Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-10-03Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 3, 2000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 3, 2000, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Gordon Van Nederynen, 633 Bostwick Road; S. Van Nederynen, 4085 CR6 Trumansburg; Steve Wright, Cornell University; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Eric Dicke, Cornell University; Kaitlin Lovell, Cornell University; Maury Tigner, Cornell University; Betty Bortz, Cornell University; John Gutenberger, Cornell University; John Silcox, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Robert McIntyre, Bovis Lend Lease IMB Inc. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 25, 2000, and September 27, 2000, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 27, 2000. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m. and asked if any persons present wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Van Nederynen Two -Lot Subdivision, 1485 Mecklenburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Gordon Van Nederynen, 633 Bostwick Road, stated they are applying for a two -lot subdivision. They have one buyer for the property and two mortgages. One would be a mortgage for the house and five acres of land. The second mortgage would be for the remaining acreage. To his knowledge the buyer will continue to use the land and rent it. The subdivision is for financing purposes. He does not foresee any problems this may cause. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -84 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Van Nederynen 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1485 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -1.2. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two lot subdivision at 1485 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -1.2, Agricultural District. The existing 47.35 +/- acre parcel will be divided into two parcels, one 5 +/- acres and one 42.35 +/- acres. Gordon Van Nederynen and Lewis Stanley Van Nederynen, Owners /Applicants; Mark G. Masler, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map, No. 1485 Mecklenburg Road — N.Y. S. Rte 79, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated 915100, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox stated the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2000. Board member Thayer stated he does not know if he will be able to attend the meeting. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated the Tompkins County Planning Federation is holding a SEQR training. It will be held in five weeks at the Ramada. This training is very helpful. The Department of Conservation does a good job. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two lot subdivision at 1485 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 1.2, Agricultural District. The existing 47.35 ± acre parcel will be divided into two parcels, one 5 ± acres and one 42.35 ± acres. Gordon Van Nederynen and Lewis Stanley Van Nederynen, Owners /Applicants; Mark G. