Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-02-04FILE PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 DATE APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Board Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning ALSO PRESENT: Doralee Woodin, 111 West King Road; Karissa Woodin, 111 West King Road; Brian Klump, 106 Blanchard Heights, Groton; Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road; Lauren Bishop, The Ithaca Journal; Paul Steen, 8 Fox Hollow; Christine Papio, Cornell Daily Sun; Don McPherson,40 Long Alley, Saratoga Springs; Brenda Cartland Smith, Cornell PDC; Will Burbank, 132 Glenside Road; Julie Brenner, News Center 10; David Auble, North Carolina ; Peter Paradise, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University counsel Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m. 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 7:05 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - The first order of business, as always, is Persons to be Heard. If there's a member of the public who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item or a topic which is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please step forward to the microphone and give us your name an address and we'll be very interested to hear what you have to say. Not on the agenda. Good point. Are you here to speak with regard to one of the applications? Okay . I think I forgot about you a few weeks ago by mistake because I didn't realize that you wanted to speak. You will have a chance. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision, rezoning request, and associated site plan for the development project located at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37-1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +l- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences, two lots totaling 4.29 +l- acres for 20 1 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant, Gary L. Wood, P.E., Agent. Brian Klump, 106 Blanchard Heights, Village of Groton - I have a few items that I'd like to bring up for additional discussion regarding Mr. Auble's project. If you look at the site plan, you will see that we reconfigured Lot's 6 and 7 and we are now proposing to construct 20 apartment units on those two lots. Ten units on Lots 6 and 10 units on Lot 7. Each unit will have an attached two car garage and we are proposing to re -zone those two lots Mr. Lots 1 though 5 have remained relatively the same. We are proposing to re -zone those lots R -30 and classify them as a cluster development. Lots 4 and 5 do not meet the minimum road frontage for Zone R -30. However, those three lots would be acceptable if Lots 1 though 5 were classified cluster development. The storm water management plan has changed slightly. Originally I had one pond handling all the storm water detention, after doing some analysis, I came to the conclusion that two lots would enable us to develop a post - developed drainage pattern which more closely resembles the pre - developed drainage pattern. There is a small tax parcel located at the southeast corner of the project. We would like to consolidate that with Lot 8. That parcel is currently zoned MR, I believe and part of this proposal is to re -zone that business C. A majority of Lot 8 is currently zoned Business C. I don't think you 11" x 17" show the placement of two play area, but they do show up on the full sized prints. We're proposing to locate tow play areas, one on Lot 6 and one on Lot 7 and a picnic area on Lot 7. We are also proposing to create a pedestrian path which connects all of the lots in the subdivision and It is our intent to create and easements and maintenance agreements so that all of the residents of the subdivision can use all of the walkways and the two play areas and the picnic area. The final item that I'd like to have discussed this evening is a letter that we received from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. This letter recommends that an archeological survey be conducted for the site. Mr. Kanter did an excellent job at summarizing this item and the only thing that I'd like to add to Mr. Kanter's comments are that none of the field work for this survey could be conducted until spring, which would delay the project two months, maybe more. We did receive a couple estimates to conduct this survey and both estimates came back in the neighborhood of $5,000 which would increase the design costs for the project, by nearly a third. That's a summary of the items and Mr. Auble and I are here to answer any questions that you might have. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay to the young woman sitting there, we will have our discussion and then we will give you and anybody else a chance to say what you have to say. Board Member Mitrano — Tell us more Jonathan in your own words and at this time about your thoughts regarding the archeological survey. Mr. Kanter — Well, I can't really tell you much more than is in the memo. This is one of those few occasions where I can't really give you a recommendation one way or another and your know I usually don't hesitate to do that if I think I have something that I want entered. Board Member Mitrano — Well give us the thumb nail sketch of what we should be considering. Mr. Kanter — Well, what I found out from the State Historic Preservation Office is basically they classified this area, the general area, not specifically this site, but the site falls within this area that they FA PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 consider on their sensitivity maps for having potential to have significant archeological resources. From what they can tell me, that was based on the proximity of the site called the East Hill Bluff Site, which interestingly they say is about 2/10 of a mile away from the site, but they couldn't tell me exactly where it was. I'm not quite sure how they determined the proximity. They do have maps of these things that are in their state office. There are also some resources that are in the State Historic Museum, which is in Albany, which has some documentation, although, from what they were telling me, they really don't have very much information about this East Hill Bluff site, so I couldn't even really find out much about the types of resources that were at this known site. It's very difficult to know exactly what a site like this could end up containing. According to the State, the only way you really can find out, if that is a concern, is to do an archeological survey. But, on the other hand, that could be true of virtually any area on South Hill that we've dealt with. In fact, as I mentioned in my memo, we did have, the Town required an archeological survey to be done for the Ithacare Center site, which is about half a mile north of this one on Danby Road. That actually went through a fairly strong environmental review process. That archeological survey did not uncover any significant artifact and basically the recommendation of that report was to go ahead with the development without any additional digging and that they didn't feel that there were any archeological resources worthy of really noting from that report. So, at least we have one report that was done nearby in that area. The State was able to tell me that they knew the site a little bit, the Auble site. They know the topography of the area and they felt that because the topography in the upper part of the site, especially, was fairly level off of Danby Road, there could be a potential for either past evidence of settlement. The East Hill Bluff site apparently is a burial site and they felt that there could be a similar type of finding on this site if it were investigated.. But again, you know, it's, I think the State would love to get this additional information and documentation. They'd probably like for every site around to have a survey done because, it is true, if there is a resource on a site like this, basically the knowledge of it could be lost through disturbance and development and they also indicated once a site begins construction, it's very difficult, after the fact, to save or document any resources that might be found during the construction. So, again, do I have a recommendation? Not really, this is one for you guys to kind of figure out. It's not a requirement. The State is not an involved agency here, if it were, if there were some kind of State or Federal funding involved or financing or some other State or Federal action involved in it, then it would be a requirement because the State Historic Preservation Office has to sign off on these type of things. Being that it's strictly a local action, the Planning Board is the lead agency, it's basically up to this Board to make the determination at this point. I don't know that you're going to decide one way or the other at the meeting. I guess, hopefully, the applicant would like to have that happen. This isn't really for an environmental review, other than trying to give the applicant direction on this particular issue as well as the other revised sketch plan issues. Board Member Thayer — Jonathan, did you say that closer to the highway there could be some artifacts found? Mr. Kanter — Well, again, the State, just from their knowledge of the topography in the slopes, being that the upper part near Danby Road is very gentle slopes, they thought that that was a more potential site for evidence of artifacts. Board Member Thayer — Because those two lots are undisturbed. 3 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter — The commercial site, at this point, is not proposed for construction. The multiple residence site is in a sort of intermediate area. It's fairly gentle slopes, probably in the range of five to sever percent, which the State did feel there could be a potential in that part of it. They were less concerned about the single family lots being that, first of all, they are a little bit more sloping and secondly that there isn't as much disturbance that's going to be occurring in that area. It probably would be easier to protect any resources that might be there. Board Member Conneman — Do we have a feeling for how long construction is being delayed by doing an archeological study. Mr. Kanter — I think Brian mentioned. Mr. Klump — They wouldn't be able to conduct it until spring, until the snow was gone. Mr. Kanter — The survey itself isn't a very long thing to do. The actual field work on this site probably would only take a day or two. The report involves research. I mean a report like this can probably be done within a month's time. But then,.it would basically have to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office because we don't have the resources here to evaluate that type of information. Board Member Conneman — I was asking for your opinion. Mr. Kanter — Overall, probably, by the time they get out there: two months. By the time the report is done: three months. By the time the State reviews and signs off on it: another, who knows, one or two months. That's possibly four to five or six months of time. Board Member Mitrano — When we last hit this issue, under the application for the Burger King, over on East Hill Road, it was aimed at early European descendants population settlements, I assume that this is going back to native Americans. Mr. Kanter — Yes. the other interesting thing at the Burger King site is that there was a foundation that was actually exposed on that site so we knew pretty much where to look if anything was going to be uncovered there. I can't remember exactly how that went. I can't remember exactly how that went, but I think the applicant agreed to do some sample digging around the foundation and that didn't turn up anything very significant. Board Member Mitrano — If something were revealed, such as a burial ground, would that prohibit the applicant from developing that area or is it merely a matter of academic interest getting them cataloged and researched, but then allowed to develop. Mr. Kanter — I can't really, I'm not qualified to answer that question. Just from what I know about Indian burial grounds, just from hearing things, if something like that were to be uncovered anywhere, and it's happened in places like New York City even. Board Member Mitrano — I recall hearing something about an African American burial ground. rd PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter- That can mean significant delays. In many cases, the Indian tribes get involved and then it becomes a whole different matter than just can we or can we not develop the site. Chairperson Wilcox — It will be a casino. Are we aware of any evidence that there is significant archeological climates on this site? Mr. Kanter — Specifically on the site? No. Chairperson Wilcox — And nothing has been found on neighboring sites, to date? Board Member Mitrano — Where's the East Hill Bluff? Mr. Kanter — Well, again, I was trying to indicate that I could not find that out from the State other than it's about 2/10 of a mile. They wouldn't even give me a compass direction. I tried, unfortunately there is not a map that we can view. The State was saying that within this year they would have a GIS map of sensitivity areas available on their website, but now it's not anything that, short of going to Albany or People's Island or doing the Phase I survey, you just cannot find out any real information about these things. Board Member Howe — With so little information, I wouldn't see requiring it for here, but if we waived it for here, but if we waived it for here, we could always require it if it were ever to be developed for business, they're two separate parcels, right? So that we're not saying that it would never have to happen, correct? Chairperson Wilcox — I haven't really heard anything to justify the expense. I like the idea about always retaining the right on Lot A, when that is developed, if the information should be available at that time, or additional information, something that points to the existence in the area. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think that I am with you because when I see language like I see here in the memo, that the recommendation of a Phase I archeological survey comes from the proximity of a known archeological site, referred to as the East Hill Bluff site, then that makes me feel differently about it because it is a known site, even if you don't know exactly where it is, but it's supposed to be in this area. I don't think you can just skim over it and say that it is okay to omit this little piece of land, we can look at the other land around it. Board Member Mitrano — Well, I'm a little bit in the middle of these two positions, but I must say, if the State or whomever has the responsibility to chart these areas is so vague, it sort of concerns me that we don't have enough facts or information to make this decision. Bard Member Hoffmann — This is an opportunity to try to get those facts. Board Member Conneman — I sort of agree with Eva, the opportunity to get more specific information my be up to us. I'm sorry that I wasn't here to look at the site, but a bluff is higher than other areas. If the area where they want to build the apartments is higher. IS it higher as you move up? Board Member Mitrano — No, the apartments are lower. 5 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — The apartments are lower? Mr. Kanter- This is a fairly high area. Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone besides Eva who feels there should be more research? Concurrence with reserving the right to possibly re- addressing the issue with regard to development on Lot A? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Then we'll move onto other issues. Board Member Mitrano — May I raise a completely irrelevant issue that my neighbors have asked me to raise? Completely irrelevant, just tell me to stop talking. Why are there no sidewalks in the Chase Lane development? Chairperson Wilcox — You don't have to answer that. Don't talk anymore. Do you want to move on to sidewalks and the issues with sidewalks that Jon has mentioned in his memo? Board Member Hoffmann —Yes because I think those need to be talked about. Chairperson Wilcox — If they need to be talked about, then they need to be talked about. Anybody? Mr. Kanter — I guess the one question that I raise in my memo that maybe Brian could answer is why the walkway basically crosses over the road, as opposed to staying on the apartment side. Mr. Klump — I wanted it to touch Lots 1 through 3 and it's strictly an economical concern by having it not run along the front of Lot 7 because you have three driveway crossings. Mr. Kanter — Right, I realize that. Mr. Klump — It might create more of a problem than if we had one more circuitous route. One path. Board Member Hoffmann — Why doesn't it continue across Lot 4, so that there is a continuous walk back there? Mr. Klump — I just wanted to touch Lot 4 so that the people on Lot 4 could walk onto the walkway. I can see anyone other than the people that live on Lot 5 and Lot 4 walking on that little spur there. I also didn't want the walk running adjacent to the detention pond. I think that can cause some problems, people playing in the pond, kids laying in the pond. I'd rather separate the two. Board Member Hoffmann — So the people who live in the building on Lot 7 would have no sidewalks to use as they crossed those three driveway or are they supposed to cross the driveways — 0 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Klump — They can go out the driveway and get on the path there or they can walk off their back deck and walk through the yard to the pathway, to the east. That was my original thought, that they would go out their back door to the path. Board Member Hoffmann — So are there going to be paths from the back decks over to the path that's east of the buildings? Mr. Klump — There wouldn't be a path for each individual lot. They would simply walk across the lawn. It's not very far, it's only 30 feet or so. Board Member Hoffmann — It just makes more sense not to walk across the yard, let's say in the winter, when there is snow on the ground. You would go out onto the driveway and then onto the sidewalk. Mr. Klump — I see your point. Again, you're talking economics. I feel that you need to have a walkway along the fronts of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and it sounds as though you would also like to see the walk run along the front of Lot 7, you're increasing the length of the walk and the expense. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but there are going to be more people living on Lot 7, than on Lots 1,2 and 3. It would make more sense to have a sidewalk where there are more people living. Mr. Kanter — It does raise maintenance and upkeep and repair questions. You would think that the owner or managers of the apartments in Lots 7 and 8 would have the primary responsibility for the sidewalks, but it makes it somewhat more difficult if they're located on Lots 1, 2 and 3 unless there was some special agreement or something that were done as part of this approval. Mr. Klump — I would think that a standard maintenance agreement would be in place to take care of the portion of sidewalk that is on your property. Board Member Mitrano — They're apartments or condominiums? Mr. Kanter — The normal way that it works in the Town is that is that the owner of the lot where the sidewalk traverses is responsible for that sidewalk, that include future repairs as well, so this would have to have some kind of a special maintenance agreement or easement or something. Mr. Barney — If you put it on 7 and 8, it would be much closer to the apartments. Mr. Klump — Certainly, if that's what the Planning Board would prefer to see, it's not a major issue for us to put the entire sidewalk on Lot 6 and 7. Mr. Barney — The driveway is going to be paved or — you show this coming right across the driveway, but how are you going to delineate that from the rest of the road? Mr. Klump — The driveway probably will be gravel to begin with. 7 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — So would you put a concrete strip across the middle of the road? Mr. Klump — I'm sorry. Mr. Barney — The way it's set up right now, how would you delineate this little strip that crosses the road? Mr. Klump — There would be a culvert for the road ditch and you could paint striping across the road where the pedestrian walkway would be. Mr. Barney — A gravel driveway you're going to paint stripes? Mr. Klump — I'm sorry, the road that is going to be dedicated to the Town will be paved and you'll have a gravel walk up to the edge of the pavement. Mr. Barney — So you're anticipating that this cukde -sac will become a Town road. Mr. Klump —Yes. It's our intend to build it to Town specifications. Mr. Kanter — And then I think we would want to see the sidewalk extended all the way to West King Road, even though there is not a sidewalk on West King Road yet, if there ever is one built there, then there would be something to connect to. Mr. Walker — I don't think that the Town wants to maintain a there is no destination and it's putting people out there onto intent of this walkway is primarily circulation within the subdi for access to the future commercial in the front. I don't know I'll put the Town Highway Superindent's hat on and say that this, at this point because there is not destination for it. sidewalk in there at this point because the shoulder, there's a liability issue. The vision for the higher density housing and that we'd really want to have the sidewalk. I don't think they would want us to have Mr. Kanter — Then if we asked the Transportation Committee, they might have another point of view. Mr. Walker — I'm just expressing the concerns of the Town. Board Member Mitrano — Chase Farm people have a point of view about sidewalks or the lack thereof. Mr. Walker — Chase Farm has a walkway though. Board Member Mitrano — There's a walkway, but no sidewalks, only on one side. Mr. Walker — And that was specifically because we didn't want to take on the liability to create a sidewalk district, which we would have to do if we did build sidewalks in a subdivision. Then the assessment would be charged against the homeowners. Board Member Mitrano — Hey, what the hell, a couple more thousand. �00 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Before the meeting, we were discussing the increased assessment on a large percentage of properties. Mr. Walker — I'll take some notes, since we have a trend going, we can probably increase it. Board Member Mitrano — Is that a threat? Mr. Walker — No, it's a promise, if you want services, we'll charge you for it. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that it from the Board on the sidewalk configuration? Board Member Hoffmann — I don't like the one that we have been shown. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like something that stays on 7 and 8. There's not reason to cross the road. Extension onto West King Road? Board Member Thayer — I don't need it. Board Member Talty — I don't need it either. Chairperson Wilcox — So, we've decided that the sidewalk will be reconfigured on the west side of the developments and it stays on Lots 6 and 7. Board Member Hoffmann — I also have a question about that little walkway that we saw on the previous drawing between the road and Lot B, which is supposed to be developed for commercial. Mr. Klump — I will include that. That's what Dave would like to see also, access to Lot 8. Chairperson Wilcox — Brian, could you walk over there and kind of point to where that would be. I'm not going to pin you down at this point. Anybody have any questions with the lot deficiencies. Some have this frontage deficiencies. Jonathan has made the suggestion that maybe we can require a buffer on the west side of Lots 5, 4 and 3. Is there anything left? You'll need to provide the appropriate materials in regard to the detention ponds and all that. You gave one reason for having two. Mr. Barney — You're comfortable with your design of a detention pond in the front of a lot on Lot 4? Mr. Klump — I didn't want to take away or create an additional Swale and take away from the back of Lot 4, that's the nicest building area for that parcel. I don't know if you can see it very well on your 11" x 17" , but there is a hedgerow, which runs along the west edge of that detention pond and that makes a nice break between the apartments and the building areas for the single family homes and I didn't want to disturb that hedgerow. I moved the pond, the larger pond between Lots 2 and 3 to the back of the lot mainly because we didn't have enough room for that pond in the front, near the road. Mr. Barney — I was just thinking, in terms of marketing whether someone is going to be interested in buying a house with a detention pond in the front yard. 9 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Klump — I think the hedgerow will make a nice break. Board Member Hoffmann — It seems as if the two detention ponds, the smaller one is on the same property, Lot 6, which has some of the townhouses and the other one belongs with Lot 7. Mr. Klump — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — A point was made that if the ownership were to change and that those two lots were owned by separate owners would there be a way of setting up an easement or an agreement so that there would still be access by the people who live on the two different lots to go on the other lots and use the walkway? Mr. Klump — It's our intent to have Lots 1 through 7, all those residences will be allowed to use those walkways, create a easement, a maintenance agreement, as well as the two play areas and the picnic area. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay and what about access to the detention pond area? Would that be accessible to anybody that lives there? The land around the ponds? Mr. Klump — We would prefer not to make those park amenities. Board Member Hoffmann — How are you going to handle that? Chairperson Wilcox — By not encouraging it? Mr. Klump — By not encouraging it. By not placing that has been done in other developments. picnic tables there. The last option is a fence and Board Member Hoffmann — But that's part of those two lots, then it would seem that the people that live on Lot 7, for instance, might feel they're entitled to use the land around the pond. Mr. Klump — Well, they're renters and if the property owner says I don't want you children playing near the pond, they should adhere to the owner's request. Board Member Hoffmann — So are they going to be renters in all these townhouses or will they be sold? Mr. Klump — They're apartment units. Mr. Walker — Are they just going to be dry ponds? Mr. Klump — They're going to be wet ponds. We haven't done our test kits up there yet, so I'm not sure of that, but if we can, we're going to try to make them wet ponds. Mr. Walker — You've got limited drainage areas going into them? 10 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Klump — Lot 6 is going to be drained into the smaller pond. The larger pond will be taking the north half of Lot 8 and Lot 7 and the road drainage north of the Swale. The smaller pond will take the road drainage south of the Swale. The south portion of Lot 8, at this time, all the runoff will be diverted by a proposed diversion Swale into the existing Swale. At the time that Lot 8 is developed, the developer for that portion of the property will be responsible for creating another detention facility. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Mr. Kanter — The question of the consolidation of the small lot on the south of Lot 8 and the zoning of that. Chairperson Wilcox — A nice little clean up there. I never see an issue with combining a small lot and a bigger lot. The current zoning allows for a gas station. Mr. Kanter — The Business D, on the corner. My suggestion would be to consider, this of course would have to go to the Town Board, but to consider changing that Business D district to Business C, for now so there wouldn't be the potential for a gas stations. Then, of course, leaving it to the Town zoning revision process to determine whether indeed the Business C portion would become Neighborhood Commercial, which is what the Codes Committee's recommendation is at this point. Board Member Mitrano — I'm with Jonathan on that. Board Member Hoffmann — So, do we need to come up with a recommendation to the Town Board to do that? Mr. Kanter — Yes. This is the signal now that we would consider doing that. Then when this comes in for preliminary subdivision and site plan approval, that's when you do the formal recommendation along with the SEQR. You could probably send the recommendation now. There's no rule, I think, in the ordinance that says you couldn't. Chairperson Wilcox — We're not saving any time. And you're right, we should see plans that are closer to the final plans. You all set? Is there anything you need still from us? Mr. Klump — I don't believe so. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Oh, I forgot about them. Why don't you hang around for a little bit. Please come up and go first. I'm sorry. Doralee Woodin, 111 West King Road — I just wanted to address a few concerns that I have being that our property is going to be affected gravely by this project. I guess my biggest concern is the value my property is going to lose due to this. How will the resale value be. It's going to affect the whole outcome of how we live now. We have a lot of privacy, obviously the backyard is the woods. On the left side of us, towards 96, there's not other houses, so 11 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 we're the first one. I guess the apartment buildings directly in our back yard is my one of my biggest concerns. This is like single family housing. It's an established neighborhood. I'm just concerned about bringing in twenty apartment units, I just see how that fits in with the neighborhood that's there now. My other concern is access to the water and the sewer lines, it's in our backyard. I don't know what our rights are and if we can object. Do we have to let them come into our yard, dig it up? We have a fence, we have a pool. I'm concerned how this is going to affect our property. What kind of chaos it's going to create in our home. I also didn't know how close things can be to the property line. On the west side of our property line is our swimming pool and that's were the road is going to be. In the back of our property is where the apartment complex is going to be and according to the layout, it looks like it is right on the other side of my fence. Obviously, I don't know the exact dimensions. SO, I'm concerned about a barrier. Obviously, I'm going to lose everything in the backyard, the wildlife and everything that we see. Can we get a property fence, can we get trees or shrubs? Do we really want to look at a parking lot right up on our back yard? I don't know what kind of rights we have, I don't know a lot about this, I'm sorry I didn't research it more. I guess those are my concerns. Thank you for your time. Chairperson Wilcox — Could you point out your house on that map? Ms. Woodin — Yes, I would. This is just a lot right now and this is where our home is. As I said, this is where we have a pool right here and in the back yard, we have a fenced in property. So, this corner, where we live, is going to be the most affected by this. Like I said, right here is going to be the parking lot on the other side of our fence, so we're a little concerned. What's going to happed if we ever want to sell our home, which I don't want to do, but I'm considering. Who's going to want to buy it? Board Member Mitrano — Mr. Auble, Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public who wishes to address the Board at this time? Let's do a couple quick things to respond to this young lady. Mr. Kanter — Well, there is a buffer. Let me start with the buffer because that seemed to be a big concern. There is a buffer requirement in the MR zone that the apartments would be on and that could have landscaping, it could have birms, it could have a fence, that would be the developer's responsibility. Chairperson Wilcox — Our responsibility to enforce it. Mr. Kanter — It's a requirement, so that that's certainly something that the Board could consider. Chairperson Wilcox — Current zoning is Multiple Residence. MR. Kanter — Actually the current zoning of most of that of most of that site commercial. Which, under our zoning is, other than the industrial zone, is the most intensive for potential development. Chairperson Wilcox — There is MR currently on that site? 12 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter — No, most of the MR — Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, you're right. Mr. Kanter — Here is the site, the MR zone currently here, all this is commercial. So that's why the re- zoning is proposed. Chairperson Wilcox — Commercial zoning would allow pretty intensive development, in terms of- yes Burger King, thank you very much. Mr. Kanter — Actually, on this site was a sketch plan approval, which resulted in the zoning back in the 1960's for a 100,000 square foot shopping center, 300 some odd apartment units and additional single families. In that context, that probably isn't realistic for today, but that's what the zoning was originally based on. Board Member Conneman — Do they want to put up some type of buffer? Chairperson Wilcox — Do we care? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, we require it. We 're going to require it absolutely. Board Member Mitrano — I usually don't think of myself as going in this direction on this Board, but there's something bothering me about this whole development. Is it correct to reflect on what has changed from the previous presentation to this one. We suddenly have a whole lot more development going on then we had two or three months prior. I don't remember all of this. Mr. Kanter — The comparison is basically two additional units. The last proposal had 16 apartment units on one lot and six single family lots, each of which could have two dwelling units in it. Board Member Mitrano — And now what do we have? Mr. Kanter — Now, we have 20 apartment units and five single family lots. Board Member Mitrano — So, I'm not wrong to assume that we're moving the number. Mr. Kanter — You're not. As I said, there is a potential increase of two dwelling units compared from the last proposal. Board Member Hoffmann — The buffer would have to be on Mr. Auble's property. Just to make that clear for the lady who was speaking to us. Realistically, what is going to happen to the property value as a result of this? Chairperson Wilcox — Is anybody an expert on that? I really don't know. 13 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Mitrano — That's one of our criteria. Mr. Barney — I'm not sure of that. Board Member Mitrano — I could have sworn I saw property value as a criteria for voting on these projects. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, let's put it this way, what would happen if it was turned into something for the current zoning which is Commercial and they put in a shopping plaza? Board Member Mitrano — Well, I don't see that proposal in front of us, so let's talk about relevance your honor. Board Member Conneman — You can never guarantee property value. Someone might just love it. Location is very important. Mr. Kanter — We were just talking about earlier how all of a sudden people's property values just went up 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars. Board Member Mitrano — Well there's an aggregate that has changed the current market, but then there are particular changes that occur because of development in a specific area, which one are we talking about? Board Member Hoffmann — From what I understand, she appreciates now the open land she has and the nature she can see from her lot, but if this property is developed the way it has been proposed to us, with apartments and houses now and some commercial development later, there are people who like to live very close, walking distance to commercial development. It doesn't necessarily mean that the property value will go down. Now, she had two other questions, one was about the hookup to water and sewer -lines that go across her back yard and the other one was, how close can things be built to her property line? Board Member Conneman — Well, if they go across the back yard, they have to put it back exactly the way she had it to my understanding. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have any information about sewer hookups in front of us, so we don't know exactly — Mr. Walker — I'm assuming that since they are identifying the manhole that's existing then it's going to be a connection point for the new sewer line, which you'll have the sewer lines in front of the apartments to pickup all of the sewage, so it would be crossing over and connecting at that one point. It appears to me that the sewer easement, since it's up against the edge of the property line, so that access to the sewer would be from outside the property and then across. In our sewer easements we do not guarantee that we are going to restore something if we have to go in and fix something, but we do make efforts to restore things the best that we can. The homeowner assumes liability, the property owner assumes liability of building structures. 14 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — But you would be agreeable to some reasonable putting back together. Mr. Walker — Yes. When we go in, if we have to replace a sewer, well, you saw what we did up on Hanshaw Road. We had to cut some trees down that were near the sewer, but we replanted probably four times as many trees. Now granted, they were smaller, but we worked with the land owners to replace the landscaping. Board Member Conneman — And she has to recognize that she can't plant trees where the sewer line is. Chairperson Wilcox — And that there's an easement across the property. Mr. Barney — Tracey, I'm not sure that the value really is one of the stated considerations of site plan review and re- zoning is discretionary. Board Member Mitrano — How many specific criteria are there? Mr. Barney — There's about ten of them. Board Member Mitrano — I could have sworn when we did this Burger King thing I read that chapter and verse and I thought property values was one of them. Ms. Ritter — Could it have been the character? Are you thinking about community character? Board Member Mitrano — Community character, perhaps that's it. Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe that's special approval. Mr. Barney — Yes, the special approval that criteria might be there. But here, the closest thing to it is "the protection of the adjacent property to general public against noise where unsightliness or other objectionable features" and I suppose one could say that the valuation might be the judge of a feature. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. We're all set. AGENDA ITEMS: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed construction of two lighted and two non - lighted athletic practice fields and one future (Phase II) non - lighted field, a support building, and parking to accommodate 25 =30 cars. The fields are proposed to be located off of Game Farm Road south of Cascadilla Creek, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 2 =3, 62 =249 62 =2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Residence District R -30. This is a revised location and proposal for the Alumni Fields relocation project. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Peter Paradise, Agent. Chairperson Sigel opened this segment of the meeting at 8:02 p.m. 15 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome back Peter. Do you have a planned presentation? Peter Paradise, Cornell University Department of Planning Design and Construction — We do. Chairperson Wilcox — Then the floor is yours. Mr. Paradise — I'm the project manager for the precinct eight relocation project. We are here tonight for a sketch plan presentation. The precinct eight location, just to orient folks, just to get started, Ellis Hollow Road borders the property on the south, Game Farm Road runs north, south and is to the east of the property and the municipal boundary that runs right down the center of Game Farm Road. We are bordered on the north by Cascadilla Creek and on the west by the East Hill Plaza complex. The project's scope is to construct two lit fields, three unlit fields and the associated support infrastructure which will include a changing facility, access drive and parking. The Precinct Eight field's project is being constructed to replace two lit fields that are being displaced from Alumni Field. They are Alumni Field Number one and Number two on central campus. The university has sited a life science and technology building on campus which will displace Alumni Field Number One. Alumni Field Number Two will be used for construction purposes and staging and will essentially be out of service for five to seven years, so consequently we will be without those two fields for an extended duration. This is our third presentation to this Planning Board. On October 15, 2002, we came for with a sketch plan presentation for the exact same program that we are presenting tonight, the only difference was we had a different site. During the October 15th presentation, we were proposing what we are calling the paddocks, which is Precinct Eight A, as the project location. We heard a lot of interests and concern on that site and there was also a lot of interest on the process and criteria we use for site selection. One December 17th , we came back and made a second presentation to the Board in which we presented alternatives. We discussed approximately 15 sites and went through the criteria that was used to select the preferred sites. Also, on the December 17th presentation, Cornell University proposed an alternative location to the paddocks, which is the Precinct Eight parcel. The Precinct Eight parcel is also bisected down the middle by high voltage power lines. Within the Precinct Eight location, during the December 17th presentation, we discussed various options for siting the field. There is just a very large parcel, greater than 100 acres and we talked to the Board about the possibility along Ellis Hollow Road, behind East Hill Plaza or back in this northeast quadrant. Basically, we have to be either north or south of the power lines, we cannot construct power lines underneath power lines. Based on the input we heard from the public and the Board, during that meeting, there was a preference to put the fields back on what we're calling this northeast quadrant of Precinct Eight and that was consistent with the University's preference as well. The coaches and users had a preference for that back corner. There is wind protection. It is a much lower portion of the site. It's much higher along Ellis Hollow Road and wind is a major factor for these- practice fields. There is a privacy issue. Also we prefer not to segregate that site and plop the fields in the center and have a fragmented site so it really makes sense for the University that that corner was the preferred location. We heard from the Board that that was probably the preferred location. What we agreed to do on December 17th was go back and take a closer look at that site and see how it would look and that's just what we have done. We commissioned our designer, who is the LA Group to take a look at the program and see how it might fit on that site and the LA Group is here tonight to present the conceptual design to the Board. I now turn the floor over to Don McPherson from the LA Group. Thank you. 16 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Don McPherson, 40 Long Alley, Saratoga Springs — Good evening, it's good to be back. I'm leading a team of consultants that will proceed with preparation with a preliminary site plan that will come before the Board in the coming months, what will be pretty much a straight forward application compared to what you're used to seeing with many of the typical components. Peter mentioned the general location of the site. A few of the more particulars that we will be dealing with include the underlying soils which are typical of the area, silt lome soil. There don't appear to be any wetland areas on this site and in general, the topography, which you may be familiar with, is a rolling area, typically a little higher in the northeast, sloping to the northwest. As Peter mentioned the power line quarter, while it may be compliment with agricultural crops that are currently on the site, it's a limitation to the athletic fields, so that's why the overall project for the Precinct Eight area, we are now focusing in on a smaller portion of Precinct which is up in here. The map on the left is a slightly larger scale, but zooming in on the project area, which is approximately 25 or 30 acres of that overall parcel, again trying to keep it quite limited. The overall program as Peter mentioned, is essentially identical as previously presented to the Board, which would include replacing the two fields being lost on lower Alumni, for both practice for the lacrosse and soccer teams and the field character will be essentially the same, those including light as well as irrigation systems. Both irrigation levels and light levels comparable to those presently on lower Alumni so that; essentially they're getting the same level of product, as a result of the design. The support building, again has the changing facilities for both men's.and women's teams as well as storage, first aid and a team meeting area or common area to allow them to get out of the rain, but basically minimal facilities there. The parking will be similar as discussed before because the majority of the athletes and coaches will be transported to the site via either group buses or vans. Very little other traffic will come to the site unless and athlete misses the bus or something. The field usage, there again as discussed before will start in the early spring, essentially late March running until May with afternoon practice sessions for the varsity teams then. There will be a summer session for the camps and then resuming the varsity practice schedules in late August going into November. Even though the time period follows essentially the academic calendar, the actual number of days that the fields might be in use for the varsity practice or the camps is actually less than a third of the year. Especially when you consider that during those 120 days, in rough numbers, the hours of use will begin after classes, generally about 4 o'clock and last perhaps to 8 o'clock. You can't really go much later than that, as far as the varsity practices because those same athletes need to get back to campus for the dining hall before they close. So that becomes a practical timing mechanism — after classes and before food, essentially. The considerations that we took into account for this particular site compared to the paddocks are those like any other athletic field project: the orientation of the field, wanting to be a north -south orientation for proper sun relationships; and then also the criteria of the various fields for their slopes and spacing between the fields, for safe playing conditions; the lighting, as we mentioned, will be comparable to that of the lower Alumni Fields and this is necessary so that they can complete their practice sessions during those early spring or late fall evenings, obviously we know that it gets dark before 8 o'clock in March and also in November. The lighting will have relatively limited usage, again being done by about 8 o'clock. The storm water quality and quantity of the project, as it was before in the paddocks site, will be analyzed as part of the site plan submission. We will be preparing a report similar to what we did for the Precinct Nine project, looking at both the before and after comparisons for storm water quantity because we don't want this project to increase the rate of runoff heading down hill, in this case, into the Cascadilla Creek area and also for storm water quality. The existing agricultural uses certainly have a certain set of runoff and other characteristics, we'll be looking at that compared to the athletic 17 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 field usage for an integrated pest management plan, which will be implemented for the fields so that any management issues for the turf will be handled primarily via cultural practices rather than chemicals with those being a secondary resort. The particulars of this site give us sensitivity to the surrounding uses, those being the Cascadilla Creek area, the Summerhill Apartments here, residents along Ellis Hollow and also Game Farm, which has just a few residents just off the aerial photograph in the lower right corner, which are actually in the Town of Dryden. Game Farm is the boundary between Ithaca and Dryden. We also will take into account the vehicular access to the site. The main route from campus will be traveling east, on Route 366 and then turning south on Game Farm Road. Route 366 is not quite in the photo, but it will be just off the top of the page. Then applying those to these particular sites, the layout, as presented here will include the five fields, four fields in Phase I and one to follow in the future phase. Again access off of Game Farm Road with a single driveway leading to the parking area that will service all the fields, as well as the support building. The exact arrangement of that will be refined in the preliminary site plan package, however being that the parking and so forth will be in that general vicinity. The location of the fields was taken into account for both safety of play as well as the visual aesthetics for passers by on Game Farm Road. The right hand field or field number one, on the east side is about 130 feet from Game Farm Road to make sure that we had a comfortable setting for the field visually as well as safe playing conditions and the two fields that will be lit, fields two and three begin a little over four hundred feet from Game Farm Road. There again, to try to get a good special relationship for the passers by on the road. That takes into account the lighting, because although there's relatively limited usage, the lighting will have high efficiency light fixtures on them, aiming the light only at the fields to minimize both spill and glare and that again will be further analyzed in the site plan. submission including photometric of the light levels and so forth, both on the fields as well as those around the perimeter. To demonstrate that the light is going on the fields themselves. The grading of the site is a consequence of its existing terrain. Generally, the site slopes from southeast to northwest. The fields also will have a similar contour to them with some terracing in between the fields to pick up the grade change since the field change, the field itself we want to be relatively flat with a one percent slope and then we'll have a grade change in between that as needed to blend the topography both on the uphill and downhill sides of the fields. So, instead of just being plopped down, they look blended into the topography. Another aspect of that grading is where the runoff goes. Again, generally, the site drains towards the north, the Cascadilla Creek area and that's where the storm water management facilities will be. There again for both controlling the quantity of runoff that flows form the site after development, as well as the quality. The support building and fields will have basic utility infrastructures, including water, sanitary electrical services, those aren't unusual by any stretch and the traffic circulation will be relatively minimal. Again, as far as the number of trips generated or cars per hour, that, again will be analyzed in more detail for the preliminary site plan submission, but for the arrival of athletes thereabouts of four o'clock and departing before eight. The number of vehicles, as well as the hours will not overlap with any existing peaks that might be observed on Game Farm Road outside of the normal afternoon peak hours. The result of the design that we are pursuing will leave the existing woods along the Cascadilla Creek area undisturbed and all the activity being outside of the woods. There again, the buffer along Game Farm Road, as I mentioned, some 130 feet to the first field to give it a proper setting to the south. The power line corridor is immediately to the south of the project area, but then beyond that Ellis Hollow Road is another thousand feet away so there will be a substantial amount of remaining agricultural area. On this aerial view, the power line corridor is here and Game Farm PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 another thousand feet beyond. This portion will remain all agricultural use, as it is today. Similarly, going to the west, to the Summerhill Apartments, the remaining agricultural area down in this area, which is a darker shaded green is some 1200 feet from the nearest field, so there again, providing a good special buffer right from the start for the resident of that development. Then the agricultural uses will continue just like the grading, the blending of the landscape, those being the grasses and any planting associate with the project will also be blended into the landscape to make a refined blended project at the close. That is a general site overview and a refreshing on some of the things that we had talked about before. I'll return it to Peter for the closure. Mr. Paradise — Thank you Don. I'd just like to close with a couple of housekeeping items regarding schedule and process as we move forward with . At this point, we anticipate design being completed during the Spring of 03 and our hope is to be in construction during the Summer and Fall of 03. We anticipate coming forward for preliminary site plan approval in late March or April of 03. This has been declared a Type One action because of the acreage involved, however, when we compare the impacts and the projects against typical Type One actions, we're thinking that they're quite a bit below the threshold that would typically require an environmental impact statement and we just don't see the impact that necessitating an EIS. That's not to say we have not heard the concerns and interests of the Board and the public and we clearly have heard those, that there are drainage issues, lighting, adjacency to the unique natural area and we definitely will be considering those in the design and we think that's an appropriate place to handle those items. In order to support the SEQR determination, we will be submitting a long Environmental Assessment Form and we anticipate appending that Environmental Assessment Form with various studies and technical documents to support the negative declaration for the subject area we discussed. In closing, I'd just like to thank the Board for their interest in the project. We look forward to the your comments on the sketch plan so that we can take those into account as we move forward with this design and thank you for your attention and now turn this back over to the Board. Board Member Conneman — What was the reaction to the people on the New York State game farm? They have birds there. Mr. Paradise — We have not met with the game farm at this point. Board Member Conneman — But you will? Mr. Paradise — We absolutely will. Board Member Conneman — Second thing, are there any future plans for the rest of the agriculture area, which would be this side of the power lines? Mr. Paradise — We have met with the College of Agriculture and Life Science with regard to the use of this site and, at this point, they will continue to use the remaining portions of the site for continued agricultural practices and we're just working with them to discuss how the sites will transition from agriculture to fields, but we have had regular contact and we continue to do that. 19 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — Cornell has no master plan that would include the agricultural area as well? Mr. Paradise — Our current plans, as we know them, is to continue to use the rest of that site for agriculture at this point in time. Board Member Conneman — How much parking, would there, I know for the vans and buses, but knowing kids, they won't all take the vans and buses? Mr. Paradise — The number that we've submitted is in the 25 to 30 range, but we anticipate the students will come by vans and buses, but there will be some that use cars as well and we anticipate that that will be an adequate amount of parking. We will be studying that further as we go through for preliminary approval. Board Member Conneman — The other question I have is regarding the houses between Route 366 and the site. I think I know what's there, but could you review that for us. Mr. Paradise — Route 366? Board Member Conneman — 366 and the field site houses or something. Mr. Paradise — Yes, okay, I'm with you now. As you travel 366 and turn south, pass a bunch of Board Member Conneman — Are there any houses there? Mr. Paradise — No, there aren't. As you come up 366, you'll turn on Games Farm Road and you have agricultural research on one side and you have some fields on the other side, you approach, the game farm is on the left. Board Member Conneman — Those apartments are just as you turn, right? Mr. Paradise — Those.are right up off of 366, that's correct. Board Member Conneman — You said that you would submit an EIS long form? Mr. Paradise — We are planning to submit a long Environmental Assessment Form with technical appendices. Chairperson Wilcox — I think it's important and I think the Board would agree, that an analysis of the lighting, storm water management details, pest management plan, all the things that I think Don McPherson knows, having represented Cornell before this Board before. Board Member Conneman — I think the public is always entitles to some sort of an Environmental Impact Statement, even though you've covered it all, you ought to do it right. KFIJ PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I think they should do it right, I'm not sure that we should go through the full. Board Member Conneman —I'm not sure, as long as they put it in writing. Chairperson Wilcox — As long as we get all the documentation. Board Member Conneman — Exactly. I'll stop there. My comment is, that unless my colleagues find some fault with this, I have to give Peter and Don credit for taking a potentially explosive situation and doing something about it. Board Member Howe — Just remind me why there needs to be this six foot chain linked fence around. Mr. Paradise — There's really two reasons for that. One is for security reasons. Those are going to be the primary varsity practice fields and we're just really worried about the integrity or the field. If it's an open field, it can get turn. One rain even and some people playing on it can ruin that turf for two years. The second is, basically to maintain the balls within a reasonable area so we're not sailing lacrosse balls out into the woods and soccer balls and things like that. They will be the heaviest used by the varsity athletes. Chairperson Wilcox - Do you recall the fields over on North Campus getting over -used during wet conditions? Mr. Paradise — That's been known to happen. And it really takes its toll. Once you derogate a field, it takes a year or two years to re- establish that turf and you can do it in one afternoon. Mr. Kanter — Can you provide options for the Board in terms of what type of fencing, rather that just strictly your standard chain link fence, are there other things you can look at or would that be a concern of the Board? Board Member Howe — I would be interested to see what other options there are because as you look out onto a chain link fence, it's not all that attractive, I don't know if there are other options. Mr. Paradise — Fortunately, the chain link fence will be 400 feet from Game Farm Road because it will be the lit fields that are fenced in. We haven't gotten to the point of specifying a fence yet, as we move forward with preliminary site plan approval those are the kinds of things that we'll be prepared to discuss. Board Member Howe — I just have one other question. Why do you have this potential parking expansion, if you're not seeing the need for much with the vans and buses? Mr. Paradise — That's a very good comment. That's really left over from the preliminary previous site we were looking at. When we were looking at the Paddock location, if you recall, the initial program was this two lit fields, then the three lit fields were at a later phase and we were thinking that we were going to need more parking. At this point in time, if we're going to build four fields up front, we probably don't need that parking expansion and I don't think you will see that you will see that when we come for our preliminary. Good observation. 21 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I suspect that there are various levels of lighting available for these fields. My sort of amateur way of looking at it is that there's lighting that you need in order to have competition on TV, right. So you have TV lighting, you have competition lighting and then maybe you have practice lighting. I want to be very careful and I see something that says these are the levels you need for practice lighting. Mr. Paradise — The lighting for practice design hasn't been complete yet, but I can say that the field will be lit appropriate for practice lighting and not TV lighting. They will be lit at a similar level to the existing Alumni Fields, which is again not TV lighting, it is practice lighting. It varies by sport, you need a little more lighting for lacrosse because the ball is smaller, but in general, if you look at the existing Alumni Field that will be a similar level of lighting. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that the western most field is closer to Cascadilla Creek than the others and it's set apart more than the others. Why is that? Mr. Paradise — Power lines. The power line easement is 75 feet off the power lines and if we kept it in line with the other four, it would be into the NYSEG easement. Board Member Hoffmann — But, couldn't it be brought a little closer to the other fields and by doing that you could get it more away from the — MR. Paradise — There is also a grading issue. We have to tier the fields so we have to have room to create those tiers as well. Mr. McPherson — Peter was right, as far as the grading of each individual field, but also coming through that area from the south, there is a natural drainage corridor for the agricultural fields. So, rather than blocking that, we thought just space the fields to allow that existing drainage to continue through as it is today, rather than diverting it around and changing more of the agricultural systems, if you will, than we would need to. Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any tiles? Mr. McPherson — In this case it's surface drainage, but there are some tiles in the field as well. Board Member Hoffmann — I think if you could do something to bring that hill further from the creek from the unique natural area, I think that would be an improvement without sacrificing any of your needs. If you were able to do that. You mentioned something about a buffer along Game Farm Road and you mentioned the distance of 130 feet, but are you planning something else, too, like plantings of trees and such? Mr. McPherson — At this point, I don't think we have decided what we were going to propose as buffer strips. There may be some plantings, we may rely on separation and we just haven't determined that level of detail yet. As we come forward with the preliminary, you'll clearly,see what that proposal is. don't want to speculate at this point. 22 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Any interest in possibly a visual buffer at some point between Game Farm Road and what's identified on the map we have as Field Number One? Pine trees or something. I have a mixture of nods. Please consider it. Mr. McPherson — We will do that. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it would be an improvement. The other thing, you mentioned that there is a distance of 1200 feet between the Summerhill Apartments and the field closest to that housing development, but it's all open field, there are no trees or anything like that to break the open view of these fields. I just want to be sure that the lights are handled in such a way that they are not going to create a problem for people that are living.there because they have an unshielded view, whereas the residents in the Town of Dryden and , well maybe the houses across on the south side of Ellis Hollow Road have a more open view of the fields too. Mr. McPherson — There is an established hedgerow along the border here, of those apartments. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but that is a fairly low hedgerow and the apartments are at least two stories high, some of them, I think are supposed to be three stories high. Board Member Conneman — Peter, the months that it will be used are what? Just the Fall, when the lights will be on. Mr. Paradise — The lights will be on during the early spring. Practices will start in mid - March, assuming we can get on the fields, so the lighting would start then and then it would continue until probably mid to late May, then the field would rest and then the fields would be used for summer camps, sports camps during the summer, no lights. Then during the Fall period when practices start up and it gets dark during the evening, the lights would start again and that would be through November. Not till the end of November, but a good part of the month. September, October, November. Mr. Kanter — Even with that, the lights are going off at a pretty reasonable time at night, right? Mr. Paradise — We're anticipating practices no later than eight and I think maybe on a few special occasion, we made need to be later than that, but standard practice would be no later than eight o'clock. Board Member Hoffmann — You that would be both for children fr know, I realize that you may not have from summer camp usage won't happen anymore, it will be used for summer camp? I would mentioned that these fields would be used for summer camps and om out of town as well as local children. Could you please let us know it for tonight, but for next time, how much use the fields would and if there are other fields that summer camps used to use, where it moved to here and what are the fields that Cornell owns that are like to know that. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a good point. You justified the two lit fields, but I don't know how much justification we've heard for the other three. We heard a lot at the first presentation. 