Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2002-10-15:.i F!' M ® TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 15, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner. EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering. ALSO PRESENT: Colleen Bisceglia, Nextel; Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road; Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf; Sue Lee, 985 Danby Road; Mina Amindsen, Cornell University; Kraig Adler, Cornell University; Donald McPherson, LA Group; Brenda Cartland, Cornell University; Mark Macera, Ithacare Center; Peter Paradise, Cornell University; Audrey & John Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Road; John Gutenberger, Cornell University; Susan & Martin Shefter, 145 Pine Tree Road; Steve Beyers, 1328 Slaterville Road; Mary Kirkpatrick, 14 Dove Drive; Marcy Krook, 113 Pine Tree Road; Harry E. Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane; Sarah ®Baker, 116 Pine Tree Road; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Andy Nowell, Cornell University; Steve Wright, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Tammy Aiken, Cornell University; Ray Oglesby, 124 Snyder Hill Road; Rajesh Bhaskaran, 806 N. Cayuga Street, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 7, 2002, and October 8, 2002, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 8, 2002. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR, Determination, Telecommunications Antennas on a NYSEG Pole, 222 is Maple Avenue. PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Colleen Bisceglia, NEXTEL — Nextel is before you this evening with a proposal for the installation of twelve panel antennas and a communications shelter to be located on a New York State Electric and Gas utility tower and land owned by Cornell University off Maple Avenue in the Town of Ithaca. Briefly, we have tried to work with Cornell to locate something appropriate for the antennas installation on the campus. This particular location off campus in this existing transmission right -of- way seems to be where we have all sort of agreed that it is the best place for our cellular antennas. The purpose of this site is to basically provide in building coverage and better surrounding coverage to the University itself. There is somewhere in the range of 300 phones in use everyday on the campus whether they be service vehicles or employees. That has stemmed customer complaint; therefore, we've come up with this solution. As far as...I supplied a package. Nextel is a FCC licensed wireless carrier. A copy of our license is included in this package. As far as any environmental concerns that I can address, we don't really feel this is a very big environmental impact given the fact that we are trying to utilize an existing structure. We will do minimal construction to even out the ground so we can install our equipment shelter. Hopefully we will be a nice, quiet, silent from there on in. Access to the site happens approximately once per month unless there is an emergency. Again, we have to coordinate that through Cornell and these issues have not been worked out at the moment. We will have 24 -hour security to that. Otherwise, any questions I can answer at this time. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions in regard to environmental review? Board Member Howe — No. Board Member Mitrano — No. Board Member Hoffmann — I have one question. In the applications we've seen before there hasn't actually been whole structure necessary. This is a 12x20x10 feet high structure. In previous applications, we have just seen freestanding small components at the base of the structure that the antennas have been on. Why is the structure needed here? Ms. Bisceglia — I think if I can answer that... Ms. Balestra- Lehman — The Sapsucker Woods water tank project was also a Nextel project. Their equipment shelter is shown on the picture there. It is exactly the same structure. Board Member Hoffmann — You're right. They did have one there. Ms. Balestra- Lehman — The separate cabinets were from Independent Wireless One, which is a different company. Ms. Ritter — Different technology. Chairperson Wilcox — They do it differently. 2 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — It had a smaller impact it seems to me than this kind of structure. Maybe not in this location on Sapsucker Woods, but the location we are talking about tonight it seems like more of an impact. I actually had trouble locating which tower. It wasn't clear to me, which tower on this picture. Chairperson Wilcox — It's the tallest one from that view in the picture. Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't find anywhere on the map where that utility pole was located. Ms. Bisceglia — There is a map on the front page of the drawings. I did not include a separate map to show you where. Board Member Hoffmann — I would have liked to see where the structure is with respect to the pole. That is what I was looking for on the map. Ms. Bisceglia — Within the plans you can see where the structure is in relation to the pole more clearly on page Z1. We are going to be about 25 feet from the base of the pole with our equipment shelter. Board Member Hoffmann — This unmarked dot is the pole? Ms. Balestra- Lehman — It is labeled. It is just small print. Board Member Hoffmann — All right. Now I see. The line sort of takes a turn there. Ms. Bisceglia — That one segment is blown up for you in the middle of the circle. Board Member Hoffmann — The pole is in the circle, too? Ms. Bisceglia — Yes. It is at the bottom left hand corner, just in small print. It is approximately 25 feet away from the utility structure to allow New York State Electric and Gas clearance with any crane or other equipment that they need to service the utility line. Board Member Hoffmann — Now that I understand where the structure will be, I don't understand where the trees and shrubs are that will buffer it. Chairperson Wilcox — The proposal is that there aren't any because they are in the pasture. Board Member Hoffmann — In the description it said that there was already a row of trees and shrubs that would buffer the view from the recreation trail. Ms. Balestra- Lehman — Those trees and shrubs are actually along the recreation way. If you are walking on the East Ithaca Recreation Way there is a fence and there are some shrubs, bushes, and large trees that form a row all along there. They are immediately next to the recreation way. They are not anywhere near the pasture. 91 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — If you were walking on that nice sidewalk that we now have, you would see the structure. It would not be buffered. Ms. Balestra- Lehman — Actually, no. From the site visit we did, we found that it would be screened from that view as well because of the slope. There are some Cornell barns as well that kind of mask the view as well. Board Member Hoffmann — I had hoped that this would be within the NYSEG substation just like the other one instead of being spread out over a larger area, especially because of that structure. Ms. Bisceglia — We are actually located behind Cornell's substation. There are two separate substations up there. We tried to find a structure we could work with. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions or comments? I just have a few. Access is from the back ... from around the back of the coal pile. There will be no curb cut off Maple Avenue. Frankly, if anybody drives by this pasture ... I made a note when I was up visiting the site. It looks like a utility pole farm given all the poles that are up there. The proposed height is 64 feet. Why not go higher? Ms. Bisceglia — Well, on request of Cornell, this is what we have worked out with them. They are fed main power to their campus via that particular pole. They did not want us on the top to invite any additional lightening strikes. If we to have to maintain our antennas, we would have to turn the pole off and they would have to go to backup power. We are eliminating a lot of sticky issues this way. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Do I have a second? IY.F1"i6111111�i[a11l tai If[i�1irS.�1R Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody opposed? There is none. The motion is passed. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:16 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -105 — SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Nextel Telecommunication Antennas on NYSEG Pole, 222 Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. M PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for proposed telecommunications antennas on an existing NYSEG utility pole at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 12 panel antennas on a NYSEG power pole at a height of 64 +1- feet, constructing a 12 -foot by 20 -foot concrete building to house equipment, and installing a 12 -foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners, Applicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 and Visual Addendum prepared by the Town Planning staff; plans entitled "Nextel Partners, Inc., #NY- 902P Route 13 Cell Site," including Sheet No. Z1 entitled "Zoning Site Plan," Sheet No. Z2 entitled "Zoning Details," dated September 19, 2002, and prepared by Costich Engineering; plans entitled "Nextel (Type 1) Communications Shelter," including Sheet Nos. A 1 and A2 entitled "Exterior Elevations," Sheet No. D1 entitled "Detail Sheet," Sheet No. E1 entitled "Interior Elevations," Sheet No. E2 entitled "Cable Rack Detail," and Sheet No. M1 entitled "Material List," prepared by CSI Shelter Technologies, and dated October 3, 2001; and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunications antennas on a NYSEG pole at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 12 panel antennas 61 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED on an existing NYSEG power pole at a height of 64 +/- feet, constructing a 12 -foot by 20 foot concrete building to house the radio equipment, and installing a 12 -foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners Inc., Applicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions of the applicant at this time? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question. There is not much difference in these two maps that we got of existing coverage and past coverage. I do see some. Ms. Bisceglia explained the difference in the maps to Board Member Hoffmann. Chairperson Wilcox — I think what is different about his application is that the intent is not to expand coverage, but to increase circuits in a particular area that doesn't have enough circuits. Ms. Bisceglia — It is a coverage enhancement. With the existing site, it is heavily loaded in traffic and it does not reach the objected area. It is an enhancement of the service. We are not extending out to different corridors. We call this a quality site as opposed to a coverage site. Chairperson Wilcox — You also have to deal with the students and their increased cell phone usage. Ms. Bisceglia — Yes, we will. At least we are anticipating that. Chairperson Wilcox — They always seem to walking around with... anything else. Ladies and Gentlemen, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, please step to the microphone. As always, we ask for your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what have to say this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and bring the matter back to the board. Would someone like to move the motion? Board Member Howe — So moved. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. 101 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody opposed? There is none. There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -106 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Nextel Telecommunication Antennas on NYSEG Pole, 222 Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunications antennas on an existing NYSEG utility pole at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 12 panel antennas on a NYSEG power pole at a height of 64 +1- feet, constructing a 12 -foot by 20 -foot concrete building to house equipment, and installing a 12 -foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners, Applicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on October 15, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled "Nextel Partners, Inc., #NY -902P Route 13 Cell Site," including Sheet No. Z1 entitled "Zoning Site Plan, " Sheet No. Z2 entitled "Zoning Details, " dated September 19, 2002, and prepared by Costich Engineering; plans entitled "Nextel (Type 1) Communications Shelter," including Sheet Nos. Al and A2 entitled "Exterior Elevations," Sheet No. DI entitled "Detail Sheet," Sheet No. E1 entitled "Interior Elevations," Sheet No. E2 entitled "Cable Rack Detail," and Sheet No. M1 entitled "Material List, " prepared by CSI Shelter Technologies, and dated October 3, 2001; and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: �. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary & Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Nextel Telecommunication Antennas on the NYSEG utility pole on 222 Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, as shown on plans entitled, "Nextel Partners, Inc., #NY -902P 7 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Route 13 Cell Site," subject to the following conditions, all to be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. obtaining Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, b. submission of a copy of the negotiated lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner (Cornell University) for the location of telecommunication antennas on Cornell University -owned property, C. submission of a financial security bond for the removal of the telecommunications facility in the amount of $50,000, as per Local Law No. 4, 1998, form of which is to be approved by the Attorney for the Town, d. submission of an original of the final site plan (Sheet No. Z1) on mylar, vellum, or paper, bearing the original stamp, seal, and signature of the licensed engineer who prepared the site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and e. submission of a detailed plan for proper erosion and sedimentation control measures in the area of the proposed grading for the equipment shelter due to the existing slope, for review and approval by the Town Engineer. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C. the specific proposed change in use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca; d. the proposed telecommunication antennas are necessary to meet current or reasonably expected demands for services; e. the facility conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction; f. the facility is considered a public utility in the State of New York; E:3 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED g. the facility is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes (i) visual impact to the extent practical, and (ii) adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds and wildlife; h. the facility complies with all other requirements of this ordinance, unless expressly superceded herein; and the chosen site is the most appropriate site among those available within the technically feasible area for the location of a telecommunications facility. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, and 3. That the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals waive the following requirements of Local Law No.4, 1998, relating to the Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities: a. an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites and evaluation of opportunities for shared use, b. the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads, and C. the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co- locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Temporary Modular Office Space — Site Plan Modification, Ithaca College. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf — Fred Vanderberg is here this evening, who is Assistant Director for Construction and Physical Maintenance at the College. He will be able to answer some technical questions about parking. We have brought a couple of panels, which you have already in front of you. One of which is a slight modification. I would like to address two sets of issues separately. First, there were some slight modifications to the stair locations and ADA compliant ramp to the temporary office building. I have a drawing here dated December, which really was the construction drawing you reviewed the original plan in July of 2001 for site plan approval. We had we PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED first come in, the original trailers we assumed and HOLT architects assumed that there would be a central corridor. Once we developed further program development and office space for both human resources and technical services, realized the door locations would have to change. At that point, probably should have come back to the Town, but thought it was a relatively minor modification. Those door locations change and subsequently the walks and the ramp location relative to the temporary offices changed. I don't know if there are questions about that before... Subsequently, there was the addition of seven parking spots. The original site plan in July of 2001 showed that parking would be imbedded into an existing parking that exists northeast of the temporary office spaces. The assumption was also that venders who are on campus, technical maintenance there were coming to the offices would park along the curb edge and put a drop curb in this location and they would be able to wheel computers or whatever else to the site. Probably that assumption wasn't that the ADA compliant parking was too far away from this entrance, which is ADA compliant entrance on the south side. I would like to ask Fred Vanderberg to come up and talk about the rationale for the three different kinds of parking: ADA compliant parking, vendor parking, and ten minute parking. Fred Vanderberg, Assistant Director of Physical Plant — We found out very quickly even during the construction of the building that we had made a mistake not putting a place for somebody to park there. We found that there are a number of handicap students that live in the Emerson Halls. They have to travel on the east side of that building, across into a handicap accessible ramp to get over through to the Park School. We were finding that people were blocking this ramp because they were loading and unloading computers and other equipment. That is where all of our work is done ... service work is done on computers and all the pc's everything is delivered out of that building. They were backing up there because it is the only hard service that they could get to the ramp with. The ramp was built for a dual purpose. Number one, it was so that heavy equipment could be moved on trucks and dollies up into the building. It was also put there for handicap accessibility. We found the two conflicting with each other. The other problem that we observed was the fact that there was a number of staff and faculty that need to get down to the benefits part of this building for human resources that are getting benefits because they are hurt or disabled or for some reason not able to walk to there. We were finding trouble with parking there which is a dangerous situation with the students crossing and everything. We decided to put this lot in. We gave it a conscience effort and decision to make sure we didn't put in any more spaces than was needed. We limited the amount of time that people can park in there. Most of the spots are ten - minute spots except for the technical services vehicles. We found it to work very well. What it did is open up the accessibility of the sidewalks and kept things open for students and also gave people with handicap problems the ability to get in and out of the building without any problem. Chairperson Wilcox — You made one additional mistake and that is you did not come back to the Planning Board for approval of those site plan modifications. It is something that Ithaca College is aware of because this has happened in the past. I think publicly officials of Ithaca College have promised us after some mistakes in the past that they would come back because they know what the procedure is. Comments in regard to environmental review? IM PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I guess one question that I have is what will happen to these parking spaces eventually? Mr. Vanderberg — The building is a temporary building and so is the lot. As far as we are concerned, when the building goes so will the lot. The lot will serve no purpose where it's at with no building there. Chairperson Wilcox — When we get to the site plan I will propose an addition that the site be completely restored to its original condition including the removal of the asphalt. You put in an awful nice temporary parking lot. Well done. Mr. Vanderberg — Well, we try to do things the right way. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else with regard to environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — No, but with regard to the whole matter, I really dislike things like this happening. I don't feel very inclined to vote for something that comes in like this after the fact. Board Member Mitrano — Do we know why? Chairperson Wilcox — They decided they needed parking. Mr. Vanderberg — I wasn't in on the initial program part of this. Not that I would have probably caught it either, it was something that evolved as we were working there. The manufacturer ... when HOLT and company worked on these plans, they did not know who the manufacturer was going to be. They came up with a design. Once we got involved with these trailer companies, they can't build those units with a center hallway because of the way they are designed and how they are structurally built and how they haul them. Things had to be changed to accommodate the units being put together in the fashion that they are put together. Then as we got building with the ramps we realized that you couldn't put handicap ramps with doors that open with automatic door openers and not have some way to have them covered. We had to put roofs over these things in order to meet... What we have tried to do is accommodate the people that use the building. In doing so, we violated some of the... Board Member Conneman — Why didn't you come back to the Planning Board? Board Member Mitrano — What I also mean is what can we do better to be sure that applicants know that in entities such as this one that they come back to the Planning Board as part of the process. Mr. Vanderberg — I guess communication. I don't know. I think I hear you loud and clear. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you represent the University as a whole? Mr. Vanderberg — No, but I think that I could speak for the college in saying that we definitely want to adopt a better working relationship with the board. 11 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — If it happens again would you be willing for us to turn down the application? It has happened before. This board could be very sensitive to the facts that if it happens again we would probably turn you down. Attorney Barney — The other possibility, of course, constructing in violation is itself a violation of our ordinance, which opens the door to fines and that sort of thing. While I think the Town is reluctant to go that route, somehow or other they would like to improve the circumstance that if folks do make modifications that they are required to be brought before the board. I think the fines run $250 per week for each week of continued violation. Maybe we could avoid that. Mr. Vanderberg — I would hope so. Chairperson Wilcox — So would we. Any other comments? Mr. Kanter — I can say just from a political sense, there is a meeting that is being set up with Carl Segrecci, Supervisor Valentino, myself and Andy Frost. I think this is one of the kinds of things we are going to be talking about. I think there seems to be an effort to try to get some of these issues resolved. Attorney Barney — Now that we've all vented... Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? So moved by Rod Howe. Do I have a second? Board Member Mitrano — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to state that the reason that I say "aye" is because we heard an explanation for why it makes sense to have these parking spaces here. Otherwise, I would vote no. I am saying aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -107— SEQR, Ithaca College - Temporary Modular Office Space, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Site Plan Modification MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 12 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED 1. This action is Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the Ithaca College Temporary Office project, including construction of an asphalt parking area to accommodate seven cars and a modified orientation of the stairs and entrance ramp at the north end of the one -story temporary modular office building located on the Ithaca College campus, east of the Roy H. Park School of Communication, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15, Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Trowbridge and Wolf, Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and a drawing entitled "Site Plan, Layout Plan, Grading Plan" sheet L101 dated December 6, 2001 and revised August 16, 2002, and additional information provided by the applicant, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the temporary modular office space located at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15. The development, as constructed, differs from the site plan approved by the Planning Board on 7/17/01. A new seven -car parking lot was created in an area originally proposed for lawn, and the stairs on the north side of the new modular building, and the ramps on both ends, were modified from the original proposal. Ithaca College, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. with no persons present wishing to be heard. 13 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by the chair. Do I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. I want to propose that we add a condition, which in essence states that the site will be restored to its original condition before placement of the modular building and construction of the parking lot. Said parking lot is also approved... we've approved that the parking lot can be there until September 15, 2006, which is the same day as the trailer. Is that change acceptable? Board — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Everybody knows how ugly that trailer is, by the way. It is a beautiful campus and one ugly, gray, big box sitting there. Board Member Hoffmann — Again, I would like to say before we vote on this that this kind of thing makes me extremely unhappy. If it happens again, unless I hear an extremely, extremely good reason for why it happened, I will definitely vote no. That applies not just to Ithaca College. Chairperson Wilcox — John? Attorney Barney — I don't think we want to be prejudging any application. The criteria with respect to each application have to be addressed at that point in time. There are other recourses as I've indicated that could be followed. I don't think that we want to publicly state that we are going to turn something down before we ever even see it. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, maybe that is not the right way to do it. I really feel it is very inappropriate for a college like Ithaca College or even Cornell University for that matter if it were to happen there, too, not to come in for site modification. Board Member Mitrano — Perhaps we should put on our agenda for some other time a discussion with staff about using the recourse that is available with respect to fines and that sort of thing. It would give this board a feeling that enforcement is gaining in significance. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets tread a little lightly. This board is not an enforcement board. That is the Zoning Board of Appeals neither do we set policy in the town, that's the Town Board. If we wish to discuss and make a recommendation, that would be reasonable. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess the reason I feel strongly about it is if we work hard to come up with a solution when an applicant comes in with something they want approved, and then the applicant disregards part of it, it feels like we have wasted our effort. That makes me happy. Chairperson Wilcox — All set, John? Attorney Barney — Yes. I would subject it to the following conditions: modification shall expire simultaneous with the original approval on September 15, 2006 and then upon expiration of approval the building shall be removed and the site shall be restored to its condition prior to the installation of the building and parking area. 14 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody opposed? The motion is passed unanimously. Thank you very much. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -108 - Ithaca College - Temporary Modular Office Space, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Site Plan Modification. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the Ithaca College Temporary Office project, including construction of an asphalt parking area to accommodate seven cars and a modified orientation of the stairs and entrance ramp at the north end of the one -story temporary modular office building located on the Ithaca College campus, east of the Roy H. Park School of Communication, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15, Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Trowbridge and Wolf, Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review has accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll, prepared by the Town Planning Department, and has on October 15, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials presented by the applicant, including a drawing entitled "Site Plan, Layout Plan, Grading Plan" sheet L101 dated December 6, 2001 and revised August 16, 2002, and additional information provided by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Approval for Site Plan Modification for the construction of an asphalt parking area to accommodate seven cars and a modified orientation of the stairs and ramp at the north end of the one -story temporary modular office space, as shown on the drawing entitled "Site Plan, Layout Plan, Grading Plan" sheet L101 dated December 6, 2001 and revised August 16, 2002, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. the approval for this modification shall expire simultaneously with the original approval on September 15, 2006, and b. upon expiration of the approval, the building and parking lot shall be removed and the entire site returned to the condition it was in prior to the original grant of approval or similar natural condition. 15 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Longview Pavilion & Sidewalk, 1 Bella Vista Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Representing Ithacare is my long -time buddy, Mark Macera. Mark Macera, Chief Executive for Ithacare — I'm here this evening as a consequence of a development review application we submitted back in August that we discussed with the staff. As Mr. Wilcox has indicated, proposing certain site modifications including the construction a pavilion and the extension of some sidewalks to existing roadways and parking lots at Ithacare. After speaking with staff and consultation with Town's council, as usually the case it is not as simple as simple site plan review because of the nature of the original public law 1 of 1994, which set the terms and conditions of SLUD number 7, which permitted us to develop Longview. In the law, in the SLUD, it indicates certain restrictions. Those restrictions include any accessory buildings or structures in access of so many square feet need to be brought back and reviewed. Also, any question of building such a structure that is larger than that would probably require some zoning amendment or perhaps even a change in the law that changed those perimeters. It also perhaps created the question regarding site plan review going back to the Town Board, coming back to the Planning Board and maybe there could be some redundancy there. So one of the provisions in that public law also referred to significant site plan modifications required mending the law, but certainly Town Board review. In the course of that discussion the Town Board considered might it not make sense to eliminate that duplication and let all site plan reviews perhaps be considered by the Planning Board. I believe it was October 3rd when the Town Board acted on their areas of responsibility and referred it here to the Planning Board for Preliminary and Final Site plan review as well as perhaps making the necessary recommendations to the public law. I am here to speak to the product before you and answer any questions that you may have. As is consistent with the documentation in front of you, this actually is an aerial shot of the Longview campus taken in 1999 or 2000. It does not include all the infrastructure that has been added as a consequence of us coming before this Planning Board previously to add certain facilities and structures such as the garage that is located near the overview. We had located an additional street light at the road cut. We added the promenade that circles the north lawn and the rear of the building and actually even extended the trail to connect the woods and trail to additional walkways. Having said that, as you can see and this has been added to close to scale, as my 30- seconded ruler would permit me to cut and to locate. That is the location right there of the pavilion we are proposing to provide for expansion of program and related activities to improve, to expand issues of quality of life at Longview. In the front of the building you will notice this is an extension of a walkway from the existing walkway. Of course what this will do is provide a better protected and secure area for residents to navigate the site. Perhaps even recognizing with the promenade that goes around the 101 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED building that they can navigate the building in an easier or more protected manner allowing them outside recreation activity. I am prepared to respond to any questions, issues and provide explanations that members of the Planning Board may have. Chairperson Wilcox — Mark, are you aware of any environmental issues? Mr. Macera — No. I think the issue that might otherwise be apparent is kind of mitigated by the nature of this structure. It is small and sitting on a relatively flat parcel of land. Most of the soils there are spoil from the site work that was done on the site to locate the Longview building. It is fracture shale. The water leaches through it very quickly and easily. It doesn't run off. It doesn't create problems off site. I think the issues environmentally of the concerns historically by many individuals with regard to the grading, the environment and views is mitigated by the fact that the building is already masking that structure. People who would perhaps travel south or north on Danby Road for one fleeting second at the north end of the site near the road cut, when traveling 50 or 60 mph would have to take their eyes off the road. It is located between a tenth and two tenths of a mile off the road. I feel more confident this time than I did several years ago explaining how this aspect of this project is not going to have a significant adverse impact. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? I have no questions. I have a couple of comments. I had not been back to the site since the original discussion. I was impressed. There are little gardens out there that people work on. It really is a nice area. There are little bird feeders all over the place. I can imagine why the residents who live there seem to be proud of their surroundings. For the record we should talk about what's going to happen when you get 125 senior citizens under this pavilion and someone brings alcohol and they make noise and leave litter all over the place. Mr. Macera — The only alcohol consumption can occur on private quarters in the private. Board Member Hoffmann — I do have some comments and questions. In general, I think it's a good idea to have something like a pavilion here. I can see it would serve this population very well. I do worry about some things having to do with the fact that this is a SLUD. There were some rules setup early on. There were some plans presented early on. I remembered specifically that the very original proposal included some individual houses west of the existing building. I was wondering what the thoughts are about that and how this plan for the pavilion would fit in with that. Mr. Macera — I certainly do not want to create any controversy before its time. I would say we do have additional phases that are part of strategic plan that includes independent style, freestanding housing of some kind or some sort and some location. Ithacare over the years has acquired some additional property contiguous to the current site that is designated as a SLUD. I've spoken with Jon. We are undertaking a comprehensive site plan, a master site plan. We are going to be working with the staff to look at and perhaps answer some of those questions and identify locations of what you are suggesting might take place. However, this plan with regards to the north lawn is consistent with the original plan that identified the so called north lands as the center of a variety of recreational and outside activities that have always been part of the overall plan. Again, everything is subject to change and there are exceptions to every rule. All the other phases that we've contemplated to date and perhaps that may have changed and become more concrete in our minds do not conflict with this plan. It would not require us to rework, mitigate or change this. We are very conscience about that because of limited resources. In a nutshell, some of those aspects that we talked about would not be 17 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED located near or affect this recreational area, which continues to be the focus of the kind of outside activities that we want to maintain regardless of what we may do in the years to come. Board Member Hoffmann — So specifically, the location of the pavilion is not going to interfere with anything else. Mr. Macera — That is correct. It will not. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Do I have a second? Seconded by the chair. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? There is none. The motion is passed. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -109 — SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Approval and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding Zoning Amendments, Pavilion and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39- 1 -1.3. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes a 2,900+1- square foot pavilion on the western edge of the North lawn, a restroom and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 + 1- feet, located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD include allowing one 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion and allowing the Planning Board to consider "significant revisions" to the site plan without also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Service Co., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by 116] PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Town Planning staff, plans for the pavilion, restroom, and storage addition entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, entitled "Preliminary Site Plan," and sheet A -2, entitled "Preliminary Drawings," prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated August 7, 2002 and plans for the sidewalk extension as shown overlaid on a previously approved plan prepared by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, and dated April 30, 1997, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on the western edge of the North lawn, a restroom and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD include allowing one 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion and allowing the Planning Board to consider "significant revisions" to the site plan without also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Service Co., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further question of Mr. Macera? Board Member Hoffmann — These drawings that we got are all marked preliminary drawings. We can't really be sure it is going to end up like the drawings show. Mr. Macera — It may not. I could add a few comments that might perhaps complicate things. I can assure you that perhaps unlike some other projects I will make sure that the horse stays in front of the cart. If I need to come back and ask this body to review modifications, I will take the lead of the staff in determining what is necessary and what is not. With that thought in mind, let me point out that I've spoken with Dan Walker previously. It is traditional to blame the individual that is not present at the W7 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED time. We are considering in our analysis at one point, could we actually locate this pavilion a little bit further to the west taking it out of the view and protecting some of the open spaces here for other activities. We didn't have the resources to buy a lot of fill for that area because of the grade. As you are aware, Ithaca College is undertaking a substantial project with regard to College Circle and infrastructure road and so on. It is a substantial amount of fill. I've had some preliminary discussions with the site subcontractor with regards of perhaps requiring some of that fill to fill in a small portion of that land, keep the same contour, but move them a little further west. I know the amount of the fill that we would in fact acquire would exceed the numbers that under current zoning regulations would be able to be put in place without approvals and so forth. We would be coming back to you. I would be speaking prematurely if I knew I had title to that. We may hurry up and wait if you will recognizing submitting a fill permit in the review process. Recognizing that we are moving into the winter and the spring and that can't necessarily be built or used. We have a few months to wait and see. I am forewarning you, based on your comment Eva, that there maybe an issue that could come up not because we don't follow the plans, but we actually make changes. We did label it preliminary because that in fact covers a lot of sins. I will make no bones about that. Chairperson Wilcox — Mark sat through the previous agenda item. He'll be back. You might even have Ithaca College or IAD to take some of that fill from what I heard given their struggle to try to get rid of it. Mr. Macera — We think a like, Fred. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it is certainly the duration to locate the pavilion in such a way that it is pleasing to look at for the residents at Longview. I can understand how you might want to consider this especially if you can get fill easily. It is something that we really need to look at. If there is fill placed in an area like this where there are lots of drainage ways and slopes and stuff like that... Mr. Macera — We've engaged TG Millers to conduct a survey to do some assessments and investigation and topographical review. Anything that we might present as a concept this evening would meet whatever tests and merit that would be required of it if and when the time came. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and asked if any persons wished to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. with no persons wishing to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox — I think my review of the Ithacare grounds... it was very controversial when it was built. I think they and their residents have shown to be a good steward of the land. I was quite impressed with what I saw with the layout and the gardens and the pathways and walkways. Any further comments? Board Member Hoffmann — I think the extension of the walkways is very important part of this. Chairperson Wilcox — It makes you wonder why we didn't have them put them in there the first time. would like to remind the Planning Board that the motion tonight actually has several parts, preliminary and final site plan approval, special approval, but two recommendations to the Town Board. One that the Town Board changes the SLUD to allow these additions to the Ithaca facility. Two, a 01 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED recommendation to the Town Board that they consider whether changes such as these need to come before both the Planning Board and the Town Board for approval. Maybe things that are less than significant provisions can come just to the Planning Board for approval. Having said that, would someone like to move the draft resolution? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded? Board Member Conneman — Preliminary? Are you going to cross out and final? Chairperson Wilcox — No. It is preliminary and final and special approval and two recommendations to the Town Board wrapped up in this resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Which draft are you talking about? Is it the draft in the change of the local law? Chairperson Wilcox — I've moved onto the resolution now. Board Member Hoffmann — I have some questions about this change in the law. I didn't quite understand. Has the Town Board actually approved this? Attorney Barney — No. You are being asked make a recommendation to them. Board Member Hoffmann — They have not seen the proposed changes, then. Attorney Barney — Yes. They've seen the proposed changes. They referred them to you. The draft was presented to them at the last Town Board meeting on October 3, 2002. Mr. Macera — The situation with the current provision of the SLUD, again created some difficulties and will continue to create difficulties. Really, the Development Review Application with regards to what we were proposing is important significance in its own right. We asked if we could also change the law in such a way that ... there was a problem with the definition. What is significant versus not? The current public law says significant change to the site plan. There was no debate that this was a significant proposal, therefore, this went. It created the same kind of discussion among members of the Town Board, myself and the staff. That is there is certain duplication, redundancy here. In fact, my interpretation of the discussion by the Town Board was that they felt that you had all you perform in should be response for reviewing this, both significant and minor. We feel that is effective use of everyone's resources, both public as well as private in that regard. The other issue in terms of change of the law requires it since the law says no freestanding facilities above 200 square feet. The law is being changed to include a zoning modification to allow one, approximately 3,000 square feet. Again, I will defer to all of you for specific wording and how it should be presented. Clearly, there are several issues here and perhaps could be confusing. I perhaps could shed some light on it if there are specific questions as to how they manifested themselves and who proposed it and what it might accomplish. There is no wool pulling over the eyes approach here. This is supposed to make life easier for everyone involved and still maintain the kind of public accountability that I think we all demand. Board Member Hoffmann — I was feeling a little worried about some of them like on page 2 of this draft of the local law, point 5. What it says essentially is Planning Board approval of a modification 21 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED shall not be required if the modification does not involve enlargement of an existing or previous improved building that involves an increase of square footage of more than 15% of the existing square footage of the existing or previously approved building. Fifteen percent of this existing building is a large amount. Mr. Macera — I can only say that is what happens when you get an attorney in these projects. Mr. Kanter — It might simplify things if John mentions that these thresholds are basically the thresholds that we are soon to be adopting in the new proposed, revised Zoning Ordinance. They are largely based on the new thresholds. Attorney Barney — After a great deal of discussion at the Codes and Ordinances Committee as to what the number should be, 15 % is the number. I think you also have to keep in mind the history here a little bit. This was a very controversial project. The height was a very, very difficult issue that everybody addressed. There was a great deal of concern as to what impact it was going to have on the views. I think at that time, the Town Board wanted to have its voice heard with respect to any site plan modifications period. I think history has shown that Ithacare has been a very good neighbor. It has developed a very attractive project. Now, the Town Board, if I read them correctly because they haven't formally voted, they're willing to put Ithacare back to the same position that any other developer is in the Town. That is if you have a modification of site plan that exceeds certain thresholds you come to the Planning Board and get Planning Board approval, but you don't need to go back to the Town Board to have them review it again. This local law is what the Town Board is interested seeing it passed unless you can find a reason or something that says that they shouldn't. It is not something the Ithacare is pushing. It is something that is really coming from staff and the Town Board. Board Member Hoffmann — I just had second thoughts. Of course ... (comments not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — Codes and Ordinances Committee meets tomorrow. We can talk about it tomorrow night. Mr. Kanter — Also remember, these thresholds are in combination with each other. So if any one of them is exceeded, it triggers the site plan review. Attorney Barney — The 15% enlargement of an Ithacare building I suspect would cost more than $20,000. You have $ 20,000 limit on all exterior construction. That would kick in first. Mr. Macera — The building is 143,000 square feet. So you can see that 5 %, 10 %, 15% or any other percent would be a significant project. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion by Rod Howe. I need a second. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. 22 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — Before we go too much further, I have a little concern about giving Final Site Plan Approval tonight for a couple of reasons. There are some areas in these details that maybe this board wants to have a look at before it gives final site plan approval. The greater significance is the formality here is a little troublesome because you are giving final site plan when you don't have respective authority to do so because of the local law. I would feel much more comfortable if you did preliminary and then let the Town Board enact the statue that basically graces you within the privilege of being able to give final site plan approval. In the past, we've usually had the law in place before you even get the preliminary. Chairperson Wilcox — Mark, based upon what you said in your timeline, are you okay? All right. So the proposal would be to change the draft resolution in front of you to remove all references to final site plan approval. It would be preliminary approval, special approval and a recommendation to the Town Board. Any further discussion? There being none all those in favor please... Attorney Barney — I would like preliminary approval to be effective only, if, as and when the Town Board adopts the proposed amendment referred to below and such amendment has become effective. That should be added in before the phrase, "subject to the following conditions ". Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion, comments? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody opposed? There is none. The motion is passed. Thank you, Mark. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -110 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Approval and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding Zoning Amendments, Pavilion and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes a 2,900+1- square foot pavilion on the western edge of the North lawn, a restroom and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 + 1- feet, located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD include allowing one 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion and allowing the Planning Board to consider "significant revisions" to the site plan without also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Service Co., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 23 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED 2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, on October 3, 2002, has referred the request to amend the zoning ordinance (SLUD #7) to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on October 15, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 15, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate plans for the pavilion, restroom, and storage addition entitled "Longview- An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, entitled "Preliminary Site Plan," and sheet A -2, entitled "Preliminary Drawings," prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated August 7, 2002 and plans for the sidewalk extension as shown overlaid on a previously approved plan prepared by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, dated April 30, 1997, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the pavilion, restroom and storage addition, and sidewalk extension on the western edge of the North lawn at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District No. 7, as shown on plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, entitled "Preliminary Site Plan," and sheet A -2, entitled "Preliminary Drawings," prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated August 7, 2002 and plans for the sidewalk extension as shown overlaid on a previously approved plan prepared by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, dated April 30, 1997, to be effective only if, as, and when the Town Board adopts the proposed amendment referred to below and such amendment has become effective, and further subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. granting of the necessary zoning amendments to SLUD #7 by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, and b. submission of details regarding lighting and building materials of the pavilion and construction details of the sidewalks, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning and the Director of Engineering, and this board as part of the final site plan review. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 24 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Approval, determining the following: a. the proposed use and the location, design, size, and general site compatibility of the pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk shall be consistent with the character of the area in which it is located; b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use; C. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue neighboring property; d. natural surface water drainageways are not adversely affected and will not create drainage or erosion problems; e. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk will not impact any environmental sensitive areas including but not limited to wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, and watercourses, and on other open space areas of importance to the neighborhood or community. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow Ithacare to construct a pavilion and to modify the requirements relating to Planning Board and Town Board approval of modifications to site plans, as written in the document dated October 3, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed construction of two lighted athletic practice fields and three future (Phase II) non - lighted fields, a support building, and parking to accommodate 25 -30 cars. The fields are proposed to be located in the southeast corner of Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads, in an area currently used as horse paddocks by Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 61 -1 -1, 61 -1 -2, 61 -1 -20, 61 -1- 19, and 61 -1 -18, Residence District R -30, Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Peter Paradise, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:09 p.m. 25 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Peter Paradise, Cornell University's Planning, Design & Construction — Good Evening. Chairperson Wilcox — My assumption is that you have a prepared presentation. Mr. Paradise — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Then the floor is yours. All I ask is a name and an address. Mr. Paradise — I'm here tonight for a sketch plan presentation of a project to construction non - competition athletic fields and associated support facilities on the southeast corner of Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads. The scope of the project includes two lit playing fields, three unlit playing fields, a support building and associated parking and driveway facilities. We will be seeking municipal approval for the entire scope just stated. However, construction will be phased with the first phase including the two lit fields and associated infrastructure. We have had preliminary discussions with Town Staff and believe it would appropriate to prepare an environmental impact statement for this project. We have a team assembled tonight to present you with the background, site selection process, preliminary design, and initial discussion for the dEIS. What we hope to do in tonight's presentation is give you an overview of the Life Sciences and Technology's initiative and the Life Sciences and Technology building, which necessitates the construction of these fields. That will be followed by a site selection discussion, a discussion on site components and design followed by the program, and then a discussion on the site plan, SEAR, dEIS review. At this point in time I will turn the presentation over to Kraig Adler, who is the Vice Provos for Life Sciences. Kraig Adler, Vice Provos for Life Sciences at Cornell University — What I want to do is explain to you why we decided to locate the Life Science Technology building on Alumni Fields, which then had the affect of causing the relocation of the two athletic practice fields. In order to do so, I think it is important for just a few moments to give you a little background concerning the concept for our new Life Sciences initiative at Cornell because the Life Science Technology Building is the central facility for the entire campus -wide initiative. A key point is that modern life sciences are not just biology. It is far more than biology. It includes computational, statistical and mathematical sciences because modern biology requires the information handling power of computational sciences. It also includes the new material and new technologies produced by the physical sciences, chemistry and physics and the various disciplines within engineering. In bringing these together, this plays to Cornell's advantage because all of the programs that I have just mentioned, computational science, statistical sciences, organism biology, physics, chemistry, material science and the disciplines of engineering, in all of those areas according to the National Research Council Cornell's programs are ranked in the top ten. So what we are trying to do is bring together the very best of science and engineering at Cornell University. In order to bring all of that to bear on the problems that is going to be facing scientists in the 21s' century in life science. By mentioning these programs, you will recognize these programs in the Life Science Technology Building. The first category in terms of space is basic biology followed by biomedical engineering, biophysics, computational and statistical biology, plant functional gnomonic of the varium for animals, key core facilities, service facilities, learning center... not just for on- campus learning, but also for extension learning, a business incubator, administration and support. So all the elements that you saw in that previous slide are brought together in this single Life Sciences Technologies Building. It is 1401 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED the interactions between and among all of these various disciplines that is so important in advances in modern biology. Many of the most important discoveries are made at those interface areas. In order for maximum effectiveness of this building, it needs to be located properly on the campus in terms of the people who will utilize it. Here is a diagram of the Cornell Campus. Here is Tower Road running this way. Here is the engineering quadrangle, arts and sciences, agriculture. He is the veterinary college. All of the buildings that I have marked in green have faculty in them who will be making use of the Life Science Technology Building who's proposed location is indicated here by the red rectangle. Therefore, the building is centrally located for all of those users. In addition, by locating the building on this site, it will be connected physically to the most important existing buildings. Here once again is the proposed site of the building. This is the Biotechnology Building where our molecular biology and genetics program is located. Here is Corson Mudd Hall and across Tower Road to the north are all of the various plant science departments. You noticed these dashed lines, which are intended to be underground all- weather connections between these buildings and the Life Science Technology Building giving us all- weather connections. Very important not only in the cold of winter, but in the heated summers when organisms need to be moved from one building to another for research purposes. Finally, I just want to say a few words about our students because the students, and by this I mean undergraduate students, are going to make a lot of use of this building. We've done some projections of the number of students, undergrads, who will use this building on a weekly basis. The number is upwards of 1,000 students a week. You may say that this is a research building. In fact it primarily is, but there will be laboratories for classes located there. In addition, many of our students are involved in research laboratories where they learn to do research being mentored by a professor and then go on in science. It is important for them to be able to access the building when they have time between their classes. They may have a few minutes, 20 or 30 minutes, between classes when they can go into this building because it is so centrally located, do the work that they need to do, check on an experiment, wash some glassware whatever it happens to be and then move onto their next classes. Why is this important? Because according to the National Science Foundation survey a couple of years ago, it turns out that in all of science and engineering, Cornell ranks third in the nation in the number of its students who go on for PhD's in science and engineering. Third in the nation. In the Life Sciences, in fact, we are first in the nation. It is important to recognize that the training and the education of those undergraduates is very important, not just for Cornell and our community, but for the contribution they go on to make when they get PhD's and go on to make academic contributions or go into industry. After all, we live in a society that is very largely science and technology driven. So turning students on to science, giving them that experience is going to be a very important role for this building. Thank you. Mina Amindsen, Cornell University — I am the University Planner and I'm going to talk a little bit about the site selection process. The site selection process was a long and involved and fairly detailed one from the University's side. We looked at about 15 sites and evaluated them quite thoroughly. In fact, we also established criteria for site selection. The principal ones being proximity to the University and existing athletic facilities and also the ability of the site to meet the program requirements. As I said earlier, in all we evaluated about 15 sites and the decision was made to select the Paddocks site 27 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED because it best fitted all of these requirements. I will now request Don McPherson to talk to you in a little more detail about the elements of the site plan and then return to talk in greater detail about the program. Don McPherson, LA Group — Our role in the project is to do the site design and engineering behind the design of the fields. As Mina mentioned, the project area is approximately here on the aerial photograph, which corresponds to the area colored in on the site plan on the right. There are slightly different scales, but generally north is up for the same orientation. The project area involved, which covers approximately 24 acres. It is bounded on the north by Ellis Hollow Road. To the east is the wooded hillside and residences further up on Ellis Hollow Road. To the south is the remaining paddocks area of some eight acres of paddock pasture and barn facilities as well as Snyder Hill Road. Then on the west are Pine Tree Road, equestrian facility and Reis Tennis Center. It is surrounded by different uses. The overall site program includes the five athletic fields shown here. Their location and layout is driven by the necessity for athletic fields to have a fairly good north south orientation. The other aspects of that include the support building for between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, which will be just that, a support building for the practices here on the fields. It has such spaces as a training room for first aid and so forth, mechanical spaces, storage as well as changing rooms for the teams. As mentioned earlier, phase I will include this field and that. Basically the two closer to Pine Tree Road, the support building and associated parking. With phase II being the remaining three fields and the parking expansion here. Its exact number is to be determined. The first two fields are those, which will be lit and irrigated as part of phase I. The building is still under design, as the overall project is. The roof color is not intended to be red. The various site aspects that are being considered as part of the design include the site drainage. Generally the existing paddock slopes to the northwest corner here. The existing slopes averaging between around 5 %, between 3% and 7 %. The principle is not to alter the overall drainage pattern. As part of our drainage analysis, the northwest corner will become the design point that we look at in the existing condition and then compare that to the proposed design, which will include the impervious areas associated with the phase I parking and building as well as the athletic fields to make sure we don't increase the rate of run -off that is leaving the site at that point. We will not only be looking at the rate of run -off as a result of the project, but also the storm water quality. A storm water management facility will be here, which will help to control that rate as well as the quality of run- off. There will be erosion control measure implemented during construction phase of the project and under operations will have an integrated pest management plan to make sure any treatments of the fields are properly applied and not done when not needed or at disadvantage times. The grading of the fields, which will affect the drainage, will be terraced as in the existing 3 to 7% slope. It wants to be flatter for the athletic fields, generally in the range of one percent. Each field will be terraced with transition slopes in between as well as their perimeter. Another aspect of the site that we will be looking at is it's visual appearance. The athletic fields, these first two, will have lights because they are essentially replacing the lit fields at lower Alumni fields presently. The light will be used for those early evening hours. Generally, the fields will not be used past 8:00 o'clock. There won't be a lot of nighttime usage. It will be a rare occasion when it goes past 8:00 o'clock. Given the spring and fall seasons, there will be evenings when the lights are needed. Those will be of such REV PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED design that using the technology available for athletic field lighting to make sure the lights are being at the fields themselves to minimize any off site spill or glare. The exact height of the light poles has not been determined yet, but they do need to be relatively so that they can aim downward at the field rather than being at a lower light level, then they need to shine more horizontally in order to reach the middle of the field, which then also sends more light off the site, which is not desirable. The perimeter fencing will be revised in the front areas along Pine Tree Road because one visual feature will be the front yard if you will of the support building. The fence will be pulled back from the street. There is an existing chain link fence that follows the walkway along Pine Tree Road quite closely as well as that of Ellis Hollow Road. Both in front of the support building as well as the corner here. The fencing will be pulled back as much as possible to free up some open space that still will be part of the overall facility, but yet someone given back or become an aesthetic feature instead of an active athletic field use area. As I mentioned before, the existing setting of the site will on all sides are developed so that the visual features including the light will be studied as in compared to its ambient setting. The visual character of the site will be changing to a certain extent even though it remains green. However, things like the lighting will be taken into account given the lighting coming from the East Hill Plaza Commercial area. Regarding vehicular transportation to and from the site will be primarily buses bringing the athletes and coaches to the site. Actually more so large vans rather than buses. The parking lot is designed to accommodate a bus should a full size bus need to come on site and a make a u -turn and come back out. The driveway entrance is aligned with that of the recent Oley Centers across the street to create a four -way intersection at a location where there is good site distance looking both north and south on Pine Tree Road. Another aspect of the vehicular transportation is that while the overall number of vehicles is relatively small, the timing of that, again starting generally about 4:00 o'clock and last until about 7 or 8:00 o'clock, the arrival of the athletes will happen before the typical peak traffic hour on Pine Tree Road for that afternoon peak travel. Then the practice sessions will be ending after that same peak. The trips to and from the site won't be on top of any existing peak travel on the road. Another aspect of the project is the environmental sound coming from the site. It will be those sounds that you might associate with practice fields. Again, no spectator involvement as there won't be any accommodations for spectators or planned competition. However, with a team going through practice drills, you'll hear coaching instructions and the team cheering themselves on and that type of thing. The sound again like the lighting, will be taken into account with that of the ambient levels in the neighborhood from a sound point of view. The other aspect of the site that will not be visible is that which the underground utilities which will service the site. The water and gas services will come from the Pine Tree Road. The water and electrical are on the west side of Pine Tree Road. The gas is on the east side, which is the project site side and the sanitary sewer will be drained via gravity to the existing municipal main on the north side of Ellis Hollow Road. Ms. Amindsen — Don has already covered most of the program requirements. I would just like to add a couple of things. I wanted to reiterate that the fields are going to be used only for about 100 days in a year. It means for about two thirds of the year they are not used. The teams that are going to be using the fields are men and women's soccer and women's lacrosse. I will also talk a little about why we need the program. As we all know the two lighted fields are being displaced by the proposed Life •'7 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Sciences building. There is already an existing unmet need for practice fields, which the phase II with the three fields in the back will be addressing. All in all we expect about two teams of thirty people each to practicing at any given time. Again as I said, the fields are not used for more than 100 days per years. They will be used in fall and spring, which are the two practice seasons and for a couple of weeks in summer. Late August to late November is the fall season. Mid March to early May is the spring practice season. If you have any other questions, we can always take that up in the session later. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf — Our firm is assisting the University with the site plan and SEAR approvals for this project. I would just like to address, review briefly with the board the SEQR process for this project. As you know, the University is proposing to prepare an environmental impact statement for the project. We have prepared a long environmental assessment form, which is in your packets and included for your consideration. The University has also submitted a long environmental assessment form to the City of Ithaca for the Life Sciences Technology Building project and has requested that the City legal segment the environmental review of the fields from the review of the building. There will be two environmental impact statements prepared; one for the building in the City and one for the fields in the Town. We have requested the City become lead agency for the building project and the Town becomes lead agency for the fields project. There was a meeting, I'm sure many of you are aware of, Jonathan and Sue Ritter was also there, members of City staff and University to discuss this process as well as the segmentation. We do expect that the City of Ithaca will declare their lead agency status on the building and approve segmentation of the project at their November 26th Planning Board meeting. We are proposing to conduct public scoping on the project. We've submitted a draft scope for your consideration. Obviously this would be modified to incorporate and reflect input from the public at a public scoping session. We thought it was helpful as a starting point. I will just touch on those areas that the University is anticipating they address in the environmental impact statements. That includes the visual impacts, traffic and parking, drainage, noise, light, neighborhood character, impacts to existing land use and alternatives. We can discuss that more if the board pleases. Finally, we are requesting that the board consider establishing itself as lead agency at the November 19th Planning Board meeting, that a positive declaration be issued at that time and public scoping be scheduled. We are requesting a public scoping session at the December 3rd Planning Board meeting. Attorney Barney — With the formal application with the site plan... Mr. Kanter — It has been submitted. It is not a complete application, but the application... Ms. Wolf — The application forms have been submitted. The LEAF has been submitted. There is a formal application in now. Mr. Kanter — Right. 9111 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Paradise — I'm just going to say thanks to the board for being patient and listening to the presentation. I hope it was informative for you. That concludes our presentation tonight. We are now available to answer questions if you like or to discuss any of these items. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Who wants to go first? George? Board Member Conneman — I'll go first. Something was mentioned about fifteen sites looked at. You talked about one site. What were other fifteen sites? Ms. Amindsen — We will be discussing the fifteen sites in greater detail in the DEIS. Its just going to be a long and detailed explanation here and it will eat up the whole hour and more. We will be including that in a whole lot of detail in the DEIS. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me to avoid that it would be interesting to know what the site selection process was before that. Ms. Amindsen — I guess I could very broadly speak to that. We looked at a whole bunch of sites... different open sites all around the University in as wide a range as we could capture. We went through an evaluation process where we had site criteria. As I said earlier, the principle criteria were the proximity to the campus and to other athletic facilities. Also the ability of the site to meet the program requirements. Out of all of those sites, this came out the best. Board Member Howe — Maybe you could just tell us what the second and third runners up were, abbreviated to answer George's question. Ms. Amindsen — That's a tough one because I don't think there were any second or third runners up. We did have a couple of others that met part of the program, not the full program. It would hard for us to really treat those equally. Board Member Hoffmann — The Ithaca Journal mentioned the Orchard's area as one of the possible sites in two articles over the last year. Ms. Amindsen — Yes. That was one of the possible sites. Again, since we don't have a full drawing and layout of that...I mean they are being considered. Again, I would like to reiterate that we don't feel it would be the best fit for the program. Board Member Conneman — There was an article in the Ithaca Journal that said the paddock area was far more a superior site for the program you need, Gutenberger said. I've been quoted in the newspaper incorrectly, too. Tell us why that is such a superior. Superior is a big word. Chairperson Wilcox — That will be addressed in the environmental impact statement should we get to that. It has to be. I think we will demand that the alternative sites be pretty well detailed. Board Member Conneman — I thought part of the reason we had a sketch plan is to sort of give them some input on how we feel about various areas of this, therefore, they might change that before they to... 31 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — You are absolutely correct. John Gutenberger, Cornell University — Yes, George. I was quoted correctly. The number one reason is that if you look at the present needs that we have now in our athletic department, not only for our present needs for fields plus the loss of the two fields that will be going through. To add those two together plus the demands for unmet needs right now and future demands for the fields, our analysis was that the minimum requirement would be these five fields or five fields. This site of all the sites that we studied is the only site that will hold all five of those fields. That sense it is superior because it meets the program needs of the present and the future. Board Member Conneman — The indication in the material that Trowbridge & Wolf prepared said there is going to be Men's and Women's soccer, Women's Lacrosse and summer camp. I thought this Planning Board approved two fields for summer campus across the road earlier. Mr. Gutenberger — I believe the two fields that we are loosing, Alumni Fields, currently handles the summer camps that these fields will then pickup. Board Member Conneman — That's correct. It was indicated... if I remember right the five fields would be involved in summer camps. Is that true? Andy Nowell, Director of Athletics — George, right now we are really in a deficit for summer camp space. We could readily use the precinct 9 space that has been approved plus we need these other camps. Right now we have bussing back and forth. We've rented Ithaca High School. We've destroyed some of the fields that we have for our intramurals. We desperately need five if we are able to get those. Board Member Hoffmann — Five in addition...? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. George has the floor. Board Member Conneman — I thought that when we approved the fields across the road that was for the summer camps period. That's my recollection. I don't have my notes on that. Mr. Nowell — I don't know about that, George. I don't know what your thought process was. I can just simply state that these three additional fields are helpful to us. Board Member Conneman — It is not my thought process; it is your thought process. Attorney Barney — How many fields are used for your summer camp presently? Mr. Nowell — Right now we have four Alumni fields plus we try to employ Jessup fields, but there is a restriction on the lights in the evening. Many of our camps have three sessions. There is also intramural softball, which reduces the amount of time we can use the Jessup fields. We have also used some of the additional fields on North Campus, which are not really capable of handling a 32 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED rigorous summer sports school particularly if the participates are early teens. They can handle a youth camp, but not rigorous 14, 15, 16 year olds in a men's lacrosse camp that type of thing. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to continue some questions about the fields. You just said something about the lights. You couldn't use Jessup fields because you need to use lights, but in this proposal it says the day camps would be in July and there would be no lights needed presumably because it is light enough in the evening. Mr. Nowell — We have an awful lot of summer camps, not just the soccer and the lacrosse. Basically what I was stating for some of the other sport schools that we offer, we use Jessup fields but because we don't want to turn the lights on because of the neighborhood ... in fact I don't think we are allowed to turn the lights on that is why the additional space is needed. We are not to practice late in the summertime on Jessup fields because of a pre- existing condition. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but if it's in July you wouldn't need any lights on Jessup field either. Mr. Nowell — Not quite true, ma'am, because we sometimes have late lacrosse practice well into the evening. My son participated four year in a row and I picked him up every night after dark. Board Member Hoffmann — I still don't quite understand how many fields are needed for the summer camps, total. Mr. Nowell — Obviously, it is depended on the enrollment in a given year. Our summer camp is growing, we hope, because we desperately need the income to pay for many of our programs during the year. We can use the three unlit fields that we are proposing in this particular case for two weeks to handle men and women's soccer and women's lacrosse with the possibility of men's lacrosse. It probably is not the case because they will be practicing on Alumni three or four. So we have enough participants, if we don't rent Ithaca High School and don't go on Jessup field and don't go on fields that really can't handle that kind of rigorous activity, five fields would be absolutely super for us to have. Do we need them? Yes. We are applying for the use of these three addition fields, unlit fields. Board Member Hoffmann — If there were two fields already approved to be constructed in back of the tennis center and the polo barns and the two initial fields of this proposal, which would only be used by summer camps, as I understand from this proposal in the summer, then you would need just one more field. Surely, there must be one field somewhere on North Campus. Mr. Nowell — You can assume that, but hopefully we will have enough participants that someday and it is probably five or six years down the road that those phase II fields would actually be built if the board approves it. We're very hopeful that we can expand some of our summer camps because the women's activities are increasing in interest and we want to accommodate those. We are trying to be proactive in our planning. Board Member Hoffmann — Let's skip that, maybe next time we talk about this there will be more information. I did notice that it was mentioned that it would be women's lacrosse, not men's lacrosse, women's soccer and men's soccer that would be using these fields. I know that women's teams use Ky.3 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED the field that was built next to the tennis center mainly. Is there a conscious effort to build facilities for women in this area? Mr. Nowell — I think in general over the last number of years we have been behind with some women's facilities. Now with the women's softball field and with some of our other new facilities like the track complex, which serves both men and women and our new squash facilities, which serves both men and women. We feel that we are getting much closer to the parody that we seek. A concerted effort, I think we have an overall sensitivity to have equal facilities for our men and women's program. I don't think this particular case had much to do. We are really trying to replace the two fields that we are losing with the Life Sciences initiative. Right now our men and women's soccer and women's lacrosse team practice on those two specific fields. Some of the unmet need that Mina was referring to has to do with the fact that currently many of our programs have to practice and sort of segment their practices. One team going a little earlier than we would like, before for 4:30 p.m. Labs end at 4:25 p.m. Ideally, we would like to start practice at 4:30 or 4:45 p.m., but because of a lack of fields, we have some teams starting at 4:00 or 3:50 p.m. Then they go off the field and we have other teams coming on the fields with Varsity football, sprint football, men's and women's soccer. We have a very tough facilities circumstance with playing fields. When it rains we really can't beyond them because we can destroy a field in one hard practice if we are on there with spikes. Thank you. Board Member Mitrano — What do you do when it rains then? Mr. Nowell — We have an indoor practice facility known as the Raymond Room that has Astroturf. It is half a field; it's about a 50 -yard field not quite wide enough and half as long as we need it to be. We have an abbreviate practice, which is certainly not as good for our coaches and teams. We have to make do. Years ago we had Baken Cage, that was almost exactly the same size. Thank goodness for the Raymond room because in inclement weather we are in trouble. Board Member Hoffmann — I have lots of other comments and questions. I wanted to comment a little bit about what Mr. Adler said. I think what you said was very interesting and probably something that alumni, many of whom donated money to build Alumni fields would need to hear, those who are unhappy about the fields being built on especially. You mentioned that you want to bring the very best people together to work on science on Central Campus. I'm concerned that those very best people have to live in this community, too. They want to live in pleasant places. I'm concerned about something about this proposed for what is a residential neighborhood, very close to a residential area. I just wondered how you put those two things together, wanting to provide facilities on campus for good research and at the same time making sure that the people who live in this community can live in residential areas without being disturbed by University facilities. Mr. Adler — I live in this County as well. I'm very acutely aware since I am a field biologist and appreciate the appearance of places. I know that the planners for this particular site are taking the neighborhood considerations into concern. Obviously, in looking at this very complicated issue because it involves in various sites and citing things properly on the campus, citing the athletic facilities properly and it is something that one has to weigh all of these elements extremely carefully. Each of them have its sub - elements in terms of lighting and landscaping and all of the other matters that hopefully will actually help in some ways to improve the appearance of some of these sites. I grill PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED certainly agree with you completely that these are all issues that are extremely important to all of us, biologist I would say in particular care about these matters of how the environment in which we live looks. Board Member Hoffmann — It is not just the appearance, but how for instance noise affects us in our daily lives. Mr. Adler — To me that is part of appearance, whether it is visual or auditory or old factory, to me that is the environment. Board Member Mitrano — When you say that those considerations have been taken into account, could you detail for us what some of those are? Mr. Adler — I haven't been involved particularly in the placement. My consideration as a life scientist and academic has been with the facility on the campus. I can tell you that it has been a very difficult issue for faculty and students. There was a lot of discussion in terms of open spaces, in terms of the needs of the science, the needs of the students, the needs of the athletes, the needs of the students in their courses in their laboratories. This discussion went on for a year or more in many forums. We held an open forum so that we tried to hear all of the considerations. Eventually a decision was made that in terms of all these considerations, not only the scientific ones but also the educational ones and also the environmental and appearance ones that this was the best solution. We would like to have had some other option. There are just so many spots on our campus and this is an enormous building. This is a quarter of a million gross square feet. This is not a building that can be squeezed into some little space here and there. That greatly reduced the options that we had. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand that and I understand that there is perhaps a need for the building to go in that location. I haven't heard yet why the fields have to go in this particular location. I wish I would be able to hear more about the alternative locations that were considered and why they were discarded. Board Member Conneman — I think you made a very good point there. There is not any room left on Ezra's Cornell Farm. Therefore, the University has to think big and think where the next campus goes. Most universities in this country that I know of have big campuses where they finally decided that they have to go someplace else close by. Is there a master plan to think about what Cornell does next? There is no place to build ... (not audible) Attorney Barney — ...we watched Duffield Hall go up and it was the only open space in the engineering quad. Board Member Conneman — Cornell is beautiful because they are not NYU. We don't jam it all into everything, but now we are going that way. Mr. Adler — This is an extremely large building. There are spaces, George, for smaller buildings. I mean buildings of 100,000 or 150,000 gross square feet, but not for a quarter of a million gross square feet. So there are places for that and of course one can knock buildings down, but that is another whole story. We have even considered some of that for the placement of this building, which 9161 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED involves the State of New York and SUNY and so forth. We looked at those issues as well. It wasn't just a matter of cost; it was a question of staging of which buildings we needed first. Those plans unfortunately gave us the buildings needed we needed last first. So the staging didn't work. So there were pros and cons of each of these that we looked at. As far as the alternatives for these other fields, I will have to yield to my collogues here to explain those options to you. I have not been involved in that aspect of this. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe you could understand why we would like to hear about them early. Ms. Wolf — I just wanted to respond to Tracy's follow up question about how the neighborhood concerns are being taken into consideration. I've probably been a little more directly involved in the actual site planning for that site and so I can address that specifically. There is great awareness of concern of the neighbors. There are a number of things that have been felt were very important elements in this site plan. For example, absolutely no seating that would encourage spectators. It would be practice only so that traffic is minimized and noise is minimized. That is viewed as a really essential element in response to neighbor concerns. In addition, while the two replacement fields are being proposed as lighted fields and while there is a need for additional fields in response to concerns of neighbors... while athletics would certainly love to have lighted fields, it is felt that is probably not a good idea. In response to neighborhood concerns the University is proposing the additional fields to be unlighted. Those certainly are two of the biggest what athletics would call concessions and what we are calling good site planning in response to concerns that we have heard. Those are at least two of the most significant ones that have gone into the planning. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you remind me how late those fields that are to be lit could be lit? Ms. Wolf — The typical use is until about 7:30 p.m. The document will tell you 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. We tried to air on being somewhat conservative because often it will go beyond 7:30 to 8:00 p.m. very occasionally. I think the document says maybe five times a year it would go later beyond that. The athletes have to eat dinner. One of the driving factors here is that the athletes have to eat dinner after they practice. They have to get them back to the dormitories before they stop serving meals. It is sort of a driving, scheduling factor. Board Member Mitrano — Kathryn, does that jive with what the Director of Athletics said with respect to summer camp and his son's experience? Ms. Wolf — I was talking about the soccer and lacrosse practices. There is one element that I'm not sure was clear about what he was describing about the summer camps. My understanding is that one of the reasons for the additional fields is because there are not enough fields now; these events are going later in the evening than people feel they should be going. So if there are more fields, they can ... the timing allows them to finish earlier in the evening. Thereby, avoid having youngsters out later than they should be and also minimize the use of lights. My understanding is that the additional fields are intended to provide more field time rather than scheduling where you have to go late into the evening because the field is not available. Additional fields allow you to quit earlier. Board Member Mitrano — So in other words, in the middle of July it is assumed that no lights would be used if what you were telling us the finish time is 8:00 p.m. KZ01 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Ms. Wolf — That is my understanding. Board Member Hoffmann — It says on page 4 on this project narrative from Trowbridge and Wolf that in July there would be day camps and no lights. There is actually, I believe, a mistake in here, too. It says for August there would be weekday practice 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. and earlier sunset 8:30 to 7:45, but on page 3 just before that it says that the fields are closed from early May to early July and from late July to the end of August. Ms. Wolf — I believe that is correct. Mr. Nowell — Ball practice starts the last or week so of August. The summer camps are the ones that would go later into evening when it was daylight as late as 9:00 p.m. sometimes in the summertime. That is summer camp. I think what you are referring to is the beginning of the fall practice season, which is late August. August is used twice; once for the possibility of summer camp, but primarily the beginning of the fall practice season. Board Member Hoffmann — One of these statements needs to be corrected. Board Member Conneman — I want to talk about the building. Give me a concept to how that building would compare to the building on Jessup field. Would it be bigger, smaller? Mr. Nowell — Five thousand square feet. I don't really have a great handle on what 5,000 square feet is. I know that the designers that came up with that number put together a male changing room with not lockers, just hooks to put bags and hang up coats and that type of thing, a modified training room, which is really first aid station. It is not going to be a full - fledged training room and an area where the teams would congregate that I consider very small. Board Member Conneman — So it would be like the Jessup field house. Mr. Nowell — I recall that as the Tobin field house. That is very tiny. I would say it would be larger than that because you have to have two rooms that would be able to allow teams of 30 or 35 athletes to change out of their street clothes into their soccer equipment and some travel bags and that sort of thing. Board Member Mitrano — Kathryn, I had one follow up question, which was a clarification. You said that the fields are they in the City of Ithaca that has prohibited the use of lights? Chairperson Wilcox — The Jessup fields are in the Village of Cayuga Heights. Board Member Mitrano — They have prohibited any use of lights? Ms. Wolf — I can't speak to the issue. Mr. Nowell — I'm not sure specifically if we are prohibited from using those lights for Jessup field. All I know is that the attitude in the department is that the neighborhood is really unhappy if the lights are 37 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED on in the summertime in the evening. We really strive to make sure that we're off the field at an appropriate time so the lights don't have to be on. Board Member Mitrano — Well, Mr. Nowell, all I can say as by looking in that audience that that same explanation is going to have to be given to the folks in this neighborhood too. I can't see how it's going to be otherwise. Mr. Nowell — Well in the fall and in the spring particularly, as the days tick off now there obviously is not going to be an opportunity for there to be soccer practice that ends at 5:00 p.m. Obviously there would have to be some lights for soccer practice in the fall and in the spring the same holds true for lacrosse practice. There will be months where it gets dark before practice would end. Not to contradict Kathryn, but I coached for fourteen years and I can tell you that normally the practices if they are organized properly will go two and half hours. So from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m. is actually fairly late. So when we give you a perimeter of 7:30 p.m. we are actually being very conservative. I think those fields would be used two and a half to three hours an evening. Board Member Mitrano — How do you mitigate against the obvious question unless missing something? You are asking one neighborhood to accept something that another neighborhood won't. Mr. Nowell — I can't say that the other neighborhood wouldn't accept it. I'm basically telling you what our sensitivity was and that in the summertime when we have sports school. We don't use Jessup fields at other times of the year because they are intramural fields. Intramurals is not under my purview specifically. I can't really say. I think both are appropriate. I think we've made a real attempt to be sensitive to neighborhoods and to the use of the fields. I guess other people have to judge what is appropriate. I guess it is not my role to judge that. I appreciate the sensitivity that you all have obviously. Board Member Hoffmann — I remember when Cornell representatives were here and we were talking about the North Campus Initiative and the moving of the Cradit -Moore House that a number of people made very strong cases for having the athletic fields very close to where the students were. There were students who spoke. There were people from the athletics department. I don't remember. It was very important and it was stressed that it was very bad idea to have to put students on buses and drive them far away. What is different in this case? Mr. Nowell — This is the best of the bad ideas. Obviously we would hope that student participants whether it be intercollegiate of intramural could walk out of their dorms or their sororities or fraternities or apartments to their practice fields. That would be ideal. I'm dealing with many head coaches on my staff that would have loved to have had the ability to keep the Alumni fields. The bottom line is that a $ 500,000,000 Life Sciences initiative was a very important element to our University. So we understand that we have to make an adjustment. I dealt with hundreds and hundreds of alumni and many coaches and many athletes. The bottom line is that this initiative is worth our inconvenience of moving. George has eluded a number of times to how many sites we looked at. I looked at all those sites. I walked those sites and their parking lots. There were fifteen of them. I spent months hoping that we could identify one because we didn't want to go a long distance. The bottom line was that almost all those sites could have accommodate one field or one and a third field, but not two fields. We wanted these fields to be together to be contiguous for obvious reasons. You are correct. The 91.01 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED North Campus initiative, which I wasn't really involved in, but I know that those fields are used pretty much as intramural and recreation fields for the students in those new dormitories. Obviously it is ideal for them to spill out of the dorms and play Frisbee or touch football or shoot baskets or play tennis or whatever they are doing up there recreationally. That is ideal. I wish we had that, but we don't and we don't for a good reason. I guess that's... Board Member Hoffmann — You just said something else. It's not obvious to be me why these fields have to be contiguous to each other. Could you explain that? Mr. Nowell — Well if we are going to have an initiative where we are going to move land and we're going to transport athletes and we're going to have hope of not having too many vehicles go to different locations it is just seem intuitive that you'd want a single site to accommodate that type of practice. In the case of our soccer programs, it just seems to make sense if we have men and women that have different lab times and different class times and if we have to have an early van and a late van that it would make sense for those vans to the be going to the same place to transport the athletes back and forth. It's a convenience factor. It's not impossible, but certainly if we're going to list that which we would prefer it would certainly be adjacent fields because of the construction and all of those elements that are involved in type of thing. Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any other pressing issues right now? Board Member Hoffmann — I do have one question I wanted to ask. We've heard of the athletic uses and we've heard of the summer camp uses. Are there any other uses that these fields could be put to that have been contemplated? Mr. Nowell — No, ma'am, not we've discussed. I don't know what that would be. Practice and summer school. Board Member Hoffmann — I could imagine other things. It is not for me to... Mr. Nowell — It hasn't my mind what they would be. Board Member Conneman - ...you would not ask for lights on the other three fields. Mr. Nowell — Right. That is because we know that lighting is an issue. We'd rather have less than more. Board Member Conneman — They could always come back to the board. Mr. Nowell — In the thousand meetings I've been to about this issue its never been mentioned to have lights on those other fields. Board Member Conneman — Cornell Alumni fields were sacred. They were never, ever going to build on them. Never, ever. gue PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Nowell — I know that that is true and the trustees have the ability to vote and change those rules. So, that is what happened, George, as you know. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, you've been waiting very patiently. All I ask is that you come to the microphone for those of you who wish to speak. You give us your name and your address. We ask this evening that you provide us with input that will help this board to make its decision, whether that is the environmental review which will come first or should we get pass that hurdle, then the actual site plan review. This board does have 10:00 p.m. time limit so to speak. We can extend that should the board decide to do that. So keep your comments not necessarily brief, but to the point. I think that will benefit both you and this board. Ray Oglesby, 124 Snyder Hill Road — Two points of information. One is the original diagram showing the new building. It takes up only a portion of one of the upper Alumni fields. Somewhere we've seemed to have lost an Alumni field. If five practice fields are needed, it seems to me that there is still one left on campus. Am I wrong? Chairperson Wilcox — When you speak, please address the Planning Board, not the applicant. Mr. Oglesby — Second question, I just wanted to be assured that these fields are intended to be natural turf and not Astroturf or some artificial material. Thirdly, with the senior citizens right across the road from this, they will be the most heavily impacted and the least able to oppose this. Then there are a number of residences, mine among them, that face that field and are up in elevation on Snyder Hill enough so that we'll get the full glory of any artificial lighting. It is as Eva mentioned in her comments, this is a residential area even though Cornell does have a lot of facilities around. Thank you. Rajesh Bhaskaran, 806 N. Cayuga Street — I am concerned about the lighting that is going to go in and I wanted to raise some points that the Planning Board should consider while approving this and some of these issues have been mentioned by Cornell in their presentation. The first issue is glare, which is the light source shining directly into the eyes of people driving by. These are going to be pretty bright lights so the glare is going to be quite bad for them; it is especially a concern because there is going to be a lot of seniors in the vicinity. As the eye gets older, it has less of an ability to adapt to different levels. Glare is a bigger issue for older people. The lights that go in should have minimum glare, if not no glare. The second issue that needs to be considered with lighting is light trespass. This goes back to the issue of the impact on the neighborhood. Light trespass is bright lighting or any lighting that goes to areas that ... where it is not intended to go. This is a very common problem. It seems very obvious that the light should not go where its not needed. For example, the Schoellkopf lights are very polluting and have a lot of light trespass. Lighting that minimizes light trespass will also minimize impact on the neighborhood. The third issue to consider is ways to ... the level of illumination on the field shouldn't be any more than as required. People have a feeling that the lights have to be very bright in order to see. It needs to be studied; what is the level of lighting that would be adequate for the practice and only that level of light be installed. The fourth issue is ... because these are going to be very bright lights. It's going to get reflected of dust particles. It is going to light up the night sky. That is a waste of energy of course, but also that detracts from the night sky. He] PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Glare, light trespass, light levels ... are important considerations in the lighting. Of course we have a very bad example of lighting from Cornell, which is the Schoellkopf stadium. I hope that this is a good opportunity for Cornell to when they are putting in the new lights to really research this issue and come up with the best possible solution that addresses all of these concerns. I think in the long run this would be in Cornell's interest to in terms of minimizing the impact on the neighborhood, but also in terms of minimizing the energy used. These fixtures are better might cost more initially, but over the long run they will probably be more cost effective because they will save on energy cost. I have a summary of these issues, which I would be more than ready to share with the Planning Board or with Cornell. The other thing I wanted to point out was that the International Dark -Sky Association, which is very concerned about light pollution issues, has some recommendation on lighting athletic fields. There is a total light control system put out by Musco Lighting. That is a relative good lighting system that takes these light pollution concerns. There is another company called Soft Lighting Systems that also has some very good products. These fixtures ... the fixtures that radiate glare and light trespass... light into the sky ... they can be used in athletic fields. I have a picture here that I can share with you. It's off the web of lighted baseball stadium at night. You can see that the light goes only where it is required and the neighborhood is dark. Finally, I just wanted to mention that in the Ithaca Journal there was a letter on October 7t" from Theodore Siminsky, who is from Ulysses complaining about the stadium lights of the Lansing school. He lives on west hill, but it shines the light from the stadium shines all across the lake. Even though he lives in a rural area, it totally spoils his nighttime environment. This is a big concern. I would like the Planning Board to take these issues into consideration. Thank you. Please see attachment # 1. Mary Kirkpatrick, 14 Dove Drive — I, like the previous gentleman, my major concern is about the lighting. I think I would simply second everything that he has to say. I think one would certainly wish for minimum amount and some means of directing is downwards instead of everywhere, as the Schoellkopf lighting seems to be. One other point; I find that in the map of the way that the fields are laid out the corners are very close to the road. It seems that it would be visually disconcerting. One might think about some visual screen around the fence so if one is older person ones reactions are not so great. If someone comes bounding up to the corner catching something it might be enough to affect ones reflexes temporarily. Those are my only concerns there. I live up the hill. As far as it would affect me is the lighting is probably the major issue for people on Dove Drive as I know a lot of other neighbors are concerned who aren't here tonight. The point brought up about what are these other fifteen, fourteen sites I think is important. I think it is a matter of kind of the public peace of mind to know what they are and what has been considered. One's peace of mind is also concerned with knowing what Cornell has in mind for the long term with all these various pieces of land which are lying about and which could be perhaps converted into temporary playing fields very easily. I wonder just incidentally, its not really my business, but the land on the upper right corner there bordered by Ellis Hollow, Game Farm, the creek and the East Hill complex... there's a lot of space there. You have a nice, natural windbreak to the north. Teams could get ready at Bartel's field house and get their warm up by jogging along the old railway path and make a little bridge. It could all be very aesthetic and low impact. I'd be curious to know why that, for instance, was rejected. It might get damp up by the creek, but one can do things creatively with fill. guess that is all I have to say. Thank you. 41 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Susan Shefter, 145 Pine Tree Road — I would like to thank you for the questions that you have asked, which are all questions that I would very much want answers to. In particular to second what was just said about the alternatives, I think we need to know why there are no alternatives to this particular plot of land that happens to be in the middle of a residential area. As I said on other occasions, there are 50 houses on Pine Tree Road. Many others on Snyder Hill, Ellis Hollow, Mitchell, Honness Lane that would be impacted by any development in the area on Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill and Ellis Hollow. I would say something that has not been said yet this evening, which is that constructing all of this in the horse field represents a loss to the neighborhood of something very valuable that we've been losing piece by piece over the 25 years that I've lived there that is rural beauty. As someone said, the most distinguished professors of science and other fields at Cornell University... some of them prefer Cornell because Ithaca is a beautiful place to live. The area that we are talking about has one of the most beautiful views that I've ever seen in my whole life from the west side of Pine Tree Road. We've sacrificed much of that view from Pine Tree Road to the west to the tennis center, the polo barns, and possibility the new fields that have been approved for that side. The other side of the road ... the horses are beautiful when they are grazing. They have enough room to gallop, which is a thrilling sight. Just as you see sunsets on one side, you see moon rises on the other side and rainbows ... the most spectacular rainbows that could be imagined. All of this will be lost if the rural quality of the neighborhood ... of the field is sacrificed to another build environment. It is sort of another version of sacrificing the field that was an M tree in the middle of East Hill Plaza for Burger King and a parking lot. No matter how beautiful a built environment may be, its still not the same thing as a rural natural environment, which is what many of the people who live in this particular residential neighborhood have chosen to live there for. Thank you. Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road — Ms. Erb submitted a prepared statement. Please see attachment #2. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane — I'd like to recall to the board that the fields that were approved, the multipurpose fields, are not allowed to have lighting or amplified sound ... that was my request. I, too, am very puzzled by the site selection because nearby, just east of East Hill Plaza is an open field that measure on my car a half mile by six tenths of a mile. The eastern extremity of that is Game Farm Road. There are very few residential houses around that field. You have senior citizen housing. You could put this facility in there probably 20 times if this facility takes 34 acres there's gotta be 100 acres in this open field. There is a power line that goes up the middle of it. Its very easy construction. Once you let them in there, you've let the horse out of the barn. This is just the first phase. It is going to sweep down to this residential area. This facility is going to sweep down to this residential area until this board draws a line in the sand to say that is where you stop. Once they come ... part of what you heard tonight is that they want to be near other athletic facilities. Once they beef up the utilities to these sites, its going to be tough for you to deny them if they expand. It is a heavy residential area, which is here, here. There is nothing here clear over to Route 366, no residences. There are a few residences along this road and only a few along this road. This is very light residential surrounding this huge, open field on two sides. I guess I would like to know why that wasn't one of the fourteen other sites considered because they can keep ... once they start there they can expand until their heart is content. It must be nearly as close as this facility they are showing here. I hope you have written statements on the times of year if this approved these fields are going 42 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED to be used and the times of days that they are going to be used. I've heard different speakers talk about different parts of that. I think the board and the neighbors both need to know what times of year and what hours. I've heard hours spoken by several different people; 7:30, 8:30 and then the athletic director says he picks his son up at 11:00. So I think you better have in writing just when they are going to be used, how long the lights are going to be on and put some restriction on when they have to go off if the lighting is allowed. also heard reference on sound mitigation, but I haven't heard any evidence of what's been done to mitigate sound. Presently we can hear the sounds from the women's athletic fields. During Cornell football games we can hear amplified sound from Schoellkopf Stadium. I'm talking about on Honness Lane, in my back yard. So I'd like the board to consider those items. I think you've already indicated you need to have more information on why this is such a primary site. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody else who wishes to speak this evening? Let me thank you all. Lets address the questions that came up. The first question is why to light fields? Mr. Paradise — I had the first question as being why one field was shown on Alumni field as being displaced and two over there. The reason for that is to construct the Life Science Technology Building, it will take more than one field. The adjacent field will be used for staging and construction support facilities. With up to a three -year construction window and addition to that you have two years before the turf is established and ready for use. That is five -year window where that field will essentially be lost. We are considering that field not available for a five -year window. That is a long enough duration where it needs to be replaced. Chairperson Wilcox — Natural turf? Mr. Paradise — That is correct. There is a turf consultant and all the fields will be natural turf. Chairperson Wilcox — No artificial turf? Mr. Paradise — That is not in the program right now. Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly the issue of other sites is coming up. You hear it over and over again. I know that in the draft scoping document that Cornell has put together dated October 7t" that is one of the items that they proposed be addressed in the draft environmental impact statement. I think Cornell should walk away from here thinking that should just address it; they may have to address it in some further detail. We'll get to that when and if we get to the public hearing for the scoping of the document. Clearly, that is important. Mr. Paradise — We clearly heard that as an issue. We knew from talking with the Town staff that site selection was important. We fully plan on documenting the studies in the environmental impact statement. It was a very clear message we heard today that that's not optional. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to minimize the other issues. Certainly the amplified sound, sound in general, the lighting, the neighborhood character, all those issues are just as important, but lets not ignore the alternative sites. The issue of the senior citizens was raised. EX PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Paradise — There was a meeting held Thursday of last week. The team gave a briefing to the senior citizen housing in advance of this meeting because we are aware that it is very difficult for them to attend these downtown at night. We made the commitment to them to keep them fully informed throughout this project. We've already done that once. Fred was present at that meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Because it is difficult for senior citizens to get to these meetings and Cornell University made me aware that they were giving a presentation at the Ellis Hollow Apartments so I did attend their presentation. Thursday night I got an earful from the seniors. They are wonderful people. Visual impact I think was the most important thing to them. It is summarizing, but they look out over that field with horses. It is probably the biggest thing I left with. Noise associated with young kids ... they hear about drinking in Collegetown and now they are going to have students across the street. Noise and maybe garbage ... the character of their little community right there is important to them. Board Member Hoffmann — Nobody has mentioned the housing in back of the senior citizens. The Summer Hill apartment site has been fully developed by now. I don't know how many apartments are there, but there are lots of people living there, too. Chairperson Wilcox — They can get here. If they want to speak at a public hearing, they can get here. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I would have liked to hear some discussion about the impact on them, too. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. What may come up in environmental review or possibly site plan review is the size of the training facility has been brought up. The issue of the lights and poles, I hear the one argument about higher poles makes is easier to direct the light straight down and keep it from trespassing onto neighboring properties. I match that with my concern for those residents that my live on south hill who can look across the valley and see this whole complex and what the impact of those higher light poles would be on them rather than maybe more poles but lower to the ground. That may come up. Visual screening is part of visual resources so that is part of environmental review. That is it for me. Board Member Mitrano — I would underscore. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I stop you briefly? Can we go pass 10:00 p.m. a little bit? 1:=0 . OWT553 I l:T OT1111 1TMir[.7 Chairperson Wilcox — Are we going to stop at 10:00 p.m.? Board Member Mitrano - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Remember we have some board business to do, too. PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — Well, how about we stop this discussion at 10:00 p.m. and then the board business. I would underscore that at the next hearing in addition to all the alternative sites that we hear in particular why the Game Farm Road located was deemed to be inappropriate or inadequate. To address the question of lighting from one particular perspective, which why was that if this board was unwilling in very recent history to provide lighting for the two fields nearby, why Cornell would think that we would be of any disposition to provide it now in an area that is even closer to a denser population. If in fact there would some consideration to if this site must be used to using three fields, unlit and finding alternative sites for the other two if they must be lit. Board Member Howe — I will go along with what Tracy just said. Chairperson Wilcox — Point well made. Board Member Conneman — Also, what is meant by the Orchard site? That of course is contiguous to all other Cornell... it is a much better place to put something there. Mr. Paradise — That was one of sites that we evaluated. It will be discussed when we go through that. We understand that lighting is a major issue. We fully anticipated that. If it weren't a mandatory part of the program then we certainly would not be proposing it. The bottom line is in order for these practice sessions to occur in fall and early spring, lighting is required. Board Member Conneman — Could you not also address whether it might be some place else? That is something you should come prepared to discuss. That question will be asked, not only by us, but also by the public. Mr. Paradise — I think as we review the alternatives we can look at the site selection process and the program requirements and how the sites met the program requirements and lighting is an aspect of that. Chairperson Wilcox — One more comment. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to go back to some things that Jonathan Kanter mentioned in his memo to us, which are even more basic than some of the things we have talked about so far. That is the references to the Comprehensive Plan in the Town where this area has been considered agricultural, conservation, open space use. The generic EIS for the Cornell area where Cornell indicated this land would be used for agricultural use. Would you speak more about this, Jonathan? Mr. Kanter — Hopefully Cornell has had an opportunity to see my memo. I don't know if members of the audience have seen it. Basically, these were things we discussed with Cornell representatives when we had some of our initial meetings with them. Following up on what Eva was saying, the Town's Comprehensive Plan basically identifies this area as an area of agriculture and conservation, open space surrounded by suburban residential primarily, also recognizing the commercial center on East Hill Plaza. It is clear there are nearby developed residential areas; Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree Road, Honness Lane, senior apartments and the Comprehensive Plan as one of its top priorities emphasizes protection of existing residential neighborhoods and making sure that uses that would M1 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED impact those neighborhoods not be introduced into or near those neighborhoods. That is obviously one of the key points that I think this environmental impact statement will have to address. The other planning document that was really prepared by Cornell in conjunction with the Town was this generic environmental impact statement for the southeast area basically focusing on the orchards and precinct 7 areas, which had identified up to four million square feet of possible future development. It also looked at surrounding precincts like precinct 8 or now called precinct 8a. It was identified in the environmental impact statement as being an area intended to continue the agricultural types of uses that are there now and projecting possibility some additional development up to 30,000 square feet of space to support the existing agricultural related uses. Of course that was seen as a planning documents. It wasn't set in stone that that's what would happen. I think to change from that goal or aim requires a good bit of discussion and why that change is now seen as part of Cornell's future development. Those are some of the things outlined in the memo and have talked to Cornell about. I think that Cornell fully understands that those are things that need to be addressed. Hopefully that can be scoped out in more detail when we have the public scoping session. Chairperson Wilcox — We have one bit of business to do with regards to this, this evening. Because there are so many people here, I will move and read the resolved clauses. Chairperson Wilcox read the resolved clauses. Do I have a second? Board Member Howe — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Rod. All those in favor? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? There is none. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -111 - Lead Agency Designation, Cornell University Precinct 8A Athletic Fields, Tax Parcel No's. 61 -1 -1, 61 -1 -2, 61 -1 -20, 61 -1 -19, 61 -1 -18, Ellis Hollow Road & Pine Tree Road. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering site plan approval, special approval (and possibly height variance for light poles), for the proposed construction of two lighted athletic practice fields and three future (Phase ll) non - lighted fields, a support building, and parking to accommodate 25 -30 cars (with potential parking expansion). The fields are proposed to be located in the southeast corner of Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads, in an area currently used as horse paddocks by Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 61 -1 -1, 61 -1 -2, 61- E101 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED 1 -20, 61 -1 -19, and 61 -1 -18, Residence District R -30, Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Peter Paradise, Agent, and 2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval by the Planning Board and special approval (and possibly height variance) by the Zoning Board of Appeals, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and 3. A Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part I, has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described actions, along with other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval and special approval (and possible height variance), for the proposed Precinct 8A Athletic Fields Project, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Briefly, the schedule. November 19th, which would be five weeks from today, this board could establish itself as the lead agency for environmental review and issue a positive declaration of environmental significance thereby causing Cornell to prepare a environmental impact statement, which they've already said they want to do and will do. Our next meeting after that would be the first Tuesday in December, which is December 3rd. That would be the earliest that we could hold a public scoping session, some of which we've already gotten into today where we would make the determination as to what potential environmental impacts would need to be addressed by Cornell in the draft environmental impact statement. That is a public hearing and should be and will be a public hearing so that we can get input from you. Attorney Barney — (Comments not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — It is a meeting where it might be appropriate to give the public a chance to voice their opinions. 47 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Paradise — Is it possible to have the scoping session the same night as we get the positive declaration, which will be November 19tn? Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't think so. I think the best we can do really ... well, I think there have been some items that have been added what has already been put into draft scoping outline. I think the next step would be for Cornell to somewhat refines, and revise the scoping outline based on comments tonight and resubmit that as the draft - scoping document. Attorney Barney — (Comments not audible) Mr. Paradise — We are just anxious to keep moving with the design. Ideally, we could be going through the alternative analysis and EIS studies to make informed decisions for the design. We would like to do that simultaneously and if possible... Mr. Kanter — I think the problem with the timing is that we have to give 30 days for the lead agency to be established formally. The date the lead agency notice went to involved agency was October 8 th Assuming that we may not have heard back from all of the potential involved agencies within 30 days at the 30 day point this board can establish itself as lead agency. I think it would be difficult to establish lead agency and hold the public scoping session the same date just because of the formality the lead agency has to establish itself. There is another complication, which this board may want to talk about more is how this coordination with the City Planning and Development Board as lead agency for the Life Sciences and Technology building is going to coincide with our going to designate ourselves as lead agency. In other words, can we do that before the City has established itself as lead agency for the Life Sciences project and indicated that it would like to legally segment the review of the two projects. With all that in mind, I think my suggestion would be to plan on doing the lead agency designation November 19th. Then to proceed with the scoping session on December 3rd, which is then after the point in which the City would have established itself as lead agency as well. Chairperson Wilcox — I understand the issue of segmentation. Segmentation is bad when it's used to give environmental review to a project. Here I am not concerned. Mr. Kanter — The projects are clearly separate in terms of geographic jurisdiction and location and time. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Minutes Of October 1, 2002 Planning Board Meeting Chairperson Wilcox — I move approval of the minutes for Tuesday, October 1 st Board Member Mitrano — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded. I would like to delete the third statement on the top of this page. U-41 • . , 0 PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 15, 2002 APPROVED — November 5, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Howe — Please do take it out. Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor of approving the minutes as modified please signal or say aye. Board — Aye. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 =112 - Approval of Minutes — October 1, 2002. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the October 1, 2002 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox — Our next meeting is Election Day. Board Member Mitrano — That's okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Get out and vote early. Just for the record, the Town Board did change the name of part of Christopher Circle to Christopher Lane. We hereby acknowledge that under Section 64 -9 of the Town Law they have notified the Planning Board of that change. You got a little note on the year -end dinner. If you have a preference, lets get them in that way you can't complain about where it is. That's it. Mr. Kanter — All set. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 15, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Res�ctfully submitted: Cie C�rie W more, Deputy Town Clerk we • E • E w c a� v a� bCA w O O E � bA Q� c C � ro N tOd 70 U 0 -. w ro.0 �o a :d L 0 U E0C O a .0 ... O 0 Q. i 0 0 w L hro v O Ol a� c c 0, „ 0 m V) O L n O c � cnn O L ° ro O i C> ap tiU,�L 3(n >o m ob z°roa o .0 oto 0r. .. _L Zf O A O O to roO ao�CC �_C° b C o v CO O U pO L O ro b Ec 0°;3c cu °c lyro n O J tC , >>b w °O > .o ro . .aL Q � .. O cu ca ° cn ca� Uco � O O > ti O E UE N M 4 O 0 1 bO a V) L O R O �, c c 0 a ?' ro ;, ro a O M V) x dO h O 3 O CCi U a C ro sue. rn C O O +7 O 4 in ro E w U L E�E co 0 ro '�7—' >> ro U M a, ro ro y U 3 c'Ji� O ro cNd E �C :— m L ro w O v .. CZ ro L a� O cn L 0 U OL o$" E E mw B 4 0� a cu w ro Q ani ° C ti ro vii O U °' ti E n L^ z in co ro N C p O +� y s O C cn s V) C L C .... N L N C .� 4] ... 0>0� L�,m 3Ecua�= U to C7�wE� D D Q O .0 OO C y U 0 v L Chi L ro O 7 0 O C � �U U Q 'D C �ro c C 0 � c� V' E o U (_rod bCA w C O ° � bA L C � ro N tOd c U U „ w �o a :d O O .0 ... a� DE .ay c 00 � c Y.I C C ro I > L O u O Q co c° > m `0 o Co E °; O O O n ro'n w p C" 6"~ U O, E C) O � �w00mx •°° 3 ro ro 3 Ci .0 °'-QM °ciDa� ro cyd o CCi cz C w 3tE � E� ON a� O o ct (] 4] G a O Vf C .C+M G cu L ro a O y V h ro w OU cd= 0.0 OVA y O b.l0 cd V) U 0 Q. i 0 0 w L hro v O Ol a� c c 0, „ 0 m V) O L n O c � cnn O L ° ro O i C> ap tiU,�L 3(n >o m ob z°roa o .0 oto 0r. .. _L Zf O A O O to roO ao�CC �_C° b C o v CO O U pO L O ro b Ec 0°;3c cu °c lyro n O J tC , >>b w °O > .o ro . .aL Q � .. O cu ca ° cn ca� Uco � O O > ti O E UE N M 4 O 0 1 bO a V) L O R O �, c c 0 a ?' ro ;, ro a O M V) x dO h O 3 O CCi U a C ro sue. rn C O O +7 O 4 in ro E w U L E�E co 0 ro '�7—' >> ro U M a, ro ro y U 3 c'Ji� O ro cNd E �C :— m L ro w O v .. CZ ro L a� O cn L 0 U OL o$" E E mw B 4 0� a cu w ro Q ani ° C ti ro vii O U °' ti E n L^ z in co ro N C p O +� y s O C cn s V) C L C .... N L N C .