safety of residents of the City, the Town, and Ithaca College PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 22 students who daily walk, bike, or skateboard. along the 200 block of Coddington Road from Hudson Street to the east entrance to the College. We want you to create a safety lane for bicycle and pedestrian use prior to the start of construction of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center. And I added skateboarding in there because Coddington Road is deserted at 2 a.m. and that's when the students seem to want to come out and play. So I might transfer that concern to the proposed walkway behind our homes because it seems like a very good skateboard park in the making and if there would be some consideration to the surfacing of the trail or walkway, however it is paved because it is on a slope and its sort of out there for the public to use as well and its certainly ends on a slope right at Coddington Road. So the intersection is dangerous and the use of this path could be misused. My next main statement here, I have some maps that I'd like to pass out to explain my comments further. So I will... Board Member Wilcox — I can pass them down or you can do it yourself. It's up to you. Ms. Staniszewska — Pass them down. There will have to be a few to share, but certainly the board members can have a copy each. I'll just read this to be simple about its I have some maps to pass out, which I did. I will explain my concerns over this project. There as has been an addition to the proposed trail seeming to direct students toward the dorms instead of leading to the yet to be constructed Athletic and Events Center. The lighting of this walk/bikeway is the most intrusive component. The lighting dusk to dawn 365 nights as proposed on 12 foot high poles will be very difficult to mitigate. Plantings of even the largest available evergreen trees and bushes will need time to grow. I ask that there should be a delay in construction of the walkway while this component is begun. I ask that our Town Parks Manager, Mr. Schoch, be included in the selection and location of the landscaping that is to buffer our homes. He knows the soils and especially the evergreens and other native plants that will best succeed. Since the lighting is the most intrusive, I ask for a different type. Lower level walkway type lighting could be used. The type seen in many areas, usually a concrete stand about 4 foot high with lighting near ground level. Finally, for the safety of all students and residents who will still walk and bike along Coddington Road because they come from other directions, they're visiting students that live on Coddington, at least create a wider shoulder along this one block. On the west side where there is a right -of -way there are no objections by residents in this block and the College is already the primary owner of most of these properties. So finally, please use the Town right -of -way located across the east entrance from the east entrance to the College as an additional access path to Recreation Way. It's either unused or misused and I hope you will look into that option. Actually, I see the College is trying to do what they can to offer some students a safer route because the Town seems unable to solve the problem that exists on Coddington Road even though you have it identified as a priority to do something there. We can't use the excuse that the County has been taken to court and they have to revise their plan. This block is separate from the complainants on the other side, the east side of the entrance PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 23 to the College. And I have tried to provide you with all of that information and contact the people in Town that might have some way to bring things together and have everybody address the intersection with the 3 -way stops; it'll be crossed more frequently. Graduation this Sunday there were people parking on Hudson Street and along the area there and they didn't know how to navigate that intersection and there were older people who couldn't get out of the way of the cars fast enough. So I saw a lot of need to address that location and it's been tried over the years. I ask you to act. If I can draw your attention to the maps the first map shows where this additional walkway has been added to the plan and it goes up a steep hill. It will add lighting glare if we keep to those poles instead of going to ground level lighting. It is high enough up that the tallest of the trees will probably not be able to buffer the lighting coming from this additional section of pathway. And then I show you where in that location there currently exists on the steepest of the slopes a cluster of willow trees and a water feeder somehow that creates an ephemeral stream that runs down to the existing stream at the College entrance. I also call your attention to the close proximity to the property at 210 Coddington where there will be a 10 foot space between this walkway and those ... that homeowner's property. It's really a sidewalk and for frontage our sidewalk laws, we have a certain minimum frontage... setback I should say from front sidewalks. We should really think of a way to move the trail further away from the properties. That's much too close, especially if we don't change the lighting plan. So I think my maps have explained my further concerns and I thank you. Board Member Wilcox — Can I ask you a question? Ms. Staniszewska Yes. Board Member Wilcox — We got to keep you near the microphone. Ms. Staniszewska — Oh yes. Board Member Wilcox — When you approached Tompkins County government officials about Coddington Road and what they were or were not willing to do, what was the response you got? Ms. Staniszewska — Ah ... actually, not everyone has responded to me. Mr. Lampman from the County Highway, he's a county highway engineer, I've been speaking to him ever since I moved in because I saw the danger of the people walking and I can't walk safely to get to Recreation Way. I've got to cross in the middle of the block. The County is not repairing the culvert with erosion going on and the College property is near that intersection have bushes over hanging. So he's been in meetings, I suppose, as to what could be done and I've spoken to Ed Marx also, the County Planning Supervisor. I don't know that I'm the person that has any power to ask them to separate this block out from the litigation that the other end of Coddington has started. They seemed to be handicapped by that litigation. I keep saying separate out this block. The College people that I spoke to ... if something could be, come to an agreement by all the PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 24 parties soon they would be interested in listening to a proposal to improve the walking conditions on Coddington. That's been my response. Board Member Wilcox — Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Yes? Bill Hilker I have two properties down on Kendall Avenue. Parts of the stormwater drain off runs through what used to be a very small ditch, which is now becoming a major creek. And 10 years ago that ditch could handle with a 24 -inch culvert easily any flow that came down through. Two years ago we converted a culvert on our property to a 36 -inch square box culvert, which is almost running to capacity now. The culvert under Kendall is 30 inches, very.. probably not going to be able to handle water as its coming in peak time within the next year or two because the increased water coming down that stream way has been increasing so drastically and that comes right off from Ithaca College. Now I'd like to say on the outset that I'm all in favor of what Ithaca College is attempting to do. However, I think there should be some method of controlling that water, particularly peak flows that far away from the College. The Town feels they have no control over the creek. They do not go in and clean it. We've had them there. They can't do it without permission of landowners so it's filled in with debris, across the creek with trees that have fallen because of being washed out around their bases. Pennsylvania Avenue floods periodically over that from the culvert in the water. I'm really not sure what can be done. We've invested ourselves probably $5,000 to $6,000 into trying to mitigate the situation at our- properties and in fact that they are about to put in a 36 -inch culvert because it is cut down right to bedrock in there to level the area between yards because it is something like a 6 foot drop -in. We'd not like to see this become an effort in futility in having additional water come down through there and wash the whole thing out, which it threatens to do. I really don't know what the answer is. I didn't know whether to address this in the SEQR prior to this hearing here or to,. and that's why I was standing ... or to address.it at this point and I would like to have a copy of a map which will show where the proposed drainage is to be diverted. There are essentially 3 creeks that run down through that old subdivision down in there and they all take tremendous amounts of water because bedrock is what, anywhere's from 2 feet to 4 feet deep is all. And so any water that falls just flows off. Chairperson Howe — Dan, is there a response? Mr. Walker — Yeah, the ... I went over to the property ( ?) Mr. Hilker is talking about and there is some major detention facility and stormwater management and we are going to make sure we don't increase it and if we can maybe it'll reduce some of the peaks with the proposals that Ithaca College has for this project. Mr. Hilker — That's why I wanted to be sure, problem, not the constant flow. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 25 Dan, that, uh, it's the peaks that cause the Mr. Walker — The peak flows are easier to handle than... Mr. Hilker — They are the problem and you just can't believe unless you've been there and looked at it what a peak flow down through there can bring in water. It's a lot. Chairperson Howe — Susan? Board Member Riha — Yeah, Susan, maybe you can clarify it, but my understanding is under our new laws they can't increase the peak flow. Mr. Walker — Right. They aren't and the proposal that they have will be able to control that. There is a large pond being proposed above ... you know, between the facility and Coddington Road near the driveway entrance there. Chairperson Howe — So. the hope is it might even improve the existing situation. It certainly won't make things worse. Board Member Riha — But by law... Mr. Walker — We've been working with the County Highway Department also if they ever do any work on Coddington Road. Mr. Hilker — Yeah, I understand that you can't stop additional water from coming down that hill. As you pave and put buildings up additional water is going to come and we just like to be sure that it's at least within reason. Board Member Riha — Well my understanding is that volume could increase, but peak flow cannot. Mr. Hilker — At times its bone dry. At other times we get water that comes up there ... 3 foot wide ditch, it'll come up to over 3 feet deep and that's with the steep slope. Board Member Wilcox — Before Mr. Hilker goes, how can he get a copy of the relevant plans that he asked about? Mr. Walker — Well, the plans are here. Mr. Kanter — They're in the office. Board Member Wilcox — So he can just stop in and ... Mr. Hilker — Would I get them from you, Jonathan, or from Dan? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 26 Mr. Kanter — Well, come in and ask the Planning and Zoning Office... Mr. Walker — The final documents aren't done yet, but the preliminary is there. Mr. Hilker — Just a rough detail. Chairperson Howe — Susan? Ms. Brock — Also, the EIS spoke specifically about the capacities of certain culverts in the neighborhood and I'm suspecting, I'm looking at Dave Herrick who is nodding, that the particular culverts you are speaking about were the ones that were described in the EIS. Perhaps not, anyway... Chairperson Howe — When you come up we'll have you ... okay. Ms. Brock — Right. So it may be that the very culverts you are speaking about ... I would suspect that they are part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan and it may be that they were actually specifically mentioned in the EIS as well. Mr. Hilker — Okay. Chairperson Howe — Thank you very much. Mr. Hilker — Thank you for your consideration. Marion Rogers My husband Steve and I are probably pretty familiar to all by now. We live at 152 Coddington Road in the City of Ithaca. We're neighbors of the College and our property borders College land where the Phase 1 A site plan around Z lot and the trail. It borders College land on the east and the south and the northern end of the pedestrian bike trail will be located, according to the most recent plan I saw, about 90 feet from our eastern property line. And on the plans to give you some orientation, it was...l haven't seen the most recent plan for the trail, but ... and the last one saw our property is west of the zigzaggety part that sort of comes down hill and then exits at Coddington and Hudson. And we just wanted to share some ideas about landscaping of that portion, the sort of final portion. I think it's called the northern terminus where it does exit at Hudson and Coddington because that will pretty much parallel our eastern property line and currently that area is pretty open and bare. It's pretty scrubby and there are just some low lilac trees and bushes in that area. It's mainly sort of grassy, but mainly scrubby not grass too much. And we really would like to see some landscaping added to the area to ... on the western side of that trail so between the trail and our property to reduce all the impacts of the trail, the visual impacts to buffer noise, mitigate the light and to also give a sense of sort of boundary between residences and the actual path. Chairperson Howe — And I will ask the applicant to give us an update on the... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 27 Ms. Rogers — I'm sure it looks a little different so ... and I think there's really ample space there to accommodate plantings without creating safety issues for anybody who would be using the trail. I know that's an important part of your consideration. So if there isn't one already we would like to see the site plan include a detailed planting plan for that portion of the trail. I think we saw a lot of planting around the trail where it comes in from the entrance and goes behind the 200 block residences, but I didn't see much in the map that I saw around the sort of final portion of it. I'd hope that that would include a variety of both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and other types of landscape elements that could create something that really would be attractive as well as serving a purpose and would sort of blend in to the natural environment and into our neighborhood there, which really is homes. So...and I would urge you if you haven't had an opportunity to really take a look at that last segment site because it is very open and somewhat unlike the ... there are some trees on the other parts of the trail already. So this is definitely a need in that area. So we just wanted to raise those concerns. It's quite visible from our yards and sitting out behind our homes. So it would really be an improvement to have some kind of landscape screen for us. Chairperson Howe — I think Hollis is going to share with you the plan, but we'll also have them address this when the applicant comes up. Board Member Riha — I had one question, I mean, are the residents going to put in any landscaping at all or I mean because... Ms. Rogers — We're planning to but we feel that its also important for the College to do that as well because frankly a final path running through that area particularly will not do anything for anyone in terms of aesthetics. So I think its important that ... and I think actually it was mentioned in the response to the DEIS comments that came from us and other people that the trail design should enhance the neighborhoods and I think it's a fairly easy thing to be done and the slope could use plantings just in terms of erosion and other concerns there. It would have a lot of benefits to everyone and the environment I think. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Fred? Board Member Wilcox — I'm sorry. Hollis, you were going to provide... Board Member Erb — Yeah, I thought she'd come behind me and I'd... Board Member Wilcox — Okay. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? Yes? Joel Harlan, Newfield ...(not audible) ... I've been in homework for you guys to. Yo big ... they want to build this big his town and city, they've come up with some good i might ask Ithaca College to do ... sense of building that project to rebuild and remodel the whole neighborhood. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 28 Get them to do the money just like the pipeline did. Made sidewalks all the way down the hill from Gun Hill. I know what you're talking about because I'm up there all the time. They're talking about streams and creeks and culverts. I'm talking about a whole bunch of booze. Cans and bottles all in the yards I'm after. Picking them up. I'm up there with the apartments up there by ... right across the street from entrance way to the back entrance.. Js what we're talking about. Ithaca College. I see it all. Night and day. But here's the surprise, I'm going up to Collegetown because it's done up there. I'm going to see what's going on up there. I haven't been up there to pick up there in a while, you know, for, you know ... I think its senior week. Last year about 3 o'clock... Chairperson Howe — Do you have specific comments about the Ithaca College... Mr. Harlan — No. What I'm talking about it noise. What I'm saying is have these people go over and you guys go up and see what goes on at Collegetown and see how these neighbors put up with it. Last year they had bagpipes playing at 3 o'clock in the morning going up and down the main road. Two cops come and shut them down after an hour or two of playing the bagpipes and singing drunk. Singing songs. Chairperson Howe — Do you have specific comments about Ithaca College? Mr. Harlan — Here's the lights. I see why Ithaca College don't have no lights. They should have for football, baseball, and other the other events like Cornell :has. And look at the lights over the Cass Park and football field over here. Ithaca High School and there's quite a few lights. Right now is a good time this weekend to see what goes on up the Schoellkopf 'cause they're having lights on up there all night trying to put ... setup for commencement. Just think of what the neighborhoods have to put up with all around here. They're just learning how to get used to it because they haven't had it in there. Chairperson Howe — Anything else? Mr. Harlan — No ... I'm just sayin' think of what the other people's backyards because it's far worse than what they have up there and what they're talking about. They should be compete with Cortland with that new stadium and get lights in there so they can play night games and baseball games, but it's because there are neighbors and they just don't want it. Chairperson Howe — Thank you very much, Joel. Mr. Harlan — But like I said they gotta take a look around. I'm going up there where the action is tonight, you know; join in ... [laughter] Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Mr. Harlan — That's why I know what's going on because I'm out pickin' all day and all night. All around. Up by the condominiums up by the mall. All the way up to IC. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 29 Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Mr. Harlan laughing. Chairperson Howe — Is there anyone else? Brian Noteboom Good evening. I'm going to put a little bit different light on this. I know environmental statements are really important, but I'm Brian Noteboom. I live in Tompkins County, but I'm a representative for the Empire State Carpenters. I represent carpenters in the Ithaca area. I would like to bring attention to construction jobs that will be created on this project, this Ithaca College Athletics Facility. Construction jobs pay good wages and benefits. They benefit the local economy when local workers are used. We, as a local union, have a good working relationship with Ithaca College and we would like to continue this even with the use of a third party developer. It's my understanding that this project or project manager, developer, is Integrated Acquisitions and Development. A local developer that won't necessarily hire local general contractor or skilled local trades' people. The members I represent believe that all carpenters should be paid the area standard wages. This- includes employer paid healthcare and benefits as well we would like to see local carpenters employed from the Ithaca Area and Tompkins County. This may be something that this Planning Board cannot enforce, but I just wanted to bring this to light tonight. Labor of course would like to see this project move forward with Ithaca College and Integrated Acquisitions working with labor. That's my statement. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. You're right. That's not something we can enforce and I don't know if the Town Board has ever taken positions on development around this issue. Ms. Brock — I've only been the Attorney for the Town for two years. It hasn't come up in those two years so I would have to turn to some of the members of staff who've been here much longer than I have. Mr. Kanter — Well, as the Assistant Attorney, I've been here for almost 14 and haven't heard it brought up either. How about you, third assistant? Mr. Walker — Well, when we hire contractors or contract with contractors for Town work, prevailing wage rate rules regulate that. So those wages are paid, but we don't regulate ... we cannot disqualify a contractor just because they are not local or not union. But the wage rates that are paid for projects the Town contracts for do have to meet those prevailing wage rates. Ms. Brock — But those may not necessarily... the prevailing wage rates may not necessarily apply to this Ithaca College project because... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 30 Mr. Walker — No ... I'm just stating what the Town's policy is as far as...what our requirements are as far as contracting. Definitely the Ithaca College is not ... unless it's.. the only requirement might be their funding stream if it goes through the Dormitory Authority or something like that. It's a private contract so... Mr. Noteboom — I'm aware of that. I just wanted this board and the public to know that when local workers are used that money stays in the economy, buys houses, pays taxes, does not leave and go to Syracuse or Rochester. Okay? That's mainly what I'm trying to point out here. Chairperson Howe — Thank you very much. Mr. Noteboom — I live here. I pay taxes here and I have a family here and that's really important to keep the local economy strong. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Board Member Thayer — Thank you. Board Member Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Tessa Flores, Compton Road I do have a lot of concerns about the effect of the lighting of this project, but, just very specifically, I thought the suggestion that the pathway be lit not with tall overhead lights but with low -level lighting would make a significant difference for the people who live along that walkway. Mike Talarski, Electricians Union, Ithaca Interesting statement that I read in today's Tompkins Weekly, is that Ithaca College is committed to carbon neutrality, and one of the items they talked about is transportation, cutting down on the transportation for their employees... well, it would also work out for local workers, if they were local, rather than coming from Rochester, Syracuse or other areas. Another thing that they talked about in this commitment to carbon neutrality is that we could offset the emissions by working with local entities, which, if they used local labor, they wouldn't be traveling very far. Another thing that they talked about is they attract new sources of funding and increase the support of alumni and other local community and they do state it as "the right thing to do." So I think employing local workers is then right thing to do and paying area standard wages is also the right thing to do. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Anyone else? We didn't have the applicants do any formal presentation for this part, because for the most part, it's what we've been talking about for quite some time, the preliminary site plan approval, but I think it would be good if we could just get an update on the trail, because I know there's a lot of concern about that, and I'm sorry, perhaps I should have done that piece first, I apologize, but at least PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 31 you've heard what the concerns are and you can see if you've addressed some of the concerns. Board Member Wilcox — While David's coming up, I just want to make sure everybody's clear here because this is somewhat interesting tonight because we are being asked to consider preliminary site plan approval and special permit for Phase 1A, which is a significant part of the total development,... so preliminary, and then, should we get through that...we are being asked to consider final for a small portion. Right, it's somewhat unusual, I don't remember being in that position before as a member of this Board. Ms. Brock — Just for the record, obviously, for many other projects, we've considered both preliminary and final approval for the same... Board Member Wilcox — We've done preliminary and final for the same project... Ms. Brock -- ....right, in the same night... Board Member Wilcox -- ...the same amount of disturbance and entity. It's just a little bit different tonight. Board Member Erb — Could I get a clarification because I'm, I'm my typical confused at this point, .When we do the preliminary site plan approval and special permit for the larger Phase 1 A... Board Member Wilcox — Which we are doing tonight. Board Member Erb -- ...right now ... can we take into consideration and are we changing the whereas' and things in the resolution to reflect the updated maps... Ms. Brock — We will... Board Member Erb -- ....for the final approval for the peripheral... remote parking and the newer maps regarding the path? Ms. Brock — For the remote parking project, they submitted a separate set of site plan documents, and those documents are referenced in that resolution. Board Member Erb — But I mean in the ... we have an earlier resolution about the larger project, and at this point, the more recent, small set of maps is not yet referenced... Ms. Brock — Yes, and that's a change... Board Member Erb -- ...can we base ... can we reference them and use these as part of our decision... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 32 Ms. Brock — Yes. That ... Board Member Erb - ....for the larger.... Ms. Brock — Yes, that's a change that I'll be proposing. Chairperson Howe — Does that help Hollis? Board Member Erb — Yes. In other words, we can use the updated planting and map plans, the April 24tH Ms. Brock — Uhhh, May 14tt' .... Board Member Erb — Well, received May 14th, dated .... yeah, the ones received May 14"' .... Ms. Brock — They are also dated May 14th Board Member Erb — Well, I'm looking at plans that are dated April 24 that came in the package. Mr. Kanter — Revised 5/14/08. Board Member Erb — Oh, I'm sorry, revised 5 /14 ... excuse me, but we can use that when we talk about the earlier motion, which is the preliminary site plan approval and special permit. Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Kanter — If you decide to incorporate that revised plan, yes. That's not a given, that's up to the Board to decide tonight. Board Member Erb — Okay. Chairperson Howe — And that's why I think some of the lighting issues and the landscaping are good to talk about. Board Member Hoffmann — I was going to ask about that actually, because there are three different plans for the Z -Lot and the trail in the papers that we have. One is the preliminary one, one is for the final and one is for this separate parking lot decision... Chairperson Howe — But that's part of the final... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but what I'm wondering is; can we look at all three and decide which one we think is preferable or do we have to go with the one that is their latest submission? To react to? PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 33 Ms. Brock — Uhmmmm.... I think if you're... typically I would assume, when you're given revised plans, you go with the most recent version, but if there are changes that you want to require to those plans, then you can specify what those changes are, and one of the conditions of approval would be submission of revised plans that reflect the changes that you made. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but we shouldn't even consider the other two... Chairperson Howe — Well, I think they are all in the mix for us to see what they are proposing as changes so I think we can look at all of them... Board Member Wilcox — Right, but what's before us tonight is the most recent -dated set. Chairperson Howe — And that's what David is going to talk to us about. Board Member Erb — That's what got me confused, because two different sets basically came at the same time. Mr. Kanter — Why don't you ask David to explain it and then pick up that conversation after that. David Herrick, TG Miller and Associates I'm just as confused as you are....(laughter)... We took one last approach to modifying the trail following comments that we received from you. One to address proximity, one to provide screening, and the third to provide some type of physical barrier restraining into backyards on Coddington Road. So, the most recent plan that you have, which is the 5/14 plan, did not do anything to the north end, or the northern terminus of the trail with respect to layout, but you will find, in the planting plans, that we did add additional buffering materials along the switchback between the trail and the property at 152, the Roger's residence. We also pushed a portion of the trail further to the west and it starts to climb the portion of the existing slope to Z -Lot whereas before we had presented plans where the trail was essentially at the toe of that slope, we have now proposed the two grading modifications to move the trail partly up that slope in order to increase that setback distance to the neighboring not - Ithaca College properties. There was, as correctly noted, another appendage added to the trail. That's in response to concerns of the College that some students may want to take a short cut down the Z- Lot -hill slope in order to get to the trail. It does provide, I think, probably a more pragmatic connection point for students who are leaving the core campus to get down to Hudson Street. The balance of the trail is the same alignment that will provide that future connectivity through other pathways to get up to and around the Athletic & Events Center and even further into the future, back out further south on Coddington Road to hook up in or about PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 34 Juniper Drive. So we are maintaining this future connectivity to the South Hill Recreation Way, while we are adding an additional connector that hopefully will facilitate better pedestrian use, safer pedestrian use by the students. So those are the changes with respect to alignment and grading. We have also added additional landform changes in the manner of berms in- between the trail and those neighboring property lines so that we can landscape those in a way that improves the restriction of visibility. The documents that we passed out tonight, the two 11x1 Ts, they illustrate sections that are taken through Z -Lot, down through the trail, through the proposed berm and landscaped areas into the back of two of the neighboring residential homes. There's one section that's taken at number 210 Coddington Road, and the second section that was taken at number 216 and we've shown for you how we expect the grading and the landscaping modifications to help with some of those comments that you hear earlier about seeing light. We've represented two scenarios. One is the scenario that reflects plantings after completion of the project and the second scenario would be looking at 10 -20 -years in the future as growth naturally occurs with the vegetation. So that we hope will help you in understanding why we would like to make these last alignment changes, grade changes and landscaping changes. Chairperson Howe — And I'm assuming that ... there was some question about even shorter height of lights, but I'm sure that's a safety issue along the bike /pedestrian trail... Mr. Herrick — Well, one predicament with going with shorter poles is that the frequency of fixtures would have to increase. Naturally, as you lower a pole, your ability to light a given area is reduced, so, right now, I think our spacing is 55 feet on the poles, if you went shorter, you would end up with a lot greater number of poles and fixtures. We've gone 12 feet as what we think is a reasonable height, that we think can be mitigated with some of the landscaping and berming that's proposed. We also are thinking of minimizing vandalism to the extent that something that is at waist height or breast height, is certainly a lot more attractive to vandalism than something that is higher up. So we think 12 feet is a reasonable limit for the poles... Chairperson Howe — Is this indeed both a bike and a pedestrian... Mr. Herrick — It is mixed -use, sure. Chairperson Howe — And do you delineate... sometimes they have like, even within a path, a bike path, is it going to have any delineation like that or... Mr. Herrick — We have not proposed any delineation between the two uses. I frequent the trail in my neighborhood and bikes and pedestrians co- mingle without any separation, delineation or notification.... Board Member Thayer — It looks like there is a line right down the center in your picture, which might be helpful, if that could be done. I know when walking the waterfront trail, I PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 35 am constantly asked to keep to the right as the bicycles wiz by on the left, or the roller - blader's or whoever, and it seems like it would be helpful to have a line down the center. Bicycles left, pedestrians right... Mr. Walker — Which direction are they... Chairperson Howe — it does get confusing... Board Member Thayer — It would be the same either.... Mr. Walker — Town trails we do not delineate at all for bicycles or pedestrians. The only exception is the part of the trail on the South Hill Rec Trail which is recreation... part of it is more grass and part of is more a harder surface, but, the width of the trail is really part of the criteria that helps maintain both bicycle and pedestrian safety on that. Board Member Riha — Dave, I raised the issue last time about having tall trees near the path in terms of safety, particularly of women, walking this path at night, and their comfort level. And it seems like the second, the 216 cross - section. That seems reasonable. There seems to be some space between the trees and the path, but this set of vegetation here right near the 210 cross - section. That seems pretty close to the path in terms of feeling like you are walking through the woods in the middle of the night. Board Member Erb — Well in truth, the plantings suggested on the northern part of the serpentine, where you first enter the path, also seems quite close. I'm delighted for the plantings, but they also seem very close. Mr. Herrick — Well, we consulted with Campus Safety as to what would be a reasonable "clear zone" and they were comfortable with 15 feet. Board Member Riha — They were. Mr. Herrick — Yes. And I think another thing to point out with respect to the lighting on the trail is that we are calling for house -side shields, which are an additional feature on these cut -off fixtures that helps to minimize any light trespass back towards the houses, thus the name "house -side shield ". And as we did discuss at the last meeting, we did rotate some of the light fixtures around at the switchback so they would favor the house= side shield on the residences, the Roger's property. Board Member Erb — I looked at the pictures of the light fixtures and there wasn't specifically a picture of the house -side shield. So I am trying to make -up in my head what that means. I am assuming that it is a plate that drops below the box that contains the light... Mr. Herrick — You are correct. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 36 Board Member Erb -- ...it's a 2 -inch down? Its 10- inches down? Could you just explain a little bit of how big that is because I think that part of the concern might be that until the plantings grow up, are people who are at the back of their properties, will be looking up into the light, and the structure, the construction of that shield I think is partly going to prevent them looking up into the light box. Mr. Herrick — I honestly don't know what the dimension is on that shield, unless.... (A contractor states off mic that they are waiting for cut - sheets on the house - shields) Board Member Hoffmann — There is again confusion in the plans. In what you just handed us tonight, the trail is called a "bike path" on both drawings. In the packet that we got, which was received May 14th, the planting plan LP102 calls this the it trail layout ". So it would be nice if we got some... Mr. Herrick — Consistency... Board Member Hoffmann — ...consistent naming of things... Mr. Herrick — All right. Well, I will tell you that I refer to it as the "pedestrian slash bike trail" that is my formal designation of the trail. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you put all that on the plans that are finally submitted? Mr. Herrick — We certainly can. Board Member Hoffmann — And then I had a question for Dan. You were talking about the Town's trails and I seem to remember that, for instance, the trail that goes along Pine Tree Road is not shared, it's supposed to be only for pedestrians and bicyclists are supposed to ride on the shoulder of the road. And I don't remember what it's like on the East Hill Recreation Way, what the rules are... Mr. Kanter — The East Hill recreation Way is a multi- purpose, shared pathway and it is not striped, it's just a black asphalt.... Mr. Walker — And the Pine Tree Road Path is a little narrower because there is a bikeway along Pine Tree Road, the wider shoulder.... Board Member Hoffmann -- But it is not a bikeway, it's a shoulder... Mr. Walker — Right. It serves as a bike path. The true trail is shared and that comes down the hill. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 37 Board Member Erb — At one point there was a question on the pedestrian /bike pathway about whether it would be wide enough and constructed such that emergency vehicles would be able to access that path. Is that going to be possible? Mr. Herrick — It's 8 -feet wide; that's the trail width and the College is comfortable with that dimension. Chairperson Howe — Any other questions about the pedestrian /bike trail? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'm a little confused because the plans for the bike trail coincide with the plans for the Z- Parking Lot and the plantings for both and I have been trying to figure out, on this latest plan, the LP102 dated April 24, 2008, what some of the plant materials are, and I tried to go back to the earlier key, and these plants that are here don't appear on that key, and some of the shading on the ground don't appear on that key and it just makes it very hard. But for instance, I found there are some plants that are called "ITWR" and "ITSG "...what are they? Board Member Erb — The IT is coded but not the two letters that come after it. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't see the "IT' coded even ... where did you find that Board Member Erb — I found the planting key... Mr. Herrick — It's on LP100 Board Member Erb — I found the planting key, but it left off the Piceaglauca....whatever the Eastern Spruce is, so that's another.... Mr. Herrick — Tim Schmalenberger with MSI, the landscape architect, you could certainly, if you wanted to take the time now to hear some of the common names of those species, we could share that at this point, and then, and then update the legend... Board Member Hoffmann — I don't care if they are Latin or common name, I would just like to know what they are. Mr. Herrick — Yes, well, the common name... Colorado Spruce or... Board Member Erb — I did find the planting key I just didn't find PG on it. Tim Schmalenberger, Moody Nolan Yes, there are a few plants missing from the, from you legend and I can go over that. The PG stands for (Latin name) which is the evergreens that were inserted into the planting plans to accommodate the screening that we need. We are looking at, that is one of our primary evergreen tree species. And then on the Itea, we have two varieties of that, but it's essentially a sweet spire that we are selecting for that. So it's essentially a large shrub that essentially in4lls around the evergreen and the evergreen tree PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 38 plantings that we're after. We're trying to make a whole composition that looks relatively native to match the masses that essentially occur at the edges of the campus. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that an evergreen? The Itea? Mr. Schmalenberger — No. Board Member Hoffmann — What about G? What does G stand for? Board Member Wilcox — I think that's from PG... Mr. Schmalenberger — Yeah, the P is probably hidden by the symbol. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, I see...yes...youIre right.... Mr. Schmalenberger — Yeah, most of the evergreens are from the Picea family, which is the spruce family. Chairperson Howe — And I think some of what we are covering now is more for the final site plan review for the parking lots... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, it's just that since they are all on the same plan, I thought it would make sense to ask for some of the plants. f Chairperson Howe — So let's turn our attention Do we have, and Susan, by the way, I think, question about where the pathway going up on diagrams ... are you comfortable with... Ms. Brock — Yes. back to the preliminary site plan review, was your concern..] know you had a a slope, with the lighting, ..you saw the Board Member Wilcox — Sorry, I didn't hear the question. Chairperson Howe — Susan just had a concern about the changing more to the west and more on a slope, whether the lighting would be more visible for the residences and... Ms. Brock — Hollis already raised that concern. Chairperson Howe — Right. We probably should talk a little bit more about the letter from Ed .Marx because that does have implications about our vote for the Planning Board on preliminary site plan approval, and this had to do with, his main comment had to do with traffic impacts. So I just wanted to call our attention to that and if anyone has any concerns. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 39 Board Member Wilcox — I'm sure Mr. Kanter has an opinion...) don't know if he'll voice it, but I'm certain he has one... Mr. Kanter — My opinion is just that I think Ed Marx is reiterating his comments from a previous letter, for the most part, and felt strongly that there were some additional items that the County wanted to see. So it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's really a question of, in many ways, what the County will need to see when they, you know, approve roadwork permits for whatever is going to be occurring in their right -of -way. The County is an involved agency so if our findings don't completely satisfy their requirements, they can, prior to making their findings, which they will need to do, you know, work with the applicant on additional information, which could very well be some of these items... Board Member Wilcox — And the impact of this on us? Chairperson Howe — It was just to call attention to it...well...we have to have a super. majority vote... Board Member Wilcox — Must have 5.... Chairperson Howe — I just want to,.-is there a member of the public who wants to address us on the preliminary site plan approval and special permit? I close the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. If you look at the resolution before us, Susan went through it earlier today and sent Jon and myself several potential new conditions, and much of it is what we talked about before... bringing things together from the Findings Statement that we don't want to lose track of. Some of them might not really come to bear until we get to the final site plan approval, but it's just a way of keeping things forward. So Susan, I might let her go through her list and then we can open it up to the rest of us.... Ms. Brock — Do you want me to go through all of them? Chairperson Howe — Well, I don't know how else to do it ... they're all decent suggestions... so I think you will have to go through them... Ms. Brock — Okay. So the first one is on page 2 of the resolution, item 13 in the whereas clause, this is to clean up the language about the various plans that you have before you and I suggest that, in the second line, where it says "plans included in a bound packet titled" that we replace that with the following, "plans included in bound packets titles Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center with documents titled Preliminary Site Plan Review (dated February 1, 2008) and titled revised Preliminary Site Plan (dated April 2, 2008) and additional revised site plan sheets dated May 14, 2008 and then the rest of that sentence will remain the same, which is "prepared by" and then it names the various people who prepared it and retain the final reference to other application materials as well. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 40 Chairperson Howe – Is everyone okay with that? Board agrees. Ms. Brock – And Hollis, that addresses your issue that you had raised. Board Member Erb – Yes. Thank you. Ms. Brock – In the first resolved clause regarding special permit approval add the following words —the third line states that the standards of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met and right after the words "have been met" insert these words, "for the reasons stated in the above referenced findings statement ". Then add a "comma" and continue on with the rest of the paragraph unchanged. Chairperson Howe – And do you want to explain why you think that's important to add? Ms. Brock – Well, I think we technically should be always stating what the reasons are rather than really stating that we find these conditions have been met. And since the findings statement actually deals with all of the various elements that are part of consideration under the special permit section of the code it's very handy just to refer back to that. Board Member Wilcox – Can you just read back that section as revised? Ms. Brock – Sure. So finding that the standards of Article XXIV, Section 270 -200, subsection a -I, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, for the reasons stated in the above referenced findings statement with the exception that in subsection g... Board Member Wilcox – Thank you. Ms. Brock – Okay. Now everything else here, I believe, deal with potential new conditions to add or revisions to some of the conditions. Board Member Wilcox – Is there a song title? Never mind. Chairperson Howe – And we talked about this next one and it sounds like it is already covered in some Town documents in terms of construction. So I'll let you explain what it is. Ms. Brock – So my first recommendation was to add a condition that the proposed measures and mitigations in the EIS must be utilized for the following: construction traffic, dust, construction noise, identification and transplanting of rare, scarce or endangered plant species, roof materials and color, outdoor lighting, and noise associated with the new facilities. It's possible that some of these may be included in various plans before us already, but much of this material, I believe, shows up really just in the EIS itself and so to the extent that the applicant has said in the EIS we will PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 41 undertake these measures such as this roof color and finish and dust control measures and things like that, the transplanting of the sedges and other plants, I felt it was important that we had a condition stating that those proposed measures and mitigations in the EIS must be implemented. Board Member Riha — That's good. Ms. Brock — So I will ... let's see ... we can just add that to the end to the conditions. Board Member Wilcox — Condition. Ms. Brock — Condition b, which requires submission of a complete stormwater pollution prevention plan for the entire Phase 1 A development prior to final site plan approval for Phase 1A except for elements including the remote parking project. I propose that we revise this to also include on the site plans the size and location of the proposed stormwater practices and the additional physical elements required by Creig Hebdon's letter to David Herrick. Unfortunately the letter wasn't dated so I can't refer to the date, but there were certain physical... fences and types... Board indicates they have a copy of the letter. Ms. Brock — Yes ... no you have a co those requirements to submission of for the entire Phase 1 A development, practices and the additional physical David Herrick, py of it and so that's...) thought we should add a complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan the size and location of the proposed stormwater elements required by Creig Hebdon's letter to Chairperson Howe — Arid did you have any questions about that, David? The correspondence that you received from Creig? Mr. Herrick — No. We didn't have any issues with Creig's comments and all will be addressed before the end of the week. Mr. Smith — I was just going to add there is one new letter you had on your desks tonight from Creig, just additional things so I don't know if that letter should be referenced in this condition also. There are a couple of additional items that he is requesting. Ms. Brock — Well, that letter is basically —tells him that he has to change his stormwater sizing for one of the lot areas. Right? Board Member Riha — Right. Ms. Brock — That they aren't eligible to get credits for certain things. So does our wording already ... I mean I think our wording already covers that, the submission of a complete SWPPP. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 42 Board Member Riha – Right because it seems like the implication was the initial SWPPP was not going to be...meet the State requirements. That was my interpretation of Dave's ... I mean of Creig's letter. Chairperson Howe – Okay, so... Board Member Riha – I don't know what your interpretation was, but... Mr. Herrick – Well, we have a somewhat different understanding of the redevelopment regulations but I fully expect we'll come to terms either with making the practice slightly larger or have an understanding with Creig and the engineering department on just whether or not the State regs are applicable as we have interpreted them. Board Member Riha – So., so Susan, what should we say? Because this is 4 —this is where we are moving into the final site plan. Chairperson Howe – No, this is still preliminary. Board Member Riha – But this has to do with the parking lot C, which is ... isn't that the one where we're trying... Mr. Herrick – That's correct. Board Member Riha – So it's important we understand what we're agreeing to with the SWPPP. Chairperson Howe – Where did Dan go? Board Member Riha – Yeah, where did Dan go? Mr. Herrick – I would suggest that the requirement to have a SWPPP for the entirety of the project is certainly appropriate and that with respect to the C -Lot, which is being requested to be approved for early construction satisfying the second letter from Creig as part of the final approval because we certainly need to address that issue for the remote parking project independent of the larger site approval. Board Member Riha – So you're saying we —we should say that you will meet, satisfy his May 15, 2008 letter? Mr. Herrick – Yes. Board Member Riha – Even if you disagree with his interpretation? Mr. Herrick – We can go either way. I think there needs to be an engineer to engineer discussion of the interpretation... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 43 Board Member Riha — Here he comes. Board Member Wilcox — Guess what? Our engineer wins. (laughing) Mr. Herrick — I know. (laughing) Mr. Walker —Always. Board Member Erb — So tonight he is Creig. Chairperson Howe — Dan, we're trying to figure out if we need to reference both of these letters in a condition that David received from Creig about the SWPPP? Mr. Walker — Yes. Board Member Riha — Because Creig's saying they need to do more with Lot C. Mr. Walker — You have filed an. ..(not audible)... Mr. Herrick — No, we have not filed that yet. Mr. Walker — With Creig's comment on the redevelopment on the redevelopment, the second letter I believe... Mr. Herrick — That's the second pertaining to Lot C. Mr. Walker — Is based on the current permit and according to the information he received two weeks ago so I think the State wanted the same comment on that as far as the redevelopment for that Lot C. So I don't think it's impossible, it's a matter of you are going to have to do a little more on the treatment. I believe that's what that one was related to. Board Member Riha — Yeah. Mr. Herrick — Yeah. We're providing a sand filter for treatment of Lot C, but it is... Mr. Walker - ...whether or not it's the 75% is the question. Mr. Herrick — That's the issue and we believe that the application of the redevelopment policy is legitimate. Mr. Walker — And if that stands as far as the State's inter ... our interpretation is that it doesn't. So in worse case you'd have to treat 100% of it instead of 75 %. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 44 Mr. Herrick — Correct. Mr. Walker — And it's doable on the site. Mr. Herrick — Yes. That's right. Board Member Wilcox — So we want to know whether we need to reference this letter in the resolution. Board Member Riha — Right. Mr. Walker — Yes. Board Member Riha — Okay. Ms. Brock — And what wording would you suggest? Mr. Walker — That... Ms. Brock — So look at b ... no... Chairperson Howe — Its part of that last paragraph, isn't it? Mr. Walker — Isn't there. language in there already regarding the fact that they have to receive this SWPPP approval? Ms. Brock — Right. Submission of a complete SWPPP for the entire Phase 1A development, but then it says except for elements including the remote parking project. Board Member Riha — Right. Mr. Walker — That's the condition for the full development. approval? Ms. Brock — It's the preliminary. Mr. Walker — That language... Ms. Brock — For Phase 1 A... Is this the preliminary Mr. Walker - ...needs to stay in there. For the final approval for, we're not talking about that now, but they need to. before they can do any construction they need to have the SWPPP approved. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 45 Mr. Herrick — And I believe that the second letter from Creig is appropriate to the condition that has already been drafted for consideration and final approval for...but there's no reference to the date. Ms. Brock — What if we say except for elements included in the remote parking project which will require SWPPP approval before... Board Member Riha — Final site plan? Ms. Brock — Well, no. We're trying to do final site plan tonight. Board Member Riha — Yeah. Ms. Brock — SWPPP approval before issuance of a building permit? Mr. Smith — Building permit is the way it's worded in the final resolution. Ms. Brock — So does that satisfy your concern if we say that at the end, which will require SWPPP approval... Mr. Walker — And they will require building permits for the parking lots, which means they won't be able to start construction until they have that approval. Ms. Brock - ... prior to issuance of a building permit. Board Member Riha — So the SWPPP approval is by you guys or by the DEC or by both? Mr. Walker — Yes. Board Member Riha — Both. Mr. Walker — The way it stands right now is that DEC is still approving the SWPPPs, but we also are,. we review the SWPPPs and we want to see the SWPPPs that meet the State's criteria. The actual final determination at this time is that the DEC will provide the approval of the SWPPP. We are looking at it from the standpoint of we are not approving anything that we don't think DEC would approve. And that's where Creig's letter.. . Board Member Riha — Right. So you're saying right now is should be 100 %? Mr. Walker — June 9t' I'm going up to a meeting for a full day training with DEC because they just came out with a permit that was due in January last month. So ... but that's why the language is in there because we feel there is more development on that particular C -Lot than counts for predevelopment. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 46 Board Member Riha — But that's not draining,..0 -Lot is not draining into the watershed that the guy from Kendall Street was complaining about. Right? Board Member Wilcox — Mr. Hilker, Board Member Riha — Yeah. Board Member Wilcox — And his two houses on Kendall Ave. Mr. Herrick — I have to be honest, I'm not familiar with... Mr. Walker — This one is not, I don't believe it is draining into that. This one's draining further to the north because this is the one that would still continue to drain down along side the driveway ... the main access way. Mr. Herrick — Correct. Right, Mr. Walker = ...the Kendall Avenue drainageway is a little further to the south. Board Member Erb — Does Creig's first letter apply to this resolution and his May 15th letter applies to our later business? Chairperson Howe — But it sounds like we already have the language we need in the final. Board Member Thayer — Yeah. It sounds like it. Mr. Walker — The earlier resolution was before the.. he did the final review on this final approval document for the parking lots. Board Member Erb — So we should reference both of his letters at this stage or not? Mr. Walker — As long as his letter ... the second letter is appropriate for the final approval for the parking lots. Board Member Erb — That's what I just said. Chairperson Howe — It's already there. Mr. Herrick — Except it needs a reference to the date if you want to put a date reference in that condition. Chairperson Howe — Susan, do you want to... Ms. Brock — So the language I had earlier proposed did incorporate the requirements of Creig's first letter first by requiring submission of the complete SWPPP and then also PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 47 the physical elements that were referenced in his letter. It sounds as if we don't need this latter change I was proposing about the remote parking project requiring SWPPP approval prior to issuance of building permits because that language is already in the resolution for the final approval for the remote parking project. Board Member Erb — Right. Chairperson Howe — Right. Ms. Brock — Okay. Condition "m ", which requires the permanent stormwater facilities to be included in the stormwater operation, maintenance, and reporting agreement add to the end of this...lets just add a ... actually, lets not add it here; lets just add another condition requiring submission of a stormwater monitoring plan. That was one of the things in the EIS that was recommended to be provided and it doesn't show up anywhere in our conditions. Add a condition... Mr. Herrick — Excuse me, could you repeat the connection to the... Ms. Brock — Add a condition requiring submission of a stormwater facilities monitoring plan. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Ms. Brock — Which is always an external document that always gets referenced and incorporated into the operation, maintenance, and reporting agreement anyway. Mr. Herrick — So it's the inspection reporting for the... Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Fair enough. I understand. Ms. Brock — Add a condition requiring submission of a plan showing the location of old growth trees and then an avoidance plan to achieve greater than 90 percent preservation of trees greater than 18 inches in diameter. Mr. Smith — Susan, I think that is actually started in condition "d" of the resolution. It doesn't refer to the specific sizes or that type of thing, but I think that's the general area that was being discussed. Ms. Brock — Well, this talked about in a specific location. Is that the only place that the old growth trees showed up? Mr. Herrick — Well, just to clarify, they're not old growth trees... Board Member Riha — I was going to say that initially. PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 48 Mr. Herrick = ...they're large diameter trees and the reference to old growth was that there are characteristics on those contiguous lands of the campus that have old growth characteristics. In other words there are some trees greater than 18 inches. Ms. Brock — I got that language right out of the findings... Board Member Riha — It was in the findings and I was going to say something, but didn't. Typically that's not old growth. Ms. Brock — But we could say, "Location of trees with old growth characteristics ". Board Member Riha — Right. Board Member Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Brock — So is "d" duplicative? Board Member Riha — Yeah. We wanted that. We wanted them to submit a plan. Ms. Brock — That's a specific location. Mine is more generic and it's also more specific. It picks up the mitigations. Chairperson Howe — Add to this then. Add to "d" whatever... Mr. Kanter — I think you could add the more general into "d" first and then go to the more specific. Ms. Brock — Um...somebody will have to help me here. I don't know if any of the trees with old growth characteristics occur in locations other than those that are specified in "d„ Mr. Smith — My understanding was that was the main location. Mr. Herrick — Yes. Mr. Smith — That was why it was being avoided in most of the design. I know the board had talked about that area to be protected. Board Member Riha — Right. And IC had agreed to do that. Board Member .Erb — Is the point to get the 90 percent into "d "? Is that what we now need to do? Board Member Riha — Then 90 percent of trees 18 inches or greater in diameter. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 49 Ms. Brock — And do we need to also add the words "avoidance plan "? Or is type and location of protection proposed there? We could put in parenthesis "avoidance plan"? Board Member Riha — Yeah. That would be good. Ms. Brock — So lets have "d" read, "submission of plan showing the type and location of protection proposed (avoidance plan) for the existing vegetation. Larger trees..." Board Member Riha — Or trees greater than 18 inches. Ms. Brock — "...greater than 18 inches in diameter..." Board Member Erb —,,.diameter of which 90 percent are to remain. Ms. Brock — Yeah. So that sounds good. Board Member Hoffmann — But if such trees occur in other areas than the one that is specific here, don't we want to protect them, too, if they can be protected? Board Member Wilcox — I think our concern was this area. Board Member Riha — This project. Right? Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — But I'm concerned about larger trees in other areas, too, where they could be protected if one tried. Board Member Erb — But 1A is capturing this at this point and we can make sure with additional phases if they extend into... Board Member Hoffmann — No. I mean in the 1 A area. Board Member Riha — This was the 1A area that had trees. Board Member Erb — This is where they were. Board Member Thayer — The only place that there's trees in 1A. Board Member Wilcox — The large diameter trees. Board Member Riha — Right. Board Member Wilcox — Mike said... Chairperson Howe — Okay. I want to push this a little bit because we still have to get to final site plan approval. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 50 Ms. Brock — Okay. Just to clean it up, then delete "proposed to" because we've got "of which 90 percent are to remain between the new loop road ". So just also get right of "proposed to". I think... condition Y'. Add to this list of details of the various site elements that will be added to the revised plans. Right now it lists bike racks, flag poles, scoreboard, etc. Just add after scoreboard, "public transit elements". Chairperson Howe — If you have any questions, David, as we go through feel free to ask. Mr. Kanter — And when you're referring to public transit elements you're talking about like a bus pullouts or a shelter or whatever it might be. Board Member Riha — Oh, okay. Ms. Brock — And I think all of these actually came from my review of the findings statement. Board Member Riha — Yeah. That's good. Ms. Brock — If you go back to the findings statement you will probably see more description of that type of thing. Is it necessary to add a condition requiring the new sanitary sewer connection and watermain replacement or already shown on the plans so when we say, you know, you have the approval to build this project that's incorporated because it's on the plans. Board Member Wilcox — It's on the plans and we approved the plans then there is a requirement that they build to the plans. Board Member Riha — We don't have to specify the plans. Ms. Brock — They show all of those? Okay. So we don't need that; it was a question I had. This is also a technical question, probably for Dan and Mike. Do we need to add a condition that Ithaca College either receives a variance from the State DEC general permit 201 to extend the limit of disturbance to 10 acres during excavation of the athletics and events fieldhouse and turf and if they don't receive that variance then they have to limit disturbance to 5 acres at any given time? Do we need to do that or is that just a process that DEC will regulate? Mr. Walker — That is addressed in the SWPPP already, isn't it? Mr. Herrick — Yeah. Well, in the case of the remote parking lot we don't have that situation. Mr. Walker — Right. But in the SWPPP, that will be addressed as part of the SWPPP Mr. Herrick — Yes. It would be for the larger A &E center development. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 51 Board Member Riha — Yeah. It was in there. Ms. Brock — Okay. So we don't need to add that. Mr. Walker — And I have a pretty good feeling that once they, ..(not audible)...the site work that has to be done to make things work they're going to have to approve more than 10 acres anyhow, ..(not audible)... Mr. Herrick — More than 5 at a time. Ms. Brock — Okay. Last one. We have a condition about if blasting occurs during construction that notification of neighbors is required. So I have another condition that relates to construction. I don't know if its better to leave it for final approval or not, but since we already have one dealing with construction I thought I'd throw it out here because my fear is if we wait we'll forget to add it later. So this would be a condition stating, "No construction is to occur during summer holiday weekends (Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day) ". Do you want to go ahead and add it here in the preliminary? Board Member Erb — Yes. Ms. Brock — Okay. That was it. Mr. Herrick — Could you repeat the days again? Federal holidays? Ms. Brock — Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day weekends. Should we be more specific? Chairperson Howe — Can I just go around and see if there's other comments? Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. I have one more. I have a change if I may. Ms. Brock — Well, hold on. I think Dave had a question about what that meant. Weekends. So Saturday, Sunday, and the holiday. It's a Monday holiday for Labor Day and Memorial Day. 4th of July may or may not fall around the weekend, but if its on Friday or a Monday, do you want that 3 -day weekend included, too? Mr. Herrick — Will you be okay with that? Board Member Thayer — 4 t of July could be in the middle of the week. Ms. Brock — This was something that the Planning Board discussed at a prior meeting. Board Member Riha — Right. Male — (not audible) PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 52 Chairperson Howe — I think our understanding was it was meant to be the entire weekend. Board Member Erb — Yeah. I believe we were ... I was talking about the weekend when I brought that up because I was thinking in terms of having the weekend for families, residents that might want to have some party scheduled, some family events. Its only 3 such weeks. Board Member Wilcox — Maximum of 31 Board Member Erb — Yeah. Maximum of 3 depending upon where July 4' is Mr. Kanter — July 4th happens to be a Friday, so that's going to be a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Mr. Herrick — Okay. Chairperson Howe — Fred? Board Member Wilcox — Is there anything else? Ms. Brock — So those were the ones that I came up with earlier today. It doesn't include some things people have been talking about. So I've got sort of a list, but I'm going to wait for you to go through them. Chairperson Howe — Fred? Board Member Wilcox — Mine's pretty simple I think. Further resolved clause 1, which is the listing of the various documents, I think has to borrow the language from whereas clause 13. Ms. Brock — No. You're right. Board Member Wilcox — So... Ms. Brock — I had it in here; I forgot to mention it. Thank you. Board Member Wilcox — You're welcome. Chairperson Howe — That's it, Fred? Board Member Wilcox — That's it. Chairperson Howe — Hollis? You're all set. Susan? Eva? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 53 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I wanted to talk a little more about the planting plan for the Z -Lot. Chairperson Howe — And do you want to wait and do that for the final site plan review? Board Member Hoffmann — No. It has to do with the preliminary site plan review. Chairperson Howe — Well remember we may get to actually talking about the final site plan review for the parking lots. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I want to be sure to talk about it under preliminary... Chairperson Howe — Okay. I just don't want to talk about it twice. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't believe that we don't decide which plan to use. (? Hard to hear) Chairperson Howe — But wouldn't that be for the final? That's all I'm asking. Wouldn't it be a final site plan review discussion? Mr. Kanter — The revised plans for the trail around Z -Lot are part of the preliminary site plan approval. So absolutely you should discuss it. Chairperson Howe — Go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — So the latest one that was dated April 24th is quite different from the... Board Member Wilcox — I'm sorry, when you say April 24th, do you mean the one revised May 14th? Board Member Hoffmann — It's the one received May 14th Board Member Wilcox — No. It's actually revised May 14th Board Member Thayer —Revised. Yeah. Mr. Herrick — There's a title block... Board Member Wilcox —There I s a revision date down there. Board Member Hoffmann — No. I don't see a revision date. I see a date of 5/14/08. The pedestrian layout. Is that the one you are talking about? Mr. Herrick — That's correct. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 54 Board Member Wilcox — It says change description. Yeah. Board Member Erb — Yes. Board Member Thayer — Change description. Yup. 5/14. Board Member Hoffmann — But in the... Board Member Conneman — Are you talking LP102 ... LH102? Board Member Hoffmann — LP102. There are 2 LP102 plans in 3 different submissions. The one I just mentioned is the latest. Then there was one before that in what's called the final site plan that's for the remote parking project. Mr. Herrick — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — And that's different still that has all the plants ... a lot more plants on the slopes to the west and to the north and that's more similar to the one that was in the preliminary site plan submission, which the resolution is based on. Board Member Riha — No. Board Member Wilcox — No. The resolution is based off May 14th, Board Member Riha — This is what's in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, okay. But somewhere in the resolution it talks about on Page 2.13, it talks about the plans that are preliminary site plan review February 01, 2008 and revised preliminary site plan April...(not audible)... Board Member Riha — Yeah, but she just added... Board Member Wilcox — It's been superseded. Board Member Hoffmann — I know that but this is still part of it. You're looking at 3 different ones. Board Member Wilcox — No. We are looking at one. Board Member Thayer — Only the final one. Board Member Riha — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay Board Member Wilcox — Yes. We had 3 different ones submitted to us. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 55 Board Member Riha — But anything newer supersedes the older one. Board Member Hoffmann — But we have the possibility of looking at the other ones, too, and deciding which one we prefer. Board Member Wilcox — I think what we're saying is ... I'm sorry. I'll say this as polite as can. Get to the point. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm trying to, but I keep being interrupted and people wanting explanations of what I'm talking about. So anyway, on the LP102 that's dated April 24th '08 out of the remote parking project doc. That kind is more similar to the one we saw just before that and it has no evergreens in it as I remember. And I remember that I specifically asked for some evergreens and that's why I'm bringing it up, but what I was asking for were evergreens to be interspersed between the oaks on that upper level, on the same level as the cars are so that they would form more of a barrier hiding the cars from view and it's the view from a distance that's more important. Mr. Herrick — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — I meet my grandchildren on Honness Lane some days a week when they come home on the school bus and I see that parking lot. It was actually on one of the photos... Mr. Herrick — You provided a photograph that showed very clearly... Board Member Hoffmann — That parking lot and that bare slope and the sun shining on the cars causing a lot of glare is very disturbing. So that's what I was hoping to shield by asking you to put in those evergreens then. Instead you have cut down on a lot of the trees on the slope. You've put in evergreens in clumps, which is okay rather than having them in a regular pattern, but you have not ... there are sort of spaces where aren't any evergreens that are going to hide the cars, I believe. Because I'm not sure these Itea are they shrubs? And how tall do they get? Mr. Herrick — They are shrubs. Board Member Hoffmann — How tall do they get? Mr. Herrick — Six to 8 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — So they are not going to block very well the view of the cars in the parking lot. Mr. Herrick — Maybe I can just ... I didn't do a thorough job of explaining how we went from the earlier LP102 to the current one. We did take to heart your requests for the evergreens and you do find massed with the oaks ... we want to keep the oaks at the top. We want to keep those deciduous hardwoods at the top of the parking, but just... P6 5.20.2008 Pg. 56 Board Member Hoffmann — I have no problem with that. Mr. Herrick — And just adjacent to those you do find clusters of the PG3's. Okay? Those are the evergreens. So there are clusters of evergreens that butt up to the deciduous plantings. So we are looking at those evergreens to provide.. .it's not going to be a forested pine situation where plantation pines might look. It's going to be clusters of evergreens mixed in with the deciduous hardwoods... Board Member Hoffmann — Right and that's fine. I don't want it to look like a formal park and I don't think anybody else does either, but I think the way you have them placed there are going to be two large openings where the parking lot and the cars will be seen anywhere from a distance since the shrubs, which are planted in between the stance of evergreens are not going to be tall enough to hide that upper level. Mr. Herrick — Not from the distant view. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. And that's the one I'm concerned about. Board Member Erb — Eva, I didn't really find myself bothered by that because I thought that instead of one massive parking lot, that there was going to be sufficient interruption of the total bulk that although I get a little view here and I would get another little view there that because the view was interrupted by the clumps of evergreens I felt that I would be satisfied with that. Because I'm also counting on, in the wintertime, at least even the skeletons of the deciduous trees to also help a little bit with the visual interruption. And of course in the summertime we'll have their foliage. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I'm sure the deciduous trees will do that and although in some ways I would have liked the naturalistic look of the hillside being all deciduous trees the way you explained that first time; I didn't think it would protect enough so I'm glad to see the evergreens, but still I wish that there were some more deciduous trees left on the slope below that top level. Male applicant (not David) ?? — I would like to add one other comment to ... the gaps that you see at the top of the slope, if you look over to the evergreen plantings at the back of the residences, the kind of opposing evergreens are there as well. So that is kind of catching your short views up to those openings. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and I see that. I see that. The cuts through the slopes were helpful to see that, but I'm telling you that my preference would have been...l'm just trying to say what I think. That's all. I think that some more trees on this slope because it's such a massive slope to the north as well as to the east because there are going to be views from downtown Ithaca up there as well. Chairperson Howe — Let me just...ls there anyone else that this is a concern for? Because I don't want to spend time on it if it's not a concern for anyone else. Anyone else want to? Okay. Eva, do you have any other issues? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 57 Board Member Hoffmann - I guess one issue is that I'm not allowed to speak. Chairperson Howe - Eva, I just don't want to spend a lot of time if other folks aren't in support of what you are arguing. Board Member Hoffmann - But this is a very big project. Chairperson Howe -- I agree. I didn't hear anyone else backing you up though. So I want... Board Member Hoffmann - Is there nobody else who is interested in having trees on that slope? Really? Board Member Riha - I'm satisfied. Board Member Wilcox - I count 150 trees here. Maybe 175, including the shorter shrubs. There's a tremendous amount that's being planted here. Board Member Erb - I'm happy with what with they've given us. Board Member Hoffmann - I'm glad you're happy. I wish I had a little more. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much for allowing me to do that. Chairperson Howe - You're welcome. Is there anything else, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - No thank you. That was it. Mr. Herrick - I wanted to clarify a few things that came up earlier. Is that-okay? Chairperson Howe - Sure. Sure. And then I think Susan has a few more items as well. Mr. Herrick - There was a reference made to the continuance lands of the College and the UNA boundary within the FEIS. We do show the full extent of the UNA boundary within that document. It does include, as was pointed out, some of the Cornell lands that had been ..wit does include principally the Ithaca College properties. So the note or the text tag for the Unique Natural Area falls on the Cornell parcel, but the boundary, the heavy boundary is shown going all throughout as we obtain that boundary from GIS data. So it does include the College lands, other private lands, and a Cornell piece. Board Member Wilcox - Okay. Mr. Herrick - Just to clarify that. What I would admit as missing is a nice little arrow that pointed to that heavy shaded boundary. Chairperson Howe - Was there anything else like that David? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 58 Mr. Herrick — Some of the comments made during the public session; I think it needs to be clarified specifically with the role of Integrated Acquisition and Development that they are assisting the College with project management. They are not involved in procuring services of general contractors. They are assisting the College in managing the construction portion of the project. So I think some statements made as to their involvement were incorrect previously. Board Member Wilcox — Well, they're involved clearly with their representatives here. Mr. Herrick — They're involved. They're helping manage the project, but they are not the ... it is totally the College's purview as to how they solicit for bids and obtain contracts. Chairperson Howe — And is there a set policy for that related to local labor since it was brought up? And you might have to turn to somebody else from Ithaca College. Is there any policy that the College has when you take on a construction project and try to? Male applicant (not David) — Certainly we are very supportive of the local laborer in the area, but as a private institution we are not bound to have a project restricted to prevailing wages. We are certainly very supportive of that and will work to try and achieve that goal, but we do remain or reserve the right to ... (not audible) ... as we see fit. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Was there anything else from the public comments that you wanted to react to, comment on? Mr. Herrick — No. Thank you. Chairperson Howe - Susan, I think we are all done with the comments on the proposed resolution, but I think you had some other... Ms. Brock — Well, just some notes I took while comments were being made. Ms. Brock - ...pedestrian /bike trail should be marked in any way? Chairperson Howe — I think we... Ms. Brock - ...decide not to do that? Chairperson Howe — Yeah. Ms. Brock — There's been quite a bit of discussion about whether the height of the lights on that trail should be lowered. Chairperson Howe — And I think we heard an answer in terms of we're satisfied with the answer, I think is what I heard. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 59 Board Member Riha — Yeah. We discussed that at a previous meeting, too. Board Member Thayer — Yup. Mr. Kanter — Although I think before you leave the lighting, I did put a note that you may want to require that the details of those special shields be shown. Board concurred. Mr. Kanter— So that could just be added to that condition f, I guess. Ms. Brock — Oh, yeah. Perfect. So after public transit elements we added,. Just add, "Specifications and photographs "... Board Member Wilcox — Cut sheets? Mr. Kanter — Cut sheets are good. Ms. Brock — Okay. Cut sheets for house side shields for lighting on the pedestrian /bike path. I don't know. Maybe everything else already covered in terms of the pedestrian bike trail. Somebody in the public raised a comment about the surface material and whether skateboarding would be an activity that would happen on that trail or not. Is that an issue you-want to discuss? Chairperson Howe — It probably will be something that happens there whether the College is going to regulate that or not... Mr. Herrick — Well, I think I can speak safely that the College needs to maintain this trail throughout the winter season and certainly as the Town experiences with its paved trails it's a lot easier to snowplow and de -ice or sand or whatever you need to do during the winter. Having a gravel trail, while that's possible it's not as efficient and certainly creates a lot more mess. Mr. Kanter — And it certainly is not as good a surface for bicycles. Mr. Herrick — Right. Ms. Brock — Okay... Mr. Walker — Also not ADA compliant. Chairperson Howe — So we made a lot of changes to this resolution and we're not going to try to go through them, but we did add some new additions and I'm not sure we were as clear about what those new ones were. I think there were 3 new ones or 2 new ones? PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 60 Several — three. Mr. Kanter — And then we are going to except out... Chairperson Howe — If you're all clear we don't need to go... Ms. Brock — On one of the new ones, which was requiring submission of a stormwater facilities monitoring plan, let me add to that, "prior to final site plan approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the remote parking project ". I'm quickly looking at my other conditions. I think most of them were revising existing ones, but I need to see if I need to add that same language to any other new ones. What were other two new ones? The holiday one we don't need that language for. Board Member Erb — You had a list for 'Y' of many of the mitigations. Ms. Brock — Okay. We don't need the language for that. Board Member Erb — "s" was the stormwater facilities and "t" was the construction during the weekends. Ms. Brock — Okay. So we don't need it for that. So we're fine then. I just wanted to make sure I didn't inadvertently leave that language out somewhere where we needed its Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution? Hollis. Would someone like to second? George. All those in favor if you would raise your hand I would appreciate it. Any oppositions. have a super majority vote. Okay. One opposition and six ayes. So we're able to r-o RcOvL.v 11viv nrv. auvts - u40 Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Ithaca Colleae Athletics & Events Center Phase 1A Ithaca College Campus Near Coddina 1-24, and 42 -1 -9.2 ton Road Tax Parcel No 's 41=1=30,2, 41=14 I 12 41 1 2 41- MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This project involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 414-30.2, 414411 41442.21 414-24, and 42442, Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase 1A 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 PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 61 expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and height variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project; and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College athletics and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1, 2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS (dated November 27, 2007 and amended January 8, 2008, January 15, 2008 and January 22, 2008, with further changes as discussed at the January 22, 2008 Town Planning Board meeting) as complete on January 22, 2008; and 8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the DEIS on March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the DEIS until March 14, 2008; and PB 5.20.2008 Pg, 62 9. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated April 3, 2008, regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 22, 2008, accepted the FEIS, dated April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, as complete; and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of FEIS, issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12; and 12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on May 20, 2008, did adopt the Findings Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 13. The Planning Board, at Public Hearings held on March 4, 2008 and May 20, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans included in bound packets titled "Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center" with documents titles Preliminary Site Plan Review (dated Feb- 01 -08) and titled Revised Preliminary Site Plan (dated Apr- 02 -08), and additional revised site plan sheets dated May 14, 2008, prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T. G. Miller P.C., and other application material, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the Ithaca Athletics and Events Center finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsection A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, for the reasons stated in the above referenced Findings Statement, with the exception that in Subsection G, the proposed building height and the height of the field and tennis courts light poles would exceed the height permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone (Section 270 -70), therefore, this Special Permit is conditioned upon receiving the necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in regards to Section 270 -70, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the construction of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, as shown on plans included in bound packets titled "Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center" with documents titles Preliminary Site Plan Review (dated Feb- 01 -08) and titled Revised Preliminary Site Plan (dated Apr- 02 -08), and additional revised site plan sheets dated May PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 63 141 2008, prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T. G. Miller P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary height variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and b, submission of a complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the entire Phase 1A development, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and C, granting of the necessary site plan approval by the City of Ithaca for those elements located in the City, prior to Town Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and d, submission of plans showing the type and location of protection proposed (avoidance plan) for the existing vegetation (trees greater than 18 -inch in diameter) of which 90% are to remain between the new loop road, the new field, and the existing Garden Apartments, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and e. revision of planting plans to include labeling of all proposed shrubs, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and f. revision of plans to include details of all site elements, including bike racks, flagpole, scoreboard, public transit elements, cut sheets for house - side- shields for lighting on the pedestrian /bike path, etc., prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and g1 submission of locations, designs, and details of any proposed signage associated with the project, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and h, revision of plans to include the name and seal of each registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of the site plan materials, including topographic and boundary surveys, drainage plans, etc., prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and i. revision of "Planting Plan" sheet LP -103, to include a small amount of additional landscaping (trees and /or shrubs) around the general area of PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 64 the stormwater pond adjacent to Coddington Road, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and j. submission of a Historic Site Covenant (deed restriction) for the Coddington Road Historic Site identified in the EIS, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and k, submission of a construction phasing or sequencing plan for Phase 1A, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking project, and 1. submission of a formal Traffic Control Plan outlining procedures for traffic management on campus during large events, including the blocking of the Coddington Road campus exit, prior to any Certificate of Occupancy, and me all permanent stormwater facilities shall be included in the stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between Ithaca College and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Town Attorney and the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, and n. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and o, noise from large events is to be monitored by Ithaca College for a period of one year from the completion of the project, with a report of the results submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and P, an additional site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will be required for the wetland mitigation once the location, size, and design of the replacement wetlands are finalized, including a long -term maintenance and monitoring plan, and q, if blasting is to occur during construction, in addition to any other requirements, notification of adjacent neighbors is required, and r. the proposed measures and mitigations in the EIS must be utilized for the following; construction traffic, dust, construction noise, identification and transplanting of rare, scarce or endangered plant species, roof materials and color, outdoor lighting and noise associated with the facilities, and S, submission of a stormwater facilities monitoring plan, prior to Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1A, except for elements included in the Remote Parking Project, and PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 65 f. no construction is to occur during summer holiday weekends (Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day). A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: Hoffmann The motion passed with a super majority of 6 to 1. Board Member Erb — Three minute break. Five maybe. Chairperson Howe — Well, we'll take a 3- minute break just to figure out what I'm doing here next. A 3- minute break okay. Chairperson Howe — Why don't we start by seeing if you have questions for David or anyone else who is here and then I'll open up the public hearing. So let me be clear. So now we're doing: PUBLIC HEARING. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.29 41 =1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The Remote Parking project includes the expansion of parking lots identified as C -Lot, F -Lot, S -Lot, and Z -Lot. The expansion involves replacing spaces that will be lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center and will include new stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Also included is' the relocation of the existing overhead NYSEG electric transmission wires to an underground duct bank. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Chairperson Howe — So questions for the applicant? Eva, do you have any questions? George? Board Member Conneman — I think I'm fine. Chairperson Howe — Larry? Board Member Thayer — I'm okay. Chairperson Howe — Susan? Board Member Riha — So again just going back to the SWPPP. So you have in the SWPPP for I assume the Phase 1A, we have the draft of that and in that you have C -Lot expansion, pre- and post - development, water quality, volumes, but then in terms of PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 66 mitigation it looks like the mitigation is just, ,doesn't include Lot C. Right? Or unless I'm reading this wrong, on Page 9, then you have the predevelopment peak in -flow peak out -flow with the mitigation. See on the SWPPP on Page 7, you have C -Lot predevelopment post development and I seen the post developed numbers are before the mitigation. Right? 'Cause this is.. .oh this is the impervious surface so how do we know ... here's the cubic feet of water. So then ... if this 1,910 that we're saying is either going to be 75 or 100 percent mitigated? Or well we don't know; it's the peak flow that has to get mitigated. Board Member Wilcox — Is it the peak flow or the... Mr. Herrick — C -Lot is redevelopment in that there we'll be abandoning existing impervious surfaces associated with existing parking and the existing connector road. Board Member Riha — In that watershed? Mr. Herrick — In that watershed and so we are providing ... we have provide water quality and water quality practice in the form of sand filters for C -Lot. And what I understand the issue is that depending upon the interpretation of the water quality component of redevelopment whether we have to treat all of C -Lot or a portion. Board Member Riha — So you're saying if you going to. be more impervious surface? You're than you're taking out? include the redevelopment there's not iot putting in more impervious surface Mr. Herrick — That's correct. Board Member Wilcox — The issue here is totally the amount of water you need to treat? Percentage? The total volume of water you need to treat? Mr. Herrick — The issue is whether or not using redevelopment strategies and guidelines whether you treat 75% of the impervious surfaces or all of it. Board Member Wilcox — So this doesn't impact peak flow or anything like that? Mr. Herrick — The flows that are already generated within the watershed are going to be consistent before and after. We are talking about similar swaps in impervious area. Mr. Walker — On the overall plan, the discharge is from the site for the full project, the full SWPPP, the different mitigation will control peak runoff off the site. For this C -Lot the primary concern for this is ... smaller practice is the stormwater quality treatment in that that's ... (not audible)... smaller quantity. I suppose for a very short period of time until a full stormwater plan get into effect there might be a slight modification, but this is a pretty smaller area. A very small area and then this drains into ... since you are not completing the entire stormwater management facilities at one time there's going to be PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 67 a slight transition where there will be a slight increase in peak runoff from the C -Lot area. Mr. Herrick — Well, there could be, but the changes in cover are minor. Extremely. Mr. Walker — You are providing storage for the water quality, which will detain the water for also the pond coming up. Mr. Herrick — For the more frequent storm events, yes. Mr. Walker — And the issue there is whether or not this qualifies because there is a difference between the ... YOU 've got 3110 of an acre difference roughly of more impervious surface on that as the new than the old. Mr. Herrick — Right. Mr. Walker — And some of the criteria for the reduction is based on limitations on the site. Board Member Riha — So but then will the... Mr. Walker — What Creig has asked David for in his letter was documentation that there are limitations on the site and so that detail will have to be worked out before the SWPPP is actually approved. Mr. Herrick - Correct. Board Member Riha — But will the stormwater coming off C -Lot eventually go into a new feature or whatever you're calling it? Board Member Wilcox — Practice. Board Member Riha — Practice. Right. Mr. Herrick — Well, the watershed is.. we're balancing the water shed in that when the entirety of the project is done what goes through the culvert under Coddington Road is going to be consistent with the predevelopment. So it's a combination of there may be an increase ... a little bit of an increase in one area, but there's a decrease in another to make up for it. So it's a balance of peak flow attenuation that when you analyze it all down to one focal point it's mitigated. Mr. Walker — For a very short period of time... Board Member Riha — It may not be depending what the balance... PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 68 Mr. Walker — ...there may be a slight increase because the C -Lot is being built first and some of the other paved areas that now flow in that direction will probably continue to flow that way for a short time, but they will be diverted to the other facility later on as the.. Js redeveloped. Mr. Herrick —That I s right. Board Member Riha — But then this isn't going to go ... I was just concerned for the guy from Kendall because he said it's already out of whack. Mr. Walker — This is not going to that area... Board Member Riha — Okay. Chairperson Howe — You're all set? Hollis? Board Member Erb — I'm glad for the new little arm on the pedestrian /bikeway. I think that was a nice move and I'm thinking now if I were a resident in that block of houses you probably made it uncomfortable for students to wander off the path and get too close to my backyard. It's either going to be deep snow or it's going to be reasonably wet or its going to be tall grass or it's going to be shrubs or something. Ms. Brock — Earth and berms. Board Member Erb — And the berms. Chairperson Howe — I'm going to hold off for just a minute because I'm going to open the public hearing before I forget. Board Member Wilcox — I'll hold mine. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. We'll open the public hearing at 9:46 'p.m. Is there anyone here, a member of the public, who would like to address the final site plan approval for these features? Joel Harlan I'm glad you are putting a nice walkway and stuff like that. What I figure, why don't you put a walkway like down here at the end of the City over the road so that everybody can go over. Chairperson Howe — Joel, you need to address the features that we're talking about. Mr. Harlan — Well, as I was saying it's about time you started getting down to the final improvements. It's been a long time on this project. You've been henpecking it for what? A year or two? Lets get with it and get it all done and over with. Approve of it. You know you're going to do it. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 69 Chairperson Howe — Is that it? Mr. Harlan — And its going to take another couple ... it sounds like a month. Maybe 6 months from now. Let's get it done. That's what I got to say. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Mr. Harlan — Don't talk about it. Do it. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. Anyone else? I'll close the public hearing at 9:49 p.m. Fred? Board Member Wilcox — I want to mention the moving letter we got from Brenda Ross, who lives at 212 Coddington Road, which was included in our materials. Board Member Riha — Yeah. I appreciated that. Board Member Erb — That was lovely. Board Member Wilcox — I think that's all I need to say. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Susan, I know you have at least one change to suggest to the resolution. Ms. Brock — Yes. And we need to reference the revised plans as well in the resolution, too. So on Page 2, paragraph 13 of the whereas clause, the reference to...the last phrase says, . "which includes remotes parking lots" add "and relocation of overhead electric transmission wires ". So that it's very clear that that was part of the preliminary approval that we just granted. Paragraph 14, after the reference to the drawings dated April 24, 2008 add "and additional revised site plan sheets dated May 14, 2008". Then continue on with whom they were prepared by. The same change needs to be made in the first paragraph of the resolved clause after lets see you can put it right after the April 249 2008 reference again. And I think the only other thing is whether we need to change "a" which describes the planting plan, sheet LP102 and talks about additional fencing, landscaping, and or earth berms for review and approval of the Town's Director of Planning. I think I'll let Jonathan speak to whether we need this still and if we do how we should propose revising it. Mr. Kanter — I didn't have any strong feelings about it only that if the Planning Board wanted to address this further this would be the place to do. So I think that's why Mike put it in. Mr. Smith — And this was written before we had the 5/14 plans so the new ones... Board Member Riha — So they've already included them in the plans. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 70 Mr. Kanter — We pretty much already talked about this. Mr. Smith — Yeah. So I think most of has been included but we didn't have those plans when this was drafted. Ms. Brock — So do you see any need to retain some of this language or should we delete "a "? Board Member Riha — If it's in the plans... Board Member Wilcox — It sounds like "a" could be removed. Ms. Brock — That's all I have. Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Howe — Susan? You're second. I saw her hand first. Board Member Thayer — Okay. Board Member Wilcox — Could I ask one question before we go on just out of curiosity? The relocation of the electric lines, who does that work? Does IC do it and contract out or does NYSEG do it? NYSEG insists that they do it. Mr. Herrick agrees. Mr. Kanter — I was just going to ask the board whether they might perhaps want David to address this question that again was raised by Ed Marx in this letter dated May 14th where he's talking about the additional parking and shift the parking to locations more proximate to the Coddington Road ... access road could be expected to increase traffic using this entrance to campus. And I think there's somewhat of a misconception in that statement as to what these parking lots are going to be used for. So if the board would like, maybe David could give us just a little, again a rehash of the use of the parking lots because I think that might clear up some of that misconception. Mr. Herrick — Well, the Z -Lot is., will be entirely long term freshman parking. So there really no ... an expectation of very limited turnover in that parking lot. A lot of its used for that purpose now. We're just putting it there or as much of it as can be accommodated so I don't see that the expansion of Z -Lot will bring increased traffic to the Coddington Road entrance just because of its long term nature. The S -Lot extension is really kind of in the middle of campus and it can be accessed I guess from either entrance. The C- Lot is a replacement of what's currently at the east side of the campus. And the parking that's associated in and around the A&E center and the aquatics center is very similar to the M -Lot and the M -Lot extensions and A -Lot that are already there. So I don't think PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 71 we have created a redistribution of traffic and therefore a change in traffic patterns on campus. To the extent that the County is concerned about how more events, smaller events might influence traffic; I think we've shown that even with the significant large events there aren't going to be neighborhood traffic impacts on Coddington Road. Mr. Walker — David, that lot where ... there is a lot existing where the contract staging area is now. Mr. Herrick — Correct. M -Lot extension. Mr. Walker — That's basically... you' re losing all those parking spaces. Mr. Herrick —We're losing those... Mr. Walker — And those are being replaced by the "C" Lot and the "Z" Lot, would you say? Mr. Herrick — Yes. Mr. Walker — So you're really not adding any more parking on that side of campus or the new parking that you are going to put into the Events Center. Mr. Herrick — And the daily Events Center parking is very small. Its 80 to 100 spaces and... Mr. Walker — So effectively you're not putting any more parking, maybe 15...1 don't know what percentage, but a fairly small number of additional spaces on that side of campus. Mr. Herrick —That I s correct. Mr. Walker — Because you're losing as many as you are putting in. Mr. Herrick — We are adding some spaces over, you know, at the west side of campus that currently aren't there. Mr. Walker — I know that's a pretty good sized gravel parking lot down there. Do you have numbers on ... the contractor staging area? The M -Lot extension, how many spaces do you have there that you're going to be losing? Mr. Herrick — I don't know the number off the top of my head. Mr. Couture (not audible) Mr. Walker — And you're adding additional spots...because C -Lot is already partially there. Mr. Herrick — C -Lot. That's correct. Mr. Walker — You're what? Doubling? Mr. Herrick — C -Lot is 136 spaces. Mr. Walker — And then the Z- Lot...those but you're going to be formalizing that so. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 72 spaces are pretty much informally there now, Board Member Wilcox — Well, its sort of formalizing because, for example, in Z -Lot at least on the eastern side, its not really...you have one set of cars, which park perpendicular to the curb and you have one set of cars behind that park parallel to the curb. So its not ... it's an interesting layout in the lot right now. So this does increase capacity. Mr. Walker — Well it's sort of just grown amorphously. Board Member Wilcox —Yeah, Mr. Walker —Illegally. Amorphously. Chairperson Howe — Well, I'm glad that Jonathan, you asked that question because I think for the record it's good to have that verification. Mr. Kanter — I think David's comments helped a lot on that. Chairperson Howe — Are we ready to vote? Any opposition? 6 in favor and 1 opposed. Mr. Herrick — Thank you. All those in favor please raise your hand? I think you're set for a while. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 046: Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center, Phase 1A — Remote Parking. Ithaca College Campus, Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 4-11, 41 -1 -112, 41444, and 42 -14.2 MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This project involves consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.2, 414-24, and 42- 142, Medium Density Residential Zone. The remote Parking project includes the expansion of parking lots identified as C -Lot, F -Lot, S -Lot, and Z -Lot. The expansion involves replacing spaces that will be lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center and PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 73 will include new stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Also included is the relocation of the existing overhead NYSEG electric transmission wires to an underground duct bank. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and height variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project; and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College athletics and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1, 2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS (dated November 27, 2007 and amended January 8, 2008, January 15, 2008 and January 22, 2008, with further changes as discussed at the January 22, 2008 Town Planning Board meeting) as complete on January 22, 2008; and 8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the DEIS on March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the DEIS until March 14, 2008; and PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 74 9. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated April 3, 2008, regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 22, 2008, accepted the FEIS, dated April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, as complete; and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of FEIS, issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12; and 12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on May 20, 2008, did adopt the Findings Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and 13. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 20, 2008, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for Phase 1A of the Athletics and Events Center project, which includes the remote parking lots and relocation of overhead electric transmission wires, and 14. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 20, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans included in a bound packet titled "Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center — Remote Parking Project ", dated Final Site Plan Apr- 24 -08, and additional revised site plan sheets dated May 14, 2008 prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T.G. Miller P.C., and drawing "Ithaca College Underground Electric Project' (drawing no. REV 4), dated 03108, prepared by NYSEG, and other application material, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of the Remote Parking Project as part of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the Ithaca College Campus, as shown on plans included in a bound packet titled "Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center — Remote Parking Project, dated Final Site Plan Apr -24 -08 and additional revised site plan sheets dated May 14, 2008, prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T.G. Miller P.C., and drawing "Ithaca College Underground Electric Project' (drawing no. REV 4), dated 03108, prepared by NYSEG, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (or modification of existing plans) for the NYSEG underground electric line work, for review and PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 75 approval of the Town's Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of an updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans reflecting the changes outlined in a letter from Creig Hebdon to David Herrick, for review and approval of the Town's Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and c. submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings, as modified above, on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s), or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town, prior to issuance of building permit, and d. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: Hoffmann The motion passed with a super majority of 6 to 1. Minutes Chairperson Howe - We have a couple of minutes in front of us to approve. Both April 22nd and May 6th Board Member Wilcox - So moved. Chairperson Howe - Are you moving both of them? Board Member Wilcox - I'll move both of them. Chairperson Howe - Is there a second? Hollis. All those in favor? Any opposition? Any abstentions? Carried unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 047: MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2008 & MAY 6, 2008 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 76 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from April 22, 2008 & May 6, 2008, and 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 22, 2008 & May 6, 2008. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None The motion was carried unanimously. Other Business Chairperson Howe asked if there was an update from the Codes and Ordinances Committee, Board Member Wilcox said that the committee meets tomorrow and he was hoping the committee could get "a bill out of committee", which would revise the regulations for the residential lakefront zoning. It will have to go to the Town Board with a referral to the Planning Board. Mr. Kanter provided an update on the Wind Energy Facilities Law. Staff is working on revised language that would allow the Town to remove unused facilities and charge the owner for removal. Research was also completed regarding the black color of turbine blades and staff did not find any basis for the blades needing to be black. It is likely some blades are black for thermal purposes, but there wasn't a technical rationale. The reference to black blades was removed and more specific language was included regarding not allowing reflective surfaces and stressing non - obtrusive colors. Board Member Erb reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has not met since the last Planning Board meeting. She also reported that State Officials are coming in for the official groundbreaking of the Animal Health Diagnostics Center building. Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the items on the June 3, 2008 meeting. The board discussed the training being held at Hamilton College. PB 5.20.2008 Pg. 77 Adjournment Upon motion by Board Member Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Riha, Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 20, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Distribution of the Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS), and discussion of the schedule of review. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 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 -11, 41 -1 -12.21 41 -1 -249 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. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Phase I of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington. Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase I 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 parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase IA of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone, The Remote Parking project includes the expansion of parking lots identified as C -Lot, F -Lot, S -Lot, and Z -Lot. The expansion involves replacing spaces that will be lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center and will include new stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Also included is the relocation of the'existing overhead NYSEG electric transmission wires to an underground duct bank. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2008, 7, Other Business: 8. 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC 14EARING Tuesday May 20, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Phase IA of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase IA 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 parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase 1 of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.21 41 -1 -249 and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The Remote Parking project includes the expansion of parking lots identified as C -Lot, F -Lot, S -Lot, and Z -Lot. The expansion involves replacing spaces that will be lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center and will include new stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Also included is the relocation of the existing overhead NYSEG electric transmission wires to an underground duct bank. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, May 12, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 ;Wednesday; May 14, 20 IT gA 1�a RNA 4 Lo Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street May 20, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name WMOW e Rc� C MkI6,60 Rajevs Nnr L-. f�o��Q;o PS�.pfSD� Address IWO FO Cr Ae. 9 t- c , �j q4m, 4 ' "45 U 'TI uIt, v a^j �3 6 7 Q) I kz�� tat 3 s; s+* l!t5s jeiClf NOOP yNd c.Ari mst f(O Z S. L&De�4vj v� I CQ C ce' 306 S2x,J cotes All Af5 z TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca New York on Tuesday, May 20 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: May 12, 2008 May 14, 2008 tO64 . Qo 2cAJ Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14`h day of May 2008. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 10