23 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — I would like to heard that as well because supposedly you built the summer camp fields behind the tennis court. Mr. Paradise — That is one option, those fields could be used for summer camps. These could be used for summer camps as well. At this point, there's an unmet need for fields during the summer camps. I'm not going to get into extensive detail, we can get that to you as we come forward again, but in some cases, we have to go out and actually rent fields and facilities for summer camps and we're trying to get away from that. Again, you do need to give fields a time to rest during that period. Summer camp's typically two to four weeks throughout the summer, varying intensities of use. We can outline that for you further as we come forward, we weren't prepared to get into that tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — If you've been renting fields, bad? Kevin. I'd love to know from who. Anything else, good or Board Member Talty — I have something. Are these indications of where bleachers are located and if, so, how high are those bleachers in these two fields by the chain link fence. Mr. Paradise —No. Board Member Talty — Are there going to be bleachers. Mr. Paradise — There will not be bleachers on site. There may be a bench for the athletes to sit on, but there won't be any bleachers. Board Member Talty — Always of concern to this Board member is during construction, will it be limited to certain daylight hours. Mr. Paradise — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — That is always a concern of one particular Board member. A reasonable concern, as well. Anybody else? Let me take this opportunity to thank Cornell for realizing that no one wanted to proceed with the location of the fields at the prior discussion. If you're all set, I know we have at least one person who has flash cards tonight. Hollis, do you want to go first or last? Sir, why don't you go first and I'll let Hollis go last. For those of you who don't know, Hollis has laryngitis. I find it hilarious and she knows that. Paul Steen, 8 Fox Hollow Road — That's a location, right hand side of the map just beyond Game Farm. We're sufficiently far enough from this site that I don't think that the lights are going to influence us a lot so I don't want to present this as a "not in my own back yard" issue, but I think there were some questions that I think may need to be reiterated and perhaps worth spending a minute asking those of you and maybe those can be reflected back to Cornell. One of those is the number of cars, the parking and really the number of cars. I heard an issue of busses and somebody raised it here. I just can't image that if we're going to use two fields and we have lacrosse and soccer going on and we have two teams, you start doing the multiplication and you think about the number of undergraduates that have cars. The conclusion has to be that 20 or 30 car parking lot is, I think, it's not realistic. You may be able to entice them to go on busses, I think that's MAI PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 not going to work to well either. I think that question needs to be asked again. Perhaps, the other one is along those lines, it was presented as if all the traffic that is going to come down 366, turn right onto Game Farm and come down to the fields. Well, as long as you have individuals making their own decisions, I don't think you're going to be able to control how the students get there in their cars, their various suv's and so forth. I think the security question is a big one. You've got a set of playing fields that are far from any other structures. Will there be security patrols there, will there be barbed wire on top of the chain link fence? One the one hand, I would love to see these open to the community, on the other hand, I hear that they are going to be varsity fields and they're not going to be used by the community. I sense that Cornell is concerned about the security, but I would emphasize that maybe this takes a little bit more thought because this could influence the neighborhood as well. Maybe this information was made to you, would there be new sewer lines run out to the support building? Is the changing room, presumably with showers, drinking fountains, is that all accessible. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me help you out a little bit. This is really our first technical look at what Cornell is doing, in terms of — it's not very technical, we've got a few maps in from of us. They've got a lot of homework to do. What's the design of the fencing going to look like for example, we don't know whether they're coming back with barbed wire or not. They mentioned chain linked fence, we said there are other alternative maybe that are wood. But many of the questions that you've asked, we don't have the answers yet. On the other hand, we're not here tonight to give approval to the project, we're here to exchange information with Cornell to make sure that they know what we want when they do formally come back for approval. I would assume that many of the questions that you've asked, certainly the design of the fence, the barbed wire, security concerns will in some way be addressed by Cornell. Traffic, they have to look at traffic, they will have to, in some way make some representation as to what the increase in traffic will be. They can say that they will tell the students or tell the buses to go out 366 and then come down the Game Farm Road. They may encourage that, but I agree with you, you can't tell students what to do. That should be the shortest path from, I think the athletic complex to this particular site. Does that help answer part of your questions? Mr. Steen — Yes. Board Member Conneman — They are practice fields. They're not fields where there will be two teams. These are all Cornell practice. Mr. Steen — But, on the other hand, if you have summer camps and you have parents bringing their kids for summer camps, I expect the number of vehicles that may be involved, or will they be busing out to them from other locations? Chairperson Wilcox — That's a good question. You can see the people back here writing down. Mr. Steen — So, I might just ask, one of the things we do use this area for is cross country skiing along the edges, when we go down to the East Hill Plaza area, that sort of thing. It would be nice to have some accommodation for a passageway. I don't know where the fence is going to fit. What I'm thinking about it that it's nice to have, at least, pedestrian access. Maybe I shouldn't even be saying 25 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 that we're on Cornell property. But we do enjoy the nature down there and the pheasants across the street, I can't speak for them, but it generally a nice area now. Another issue along that, there was some suggestion of breaks from the fields and maybe a hedgerow or something like that would be nice. That would actually preserve the setting. There have been a lot of complements to Cornell on this an, as you can see, I'm fairly moderate on this whole issue. We have teenage daughters and I can see that if they had access to this field our property value might actually go up. Overall, I think though, if you look at the big picture, it does take a step in the way of increasing sprawl. Replacing a satellite facility far from a lot of other facilities. Although, it avoided some contentious issues and maybe some of the things that were referred to here as getting out of hand, it is an example of sprawl. It's a small example, but we are something, taking it out into a rural area and it's too bad that we can't find somewhere which is closer to main facilities. I won't take anymore or your time. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, Hollis how are we going to do this? For those in the audience, she has flash cards. I will read: Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road — Thank you for the work on this project. Please, no amplified sounds. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we've mentioned that in a previous meeting. Ms. Erb — Are they still asking for variances on pole heights? Mr. Kanter — Probably. Anything over 30 feet. Ms. Erb — Why does the fifth field have to be full size? Protect the creek and the recreation way. Shield the lights, nine homes and many apartments. Open to community use, meaning the unlit ones? Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think she feels too strongly about it. Mr. Erb — I'm glad the building has been made smaller. Maybe it's time to put the foot bridge across the creek, half way down the recreation way. Chairperson Wilcox — If indeed there is a way for students to walk or run to the facility. Ms. Erb — There are concrete post markers there and paths north to orchard and south to behind the apartments and motel. Mr. Paradise — The markers mark our transmission and water main and the paths are actually the right of ways of the water main and we keep those mowed so that we have access to maintain the water main. Ms. Erb — Please, Thank you. no amplified sound. 26 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Are you all set Hollis? Thank you very much. Mr. Kanter — Very neat handwriting, I might add. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, I had e- mailed Hollis and she e-mail me back and told me that she had laryngitis, I kind of laughed at her e-mail about how she was going to handle this. She did very well. Thank you Is there anybody else who wishes to address the Board this evening? There being no one else, I look to Peter or to Don McPherson- do you have the information that you need? You're all set for right now? Anybody else? Than I say thank you very much and we'll see you possible the end of March. There are no minutes to approve, they were made available when we came in so we'll deal with the approval of the minutes at the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, you have a couple items, why don't you go first. Mr. Kanter — One item, I think you'll like this maybe, we're looking at possibly canceling the February 18th meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Could I possibly ask you to take it outside, we can't hear in here. It's the way the room was built. Mr. Kanter — So, cancellation of February 18th meeting? We don't have any items. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -006 Pending Cancellation of Februa 18, 2003 Planning Board Meeting MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby authorize the Director of Planning to cancel the February 18, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board if he deems it appropriate. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Kanter — Okay, Lori, we just cancelled the February 18th meeting, so you can do a resolution. Oh, yes, I just want to mention that the Town Board at their meeting next week, February 10th is going to be considering referring the revised zoning to this Board. At the last Codes and Ordinances Committee meeting they basically accepted a revised draft that we have been working on since the 27 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 public meetings were held last May. So the Town Board is going to consider referring the Zoning package to this Board and that could be as soon as the March 4th meeting. I just wanted to give you advanced notice of that and that would probably involve a public hearing, so we'd be doing some publicity and advanced notice of that. We'd try to get all the new Zoning materials out to everybody as early as we can, probably well in advance of the normal Planning Board packets, as well as putting the revised documents on the website. So, we'll basically see what happens at the February 10th Town Board meeting. There was some debate, shall we say, and Fred and Eva could tell you more about this, about whether the Ordinance should be moved on at this point. There was, I don't know haw much detail I want to get into here, but there was an issue about the low density residential zone and the provision that was in the previous draft which would require three acre lots if public sewer is not available. That was. a new provision that was put in the previous version of the draft Zoning with the intent, basically that that would be a lower kind of intermediate density in some of the outlying areas of the Town, but when we did the mapping exercise of showing exactly where those sewer and un- sewered area would be, it ended up being kind of a very scattered hodgepodge of areas and not really any consistent meaningful area or transition area. So the committee, basically, agreed to put on the priority list of future items to look at after the Zoning is moved on. The question is whether some other form of lower density transitional zone would be appropriate and by voting on that basis, they voted to move the document ahead and over to the Town Board. That was really the one reaming issue. It took, I guess, three Codes and Ordinances meetings to get through that one. Chairperson Wilcox — That was a split vote. Mr. Kanter — So we're not absolutely sure how the Town Board is going to handle that or how it will end up. But anyway, if it does get moved on from the Town Board, it will come here. Chairperson Wilcox — I have on item. Ethics disclosure. It's been in the news guys and you all know it, but the Town of Ithaca does it right, like most things that the Town of Ithaca does. There, in front of you, please take the time to get it filled out. Board Member Conneman — I got home less than 24 hours ago and read the paper quickly. First of all, Cornell had a forum tonight? I don't know how it was announce, but I read it in the paper this morning. I have two questions, why wasn't it announced earlier? Secondly, why was the Planning Department was not included? I could right to them. Board Member Howe — George, it wasn't a forum. There were just tables where you walked around and visited. Board Member Conneman — Oh, is that right, I thought it was a formal discussion. The other thing was, I assume we've gone ahead with buying this property. Mr. Kanter — The easement. That's any agricultural easement. Mr. Barney — We bought the development rights. We closed last week. KEOO PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — I don't know if you saw this, Florida taxpayers are being taken for a ride, Disney world and these guys are claiming that they have agricultural property. It's in today's Ithaca Journal, you're got to get a copy of it. Mr. Barney — Just that Disney owns it doesn't make it a travesty, what is the property used for? Board Member Conneman — Well, they use it to graze cattle, but only when they got around to doing it. The same with Sea World, they planted some pine trees. That is not the purpose of helping agriculture. Mr. Kanter — I have it, I just haven't had a chance to read it yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Any one else? Mr. Barney. Mr. Barney — The Ivar Jonson project that you looked at a couple of weeks ago. We have been having difficulty getting agreement between Ivar Jonson and Cornell and, indirectly, the Town of Ithaca for the easement for the water backing up off of Ivar Jonson's property. I'll pass put, if you'd like. This first thing that I'm passing out — an easement was drawn by Cornell, it was presented to us, we suggested that some language be changed. What you're seeing there is the language that we suggested be changed. Shirley drafted and has presented to me a second set of documents. A little earlier this evening Shirley and I had some discussions and she just presented a third, actually probably fourth because I didn't give you the first version, to look at. While we've been having these discussions, there are people sitting in hotels waiting to go into these buildings. The conflict that we're having is that Cornell is uncomfortable, as I kind of surmised when we were at the meeting the last time, giving an easement of perpetuity for this ability to have water back up onto their property. Of course the Town and you people approving the project, assumed that there would be basically that easement area there, at least for so long as it is needed and as you'll see in my suggestive language, I had allowed Cornell to change and remove it as long as a replacement facility was there or as long as it demonstrated it not longer needed to be. I think we're still some ways away from being able to resolve this. In fact, after my discussions and seeing how the positions are and find of solidifying here, I'd really like some time to go and talk to Dan to see if this is ultimately re- engineered maybe we wouldn't need this at all. It's not of any great benefit to Cornell to give this easement for obvious reasons and I don't want to take the easement if we're going to rely on it. Which leads us to the problem of these people sitting in hotels. I know this Board last time rejected the concept of temporary Certificates of Occupancy, but in view of the fact that we are having this difficulties, I've been asked, I should add that Bill Seldin would have been here, but he's recovering from a very serious operation and he couldn't get here. I've been asked through Bill, if the Board might reconsider granting him a Temporary Certificates of Occupancy for the one building, seven or eight, I can't remember. Chairperson Wilcox — Building seven. Mr. Barney —Was it Building seven. Whatever the Building was and withholding final certificates and withholding certificates on any of the other buildings, but allowing these people to get out of the hotels and into the building. 29 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Why does Mr. Jonson deserve a break from us given the self created hardship. Mr. Barney — I'm not doing this for Mr. Jonson. Chairperson Wilcox — I know you're not. Mr. Barney — My sense is that the people are living out of suitcases. I'm not sure this Board wants — my problem is that I don't think we're going to resolve this. We thought that we would have it resolved fairly quickly. Chairperson Wilcox — I think Ivar Jonson thought it would be resolved quickly, even the Board knew that it wouldn't. Mr. Barney — Well, Ivar Jonson and his engineer were probably a little optimistic in what they thought Cornell would give. Whatever the background there, whatever it is, the plain simple fact is that it's been two weeks and we have not been able to resolve it. It's not clear to me that it's going to get resolved rapidly in the next several days or weeks and I really do feel quite strongly that I'd like a chance for the engineers to look at this and see if they can come up with a better solution. Board Member Mitrano — Tell us about the nature of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, is there an expiration date? Mr. Barney — They can issue them for up to six months or a year. It may be six months. Mr. Kanter — Six months, but they can be continually renewed. We've had some that are years, which is not a good idea. Mr. Barney — We use temporaries all the time when there are things that can't be done because of weather. Now, for example, if everything else was copasetic, he'd get a temporary C. of O., but he wouldn't get a final until the landscaping plans and whoever else is going to be done were completed in the spring. We've also used them in other situations. I think by holding back the permanent certificates and holding back any certificates, there's still one building that is pretty much done, but we would not be issuing certificates for the one that is essentially completed and ready to go. Board Member Howe — You have to refresh my memory, did we grant temporary occupancy to the two buildings that were — Chairperson Wilcox — We voted three to two with one abstention, we needed four. Board Member Howe — And what did we change so that it went through? I forget. Mr. Barney — The denial of any permanents at all. Chairperson Wilcox — Essentially, other than Kevin, those of us that voted, were okay either way, but Kevin was very adamant that no temporary and that's what we changed. 30 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — And Kevin, your argument was? Board Member Talty — My argument was that he was ill prepared. Ultimately, there was — I have real issues with targeting people to move into a certain property when you always know that when you construct, and this guys is a life -long builder in the area, things go wrong. These people, wherever they moved from, sold their houses, packed up, came and he wasn't ready. In my opinion, he should have had the foresight to understand that things go wrong in a construction project. I have real issues with regard to drainage. Board Member Conneman — His reputation, up to this point has been very good, I always hear that. Mr. Barney — I don't want to comment on that. It is public record that we sued him once before when he was given a specific authorization to construct, I think it was a house along East Shore, and he constructed it not in conformance with the plans and we had to bring a lawsuit against him to get him to conform to the plans. Our history with Ivar is not that great, that's why I say my feeling is not of any great affection for Mr. Jonson or his entity, but the predicament that he's put these people in. Board Member Conneman — I always heard that he builds quality buildings and manages them well, but maybe I'm wrong. Chairperson Wilcox — That very maybe, but this case is self created. He changed the site plan, including the drainage or water retention to such an extent. Board Member Conneman — Okay, I understand now. Board Member Talty — I would like say that, because I'm basically the impediment, and John brought this up at the last meeting, that these people are staying in hotels. I was pretty rigorous that I wanted this fixed, I wanted it fixed now, I don't care how much it costs, fix it. What you're telling us here tonight is that there is an impasse. Mr. Barney — I wouldn't go so far as to say an absolute impasse, but we have not agreed on a language. Board Member Talty — I would be willing to reverse my decision, based upon the efforts that have gone on during the last two weeks. Board Member Conneman - I'd be willing to make a decision on Kevin's argument. Chairperson Wilcox — You weren't here. Board Member Conneman — I wasn't here, but I tend to draw the same conclusions as Kevin. Board Member Talty — We kind of think alike. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin was the swing vote, we needed to get four. 31 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — Yes, I realize that. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffman — How many families are involved? MR. Barney — I would assume eight. Board Member Hoffmann — You mean you have eight families living in hotels? Mr. Barney — I can't give you an exact answer. Mr. Kanter — I think it's eight units. Mr. Barney — It's eight units. Board Member Hoffmann — I was going to suggest that if it was a matter of two or three families that he had rented to before the units were ready, that we would give temporary permits for two or three units to be available and the rest of them not, but if he has rented out every single unit in this building ahead of time. Mr. Barney — I don't know that. Board Member Talty — There's certainly a lot of people living in hotels and I think we've all been in circumstances where we've had to sell a home or apartment or you're buying a home and you're moving and it's a real pain living out of a box. SO, that's why I'd be willing because of the actions that have taken place within the last two weeks, by all means I would grant the temporary. Chairperson Wilcox — On the one, we don't know which one it is. Mr. Barney — We'll go back and look at the minutes. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll designate it as Building "x ", but I think we all realize that it is the one building that is finished and ready for occupancy right now. Mr. Kanter — One question that I have about the drainage, the actual physical drainage completion, my understanding is that this culvert or whatever the structure is that's supposed to connect to this new drainage area is dependant on having this agreement in place. In other words, it's affecting Cornell land. I'm not positive about that, but if that's the case and this drainage system cannot be completed until the agreement is in place, that's a whole other problem, that's regardless beyond C.O.'s, the drainage system will not be properly functioning and yet you have more people moving in and I think that would be a problem. Mr. Barney — I don't know that the drainage problem will affect the buildings. 32 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter — No, but it's affecting the site and the surrounding area, in which case the environmental conclusions that the Board made may not be valid any more. Chairperson Wilcox — Right now they're not valid given what they did. Mr. Barney — I don't disagree with you Jon, I think that the issue here is do we have enough of a leverage by withholding permanent C.O.'s on, I think, several building and withholding even the temporaries on the other building that's nearing completion right now. I think there's fairly significant clought. They certainly know the problem and it has to be resolved, I agree. I'm assuming it will be and if not, it's going to have one less building and we can always revoke C.O.'s if he never completes the process the way he is supposed to. Mr. Kanter But once people are in a building, it's even harder to throw them out than before moving in. MR. Barney — That's true, but the questions is, you have a situation here, where for whatever reason we're not able to get to the point where we can agree. What we're talking about here is really going to dam water up and let it back up onto someone else's property. There may be another way to do this. Chairperson Wilcox — Re- engineer? Mr. Barney — Re- engineer. The very damming of the water may or may not be something that requires and easement. I haven't really looked at these kinds of issues. All I know is that Shirley is here with a concern about Cornell giving something for ever and ever. Board Member Conneman — Is it possible for Cornell and Mr. Jonson to go to mediation and try to solve it that way. Mr. Barney — No, I think it's something that has to be voluntarily worked out. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me offer an opinion here. Ivar Jonson changed the characteristics of the wetland and it's ability to retain water during a storm. They realized what they had done, they needed a solution. The easiest solution for them was to go to Cornell and say "Can we back up water on your property ". Mr. Kanter — Could I add something to that? What really didn't come out at the meeting last time because it was already controversial enough, was that they had already done some changes that affected Cornell's land without even bringing it to Cornell, let alone bringing it to the Town. So this was totally self created. Chairperson Wilcox — They're looking for a quick solution to a problem that they created and they were hoping Cornell would provide it. In fact, they essentially told us that they thought they could come to a quick agreement and I think Mr. Barney was the one that said "don't be so sure, one, this is Cornell and two, this is backing up water onto someone else's property". 