� 4] ... 0>0� L�,m 3Ecua�= U to C7�wE� D D Q O .0 OO C y U 0 v L Chi L ro O 7 0 O C � �U U Q 'D C �ro c C 0 � c� V' E o U (_rod 1�1 ATTACHMENT #,l bCA C C O � � L O ro N tOd U U w 3 a :d O w a� L .ay x C V) Y.I C O yi I > L L O j7 h Q co c° > m Vl o Co O 7'O O S"LO ro'n o p C" 6"~ U O, cu C) O �w00mx •°° 3 o O 3 Ci .0 °'-QM °ciDa� ° N CCi cz C w X � y ON a� O o u � 4] G V O CD o Vf 1�1 ATTACHMENT #,l N .� >1 V) to N c O N to arc +' C> V) cd co 'a o cu cLdYE° 0.O�id 7 E o.r O 4w.. U o O � cn 3° �V) O O of E b x V) L I 0 C O i ro U tj N ° ox > o ca N > O W aw > y O CO X o. ro o cz � � H L L y V cz i t w C O avx ro Q vroi b c bCA C C O � Oz .roi ro N U U w O ,0 :d O w a� L .ay x C V) Y.I O yi I > L L O j7 h Q co m Vl L Co O 7'O O S"LO ro'n o p C" cu C) O �w00mx •°° Q, o c 3 7 x °'-QM ° CCi cz C m L? L"� ON O O o \ 4] Ln V O CD O Vf .C+M G F'um) y OOX -�-p ro ro w bA cd= 0.0 O y b.l0 cd L. U H y Iz 4: L V O C> C o N .� >1 V) to N c O N to arc +' C> V) cd co 'a o cu cLdYE° 0.O�id 7 E o.r O 4w.. U o O � cn 3° �V) O O of E b x V) L I 0 C O i ro U tj N ° ox > o ca N > O W aw > y O CO X o. ro o cz � � H L L y V cz i t w C O avx ro Q vroi b c h C C O V) Oz .roi ro N U U w O ,0 :d O m a� x C V) Y.I O yi I > L L O j7 h Q co m Vl L Co O ro S"LO o p C C) O �w00mx c �W x °'-QM ° ro cz C m L? L"� ON O O o \ 4] CNJ N V O CD O Vf .C+M G F'um) y ul H L di ro y L 0 ° �3 z� N C � L ro C w C ro V) O o ro W °u O L 3 vI cCd G o CEi vOi ro o vi ro 3oN_ 'J O O V� 4; •O CO C3 E cz W cu bo a CA xro^� O ro� C cu O �, tw O V) ° OO E== Oam, 0 V) c a, (D 0 °° L W E bb cu CO C O w 3 0 O CA vi to ro > cC N O N �EN0.�U°' L O �O L 0 O o 'O �1 ro ca •^c ° E CZ N � 3(u cu cn -- CZ VI I-y -O O ro °� 3E 0 YU ro 0 O N ro w 3° ac O O b ro U O ro O U 'a bo �•' C O to ro co L 0 V b Q O c c ro 0 b c a O ro c 0 0 3 aO c z > va ao .a y O O w > O W C � ro C cu cu �z cu Y m cu C) U ro ro C) O W Q) V) ro O. Q) cu O O Q� O O V Q] CO w o j b cc �, ro ro C � 0 co o E O H w c w w O o c° V o W+ C Z L cu ro 0. U O w W n. o Ecu O U ro Vi U u O �dA L .O Vi w O N O cu D >, O 4- aO0 33F� D C V. _ N d �EE3 ro0�> ° ro cu a) b"0 s L ro rA CO c`d it ro L O O 7 O s0, CS h U O O uw0�c ° y > w O cz h C7 O O c. 0 °nE w 0 Aa o f L `n W� O C h 0 0 w `n v w ro L 0. cCO O.0 v O I� y C � cw�0 CO co a+ •Li O., C c U ?co�E�ai�oL C% C w Q 'U CO E cL O � � U U o �� ro "O 0 a � Q) cu >000 0 VX) X v"i Y U w (d + L E3cc° w CD cu N CD O i cu 3yao°� cu 3 ccu CZ O ° U C L _�' Qs ro con 7 ro qp ti CO m YC C cz h C C V) .roi N U w O ,0 :d O m a� Y.I O yi a� L L O j7 h co Vl >, O O ro C C) O O �W O O o cu L O Vf O G U y �'ro O ro ro w bA cd= 0.0 O y U C 7 4: bOO cu O C> C o -b .0 vi V) cu C U o O =o e0 cu 1� h bQ O " Sports Field Lighting - darksky.org Page 1 of 3 Home Pau Taxt Lin k International Dark -Sky Association Search Tool SA" M" Sp orts - Field 1 Court 26 DEC zoo, Nearly all manufacturers have products that we prefer and products that are undesirable in regards to Light Pollution. About IDA At this time it is the task of our visitors to drill down into each of the Web Sites Newsroom presented to find preferred luminaires. Education This list is not an endorsement of any manufacturer or any product by the International Meetings Dark -Sky Association. Resources These pages remain "Under Development ", many corrections remain to be made. Your Links elp is solicited. Quick Links Manufact ISoft Lighting Systems Sections Model: SFT FT 1000 Membership Lam /Wattage: MH / 1000 watt, HPS / 1000 watt Notes: Full- Cutoff nighttime picture of a baseball stadium , Good Fixtures Additional Links: another nighttime image , d Ziime fixture close-up, Product Information Manufactures Above this line are Full Cutoff Luminaires ( Zero Light Above 90 degrees } A -Road utility A- Road /Parking Manufacturer: Musco Lighting,, Inc. A -Hight Mast Model: TLC with cutoff optics A- Architectural Lamp/Wattage MH / 1200,1800 A -Post Top I Notes: Cutoff Arch. A -Post Top See the TLC difference Period Additional Links: Effective environmental light control , A -Wall Mounted Ener Savin s W- Sconce styles Imanufac turer: Musco Lighting, Inc.:: W- Period Level -8 Enhanced environmental light W -lJtli � M;-\ _ Model: o r 1 W- Cylinder & Can a jLarnp/Wattage: MH / 1200,1800 W- Facade -Sign INotes: Cutoff Residential Effective environmental light control Motion Sensor { Additional Links: Energy Saving Canopy SRO rt s IManufacturer. Abacus Snorts Lighting Systems Floods -Spots Sorry Model: Challenger 1, AL5210 Series LPS Luminaires Bollards FJe Picture Lamp/Wattage: MH /1000,2000 Landscape Available Notes: Cutoff • Shields &Mods Additii ILieht Pollution & Obtrusive Light Manufactures Manufacturer: IlGenerall Electric 1.iuhtina Cvctpme ULC With Glare ATTACHMENT #1 http:// www. darksky.org/fixtures /sports.html 10/15/2002 • • " MusCo Lighting - Total Light ControlTM MW "AW Permanent Lighting Total Light Control" Advanced technology provides solution for meeting extreme environmental light restrictions AIIIAL Musco technology offers a solution for lighting NNW projects with severe restrictions on spill, glare and sky glow. With Total Light Control, Musco can meet strict spill and glare light requirements for lighting m projects near residential areas, airports or observatories. Total Light ControlTM The two - tiered visor is Musco's Total Light Control option controls up custom adjusted by a Musco Ito 95% of spill and glare light while still technician for individual sites feedback Give us your achieving required light levels and providing on and off of the field. Employmerit efficient, uniform light on the field. Total Light Control is a two -part system that includes: 1) Services 2) Reflector system • On -site analysis of potential problem • Controls spill and glare on and areas adjacent to field • Post - installation performance • Minimizes upward light adjustments • Written performance assurance • Can be added to existing Musco reports systems Total Light Control is available for these Musco systems: Light- Structure 2`" A complete sports - lighting system designed and manufactured from the foundation to poletop in 5 Easy Pieces- SportsCluster( & -2 A modular photometric unit factory aimed and tested to perform from your choice of structures — makes retrofit of old equipment easy 800/825 -6030 (1) 641/673 -0411 Musco Home Paoe Company Overview I Permanent Lighting I Temporary Lighting .. Pro Showcase I News & Events I Contact Us © Copyright 2002 Musco Lighting. All rights reserved. ATTACHMENT #1 http:// www .musco.com/permanent /tic.htm] Page 1 of 1 10/15/2002 • n l.J Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT #1 http://www.darksky.org/fixtures/graphics/so-sportjpg 10/15/2002 To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Re: Proposal for athletic fields in the current paddocks area, Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road Date: October 14, 2002 Turning the bulk of the horse pastures at the corner of Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads into athletic fields for Cornell University is an inappropriate use that would change the character of the neighborhood. Why is this particular site being proposed? The need to bus the teams to this site indicates that it is too far off campus for reasonable walking or jogging distance. There are more - appropriate areas, closer to the main campus, and farther from residential neighborhoods. (I suggest the fields across Caldwell Road, or across Rte 366 next to the orchards, or even the site of the old polo barns.) I made a commitment to Tompkins County and to my neighborhood when I purchased my home 23 years ago. I was a bit concerned about the East Hill Plaza being so close —but it seemed it was just a neighborhood shopping center, and there was the lovely buffer of the pastures. As the Plaza became more - and -more built up, the buffer remained and became even -more valuable. The pastures and the hillside behind them form a visual and tranquil buffer in the transition from Cornell's main campus and the commercial zone, to the neighborhoods of family homes. I believe the best use of the paddocks is the animal - pasturing use that they've had for decades —to +preserve the buffer. Athletic fields aren't even the second -best use. (That would be a dog park; think about it: the buffer would remain, and there's already fencing, water, and some trees.) The proposal says that two full acres would be paved. If the teams are being bussed to practices, what is the need for "25 -30 parking places ... with potential parking expansion "? Comell's proposal promises that these fields would not be used for intercollegiate games or have facilities for spectators. The occasional assistant coach or late team member who missed the bus can't possibly need more than a hand -full of spaces. The practices will be after hours, and Cornell already has expanded the parking lots just across the street to the west (in front of the polo and tennis barns). Also, Cornell already has an entire parking lot called "East Hill Plaza," and the busses can wait over there. The southeast corner of the Plaza's lot typically has lots of open space —and certainly would at the end of the day once Cornell employees have retrieved their cars. (In fact, the Plaza is a transfer point for TCAT —maybe the athletes could take the TCAT busses back to campus or home. The TCAT busses are not full after 6PM.) The proposal indicates the need for a "small support building" –and then indicates a size of perhaps 5,000 square feet (four -times the footprint of my home!). There can be no need for such a large structure to accommodate at most two teams of 30 -35 players simultaneously —even with a small office. Cornell argues that "health- conscious the Cradit -Moore House was moved? soccer pitches, two new basketball co .fields behind the Reis Tennis Center? ATTACHMENT #2 students" require more playing fields. Weren't fields gained when (I just drove by and counted four new tennis courts, two new urts, and a new rugby field at North Campus. Didn't Cornell just receive permission to build two additional Cornell says that it needs extra fields for summer camps. I have r the distinct memory of Cornell saying the fields behind the Tennis Center would be used by summer camps. Not only are the two practice fields going to require lights —but height variances might be requested and a rare "scrimmage or special training session might extend beyond 8PM ". How much beyond 8PM? Will this be no more than the "five times per year" suggested in the proposal? Will the field lights otherwise be shut off promptly at 8:05PM? How about the lights on the support building and in the parking lot? "Noise" is addressed so far only by saying that "we'll check levels at the current fields ". Levels in the center of campus after most class and office hours have ended won't necessarily be acceptable in a residential neighborhood in the evening dinner hours. No statement at all was made about amplified sound —but amplified sound of any kind would be unacceptable. (We already can hear the announcers and bands and crowd noise from the football games in Schoellkopf Field on Saturdays when the wind blows right.) I am concerned that there would be herbicide and pesticide use on such a large acreage. I do not believe that the pastures currently receive such chemical treatments. I will end for now by pointing out that the intersection still floods in a big storm. Two paved acres, a huge building, leveled -out swales, and two to five hard - tamped playing fields cannot improve that situation. This intrusive project is an unacceptable concept for our neighborhood. Thank you. • ATTACHMENT #2 i i ' i y TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 is Tuesday, October 15, 2002 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination, Telecommunication Antennas on a NYSEG Pole, 222 Maple Avenue. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunications antennas on a NYSEG pole at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 12 panel antennas on an existing NYSEG power pole at a height of 64 +/- feet, constructing a 12 -foot by 20 foot concrete building to house the radio equipment, and installing a 12 -foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners Inc., Applicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination, Temporary Modular Office Space — Site Plan Modification, Ithaca College. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the temporary modular office space located at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15. The development, as constructed, differs from the site plan approved by the Planning Board on 7/17/01. A new seven -car parking lot was created in an area originally proposed for lawn, and the stairs on the north side of the new modular building, and the ramps on both ends, were modified from the original proposal. Ithaca College, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination, Longview Pavilion & Sidewalk, 1 Bella Vista Drive. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on the western edge of the North lawn, a restrootrn and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD include allowing one 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion and allowing the Planning Board to consider "significant revisions" to the site plan without also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Service Co., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed construction of two lighted athletic practice fields and three future (Phase II) non - lighted fields, a support building, and parking to accommodate 25 -30 cars. The fields are proposed to be located in the southeast corner of Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads, in an area currently used as horse paddocks by Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 61 -1 -1, 61 -1 -2, 61 -1 -20, 61 -1 -19, and 61 -1 -18, Residence District R -30, Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Peter Paradise, Agent. 9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 10. Approval of Minutes: October 1, 2002. 11. Other Business. 12. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) I M TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, October 15, 2002 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, October 15, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunications antennas on a NYSEG pole at 222 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 12 panel antennas on an existing NYSEG power pole at a height of 64 +/- feet, constructing a 12 -foot by 20 foot concrete building to house the radio equipment, and installing a 12 -foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners Inc., Applicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the temporary modular office space located at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15. The development, as constructed, differs from the site plan approved by the Planning Board on 7/17/01. A new seven -car parking lot was created in an area originally proposed for lawn, and the stairs on the north side of the new modular building, and the ramps on both ends, were modified from the original proposal. Ithaca College, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on the western edge of the North lawn, a restroom and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD include allowing one 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion and allowing the Planning Board to consider "significant revisions" to the site plan without also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Service Co., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Monday, October 7, 2002 Publish: Wednesday, October 9, 2002 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 , , 1:, • 0 • • The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, October 9, 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tues., Oct. 15, 2002 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, October, 15, 20021 at 215 North Tiogo i Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on thefollowing matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Ap- peals regarding Special Ap- proval for the proposed tele. communication antennas on a NYSEG pole at 222 Ma- ple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Resi- dence District R -30. The pro- posol includes attaching 12 Panel antennas on an exist- In power ole at a height of 64 +/- feet, con- structing a 12 -foot by 20. foot concrete building to house the radio eqquipment, and installing a 12-foot wide gravel access drive. Cornell University and NYSEG, Owners; Nextel Partners, Inc., Appplicant; Colleen Bisceglia, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the tem- porary modular office space .located at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 1No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residential District R -15. The develop- , as constructed, differs from the site plan approved 'by the Planning Board on 7/17/01. A new seven -car parking lot was created in an area originally proposed for lawn, and the stairs on the north side of the new modular building, and 'the rams on both ends, were modified from the original ,proposal. Ithaca College, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, Aqent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Prliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion and sidewalks and a Rec- ommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regard- ing, zoning amendments at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Sppe cial Land Use District (OD) No. 7. The proposal in- cludes a 2,900 +/- square foot vilion on the western edge pa of the North lown, a restroom and storage area addition on an existing shed, and two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The Zoning Amendments to the SLUD in- clude allowing one 2,900 +(- square foot pavilion and .a lowing the Planning Board to consider .'significant revi- sions" to the site plan with- out also having to obtain Town Board approval. Ithacare Center Services Co. Owner /Applicant; Marl( A. Macera, Agent. Said Planning Board will at .said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear, by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make . such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of hte public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273.1747 Dated: Monday, October 7, 2002 October 9, 2002 4 Ct 4D TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION 1G) 112pY1 flftALZYu Deuv . Wjgovj N \l InC)5 / NF_1CIT_L. c 40 ( (,LS/� I (�5 Sn r- GL pl 1 DaU:)J L2,e, t WY Y t s� q z _ o. c. N e K.,i 14 L -A T6- 2Vidc, r C:tLAA �iOYn� �vliv�t �frN �I Co/ a A VA Q �E v✓n% �l (C i a-hi i� � ,l • ki p 0 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearinjzs 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, October 15, 2002 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication: • October 7, 2002 October 9, 2002 ta6-�dl �Qa2 cx� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of October 2002. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Note y- Public, State of New York NO,01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County mm Coission Expires December 26, 20 Oa •