33 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — I made the very point that Shirley's made ever since we talked and that is Cornell does not know what they are going to do with this property in years to come and they don't want to lock it into a particular use. Chairperson Wilcox — And they owe Ivar Jonson nothing. He's looking to them for a favor. What's the most restrictive thing we could do tonight that mitigates the issue of — Mr. Barney — We should find out, I think — if this Board would modify your approval of the modification to allow temporary Certificates of Occupancy for a number, not to exceed eight, up to the number of people that are presently residing in hotels or other temporary quarters. I think we can go back and before we devise exactly what this resolution is I could find out how many people and just tell Andy the number. I think that relieves the problem of the people themselves, which is where I'm mostly concerned with. And it also buys time for maybe, it's really Shirley and me who should be working this out as much as it is Shirley and Ivar or his attorney. But in all fairness, his attorney is down in New York City recovering from the operation and he has been out of commission really since just after the last meeting. He went to New York City the day after. So, he's not been able to follow through as much as he would have liked to. SO, it buys us a little time to either see about the engineering or see if we can come up with an agreement that is satisfactory to both. Board Member Mitrano — What's to keep Mr. Jonson from now arranging for people for all these other buildings? Mr. Barney — Well, he's on notice that this is it they're not getting in. Whatever he leased, he can tell everybody else Chairperson Wilcox — I think he represented at the meeting that he had two or three families ready to move in. IF he did make that representation, we had some recording problems in the first part of the meeting. Mr. Kanter — I don't remember a number. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try to put this together. The motion here. Mr. Kanter — Can I ask a question about a technicality? Can the Board do this, do a change to the resolution without publication? Mr. Barney — I thought about that and it's a good point. The only thing I can think is that it was a motion that was made at the last meeting that was voted down and then a different motion was approved. I think, in the grand scheme of things, they could probably go ahead a reconsider that original motion. I don't think that you're locked in, it could have been reconsidered at that meeting. will confess right off the bat that it is a stretch. Mr. Kanter — Solely, because there was nothing on this evening's agenda that we were going to be talking about this. 34 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — I always come back to the question of who is going to challenge it. If we do this, is someone going to walk in the door and sure you, I don't think so. The only one who cares about this is Ivar. Board Member Talty — I hope he learns his lesson over this. Mr. Kanter — My own observation is Ivar will not learn a lesson and he'll do it again and again, especially when he's working with Mr. Fabbroni because a lot of it was Mr. Fabbroni's problem in terms of the drainage situation that was created. He sort of does things off the cuff. AS long as that team is together. Board Member Conneman — Well, this Board will remember that. Kevin and I will remember it. Board Member Talty — I have a long memory. Chairperson Wilcox — We took him to task, I think pretty well. Board Member Talty - I just feel for the people who are in hotels. Chairperson Wilcox — I reminded Mr. Fabbroni of his comments when he referred to the wetlands as marginal. The motion is to modify our approval of site plan modification from two weeks ago to grant Ivar Jonson Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. Mr. Barney — Authorize the Building Inspector to grant issue Temporary Certificates of Occupancy for those people that are presently residing in temporary quarters that were expecting to move into Building Number 7 or 8. SO a maximum of eight. Board Member Conneman — And somewhere we must be understood that that says six months and maybe renewable for six months, but that's it. Mr. Barney — That's fine. Ms. Ritter — It does cost the applicant money. Mr. Kanter — Not anywhere near as much as his lawsuit that he's get if his tenants sued him like they could do. Chairperson Wilcox — Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin Talty. You're comfortable with that? Could somebody just look up which building it is? Mr. Barney — Yes. Board Member Mitrano — Even if there are three families sitting over in the motel, we're going to give him up to eight? Mr. Barney — No, he just gets three. 35 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter — Well, how do we know that? Board Member Hoffmann — How can we make sure that he doesn't rent out more units? Mr. Barney — What we're going to do, first thing tomorrow morning is to make a call to his lawyer to find out how many people there are. Board Member Talty — How about it's contingent about him providing a list of names? Board Member Mitrano — I would not leave it up to him. Chairperson Wilcox — I trust Bill, his attorney. I think we all trust him. Board Member Mitrano — I'll go with the attorney, absolutely. Mr. Kanter — Well, I'm sure this won't influence your vote, but I think it's a bad idea. Board Member Talty — I thought it was a bad idea the first time I voted for it. Chairperson Wilcox — It is a bad idea. I hate the position that we've been put it. Whether it's the engineer or whether it's the contractor, I do not like being put in this position of having to choose between what's right for these people versus what's right for the developer. I hate being in this position and we shouldn't be in this position. Board Member Mitrano — Then vote against it, if you hate it so much. Board Member Conneman — We will remember the engineer. Board Member Talty — You can't forget the engineer when he's up there, let me tell you. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second, any changes? There being none, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? One opposed, one abstention form Larry. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -005 Amendment of PB RE A Modification to the Site Plan for Summerhill Apartments 9nn1 -[102 Granti Lane, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.127 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: ution Summerhill 1. Iver and Janet Johnson, d /b /a Johnson Construction, applied for a modification of a previously granted site plan approval for the Summerhill Apartments complex on Summerhill Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 62 -2- 1.127; and 36 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 2. The resolution granting such modified site plan approval passed at the January 21, 2003, meeting of this Board precluded the granting of any more occupancy permits, temporary or permanent, to any of the buildings at the Summerhill Apartment complex until certain drainage work was completed and a drainage easement obtained from Cornell University; and 3. The applicant and Cornell University and the Attorney for the Town have been negotiating on the terms of such easement, but to date have not been able to reach agreement; and 4. Building 109 in the project is complete and ready for occupancy but cannot be occupied legally without a certificate of occupancy from the Town, which permit is being withheld in accordance with the January 21St resolution; and 5. Prior to the January 21St meeting, the applicant had entered into leasing arrangements with certain parties in anticipation of them being able to occupy Building 109; and 6. Several families who vacated other premises in anticipation of occupying Building 109 are now living in motels pending the resolution of the drainage matters and issuance of certificates of occupancy; and 7. In light of the inability to obtain agreement on the drainage easement terms and complete the drainage work in a relatively short period this Board is willing to relax the prohibition against issuance of certificates of occupancy to the extent ofpermitting sufficient temporary occupancy permits to be issued to allow those persons living in motels to occupy Building 109; NO W, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby amends its resolution adopted January 21, 2003, relating to the granting of approval to a modified site plan for the Summerhill Apartment complex to provide that one or more temporary certificates of occupancy for occupancy in Building 109 may be issued prior to completion of the drainage work and obtaining of an easement from Cornell University; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That maximum number of dwelling units to be occupied pursuant to such temporary occupancy shall be the number of dwelling units necessary to accommodate those families that are presently living in motels or other similar temporary housing arrangements, but in no event more than eight dwelling units, all of which dwelling units are to be located in Building 109; and it is further 2. That this Board request the Attorney for the Town to inquire of the applicant's attorney, and any other sources deemed useful or appropriate to the Attorney for the Town, for the purpose of determining the number of dwelling units for which certificates of occupancy are required to accommodate those persons living in temporary quarters, and to report said number to the Director of Building and Zoning; and it is further 37 PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 3. That the Director of Building and Zoning may issue one or more temporary certificate or certificates of occupancy permitting the occupancy in Building 109 of the number of dwelling units reported to him by the Attorney for the Town provided that all other requirements (including compliance with all Building Code matters) normally governing the issuance of such certificates by such Director have been met to his satisfaction; and it is further 4. That such temporary occupancy certificate or certificates be limited in duration to no more than six months from issuance, and that the same may be renewed for no more than one additional period of six months, unless the requirements regarding obtaining of a drainage easement from Cornell and the installation of all drainage and other site plan elements approved by this Board on January 21, 2003, have been completed and all other requirements of all resolutions pertaining to the project are met, or this Board has modified the requirements regarding same upon application from the applicant for such modification subsequent to the date of the adoption of this resolution; and it is further S. That the adoption of this resolution shall not relieve the applicants from any requirements of any prior resolutions other than those specifically modified by this resolution. The vote on the motion resulted as follows. AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty NAYS: Hoffmann ABSTAIN: Thayer, The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to say anything? Attorney for Cornell? Shirley Egan, Cornell University Counsel — Cornell wasn't trying to be mean. We just aren't comfortable with this situation. Mr. Barney — No one is condemning Cornell. We understand that you're caught between a rock and a hard place. Board Member Thayer — Jonathan, doesn't he already have temporary on two building? Mr. Kanter — The whole thing has been so convoluted, I don't know how many of what he has where. Board Member Thayer — It was my understanding that he had a temporary on two buildings and he was up for a renewal on those two. Mr. Kanter — That very well could be, I don't' know. Mr. Barney — We're not giving him any more permanents. PB MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2003 APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Conneman — If he doesn't do it, we fine him, is that right? And we print it in the paper that we fined him. Chairperson Wilcox — This Board can recommend that to the Town Board. Board Member Conneman — That's all that I want to know that we can get some action. Chairperson Wilcox — We can recommend anything, that doesn't mean that anyone is going to listen. Board Member Conneman — I don't know, but we'd give it a try and we would fine him. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other items this evening that we would like to discuss? Mr. Kanter- We have 45 minutes until the close of the meeting. Board Member Talty — I have to say that I am glad that you brought this up John, because if we hadn't brought it up tonight, there's no meeting. We just cancelled the next meeting. This could have went on for six weeks. Chairperson Wilcox — Do I have a motion to adjourn? AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer, Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the February 4, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:17 pm. 39 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 4. 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision, rezoning request, and associated site plan for the development project' located at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences, two lots totaling 4.29 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E., Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed construction of two lighted and two non - lighted athletic practice fields and one future (Phase II) non- lighted field, a support building, and parking to accommodate 25 -30 cars. The fields are proposed to be located off of Game Farm Road south of Cascadilla Creek, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 2-3, 62 -2 -45 62 - -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Residence District R =30. This is a revised location and proposal for the Alumni Fields relocation project. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Peter Paradise, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 5. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2003. 6, Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747' NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) 14 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION ri 0000 K L PD /c CvVr uAQ-,�r Grlo.v% K l U Ct->7 G� ar H E.t' Po ✓� v b A'D << 1p S `K Ra LUA ,�� 6 rel • 'Cl Sk 1 b IA S :DON &Lhm6Qw L - %wiv ✓emu vile fs✓ "rle4r Ums Lew l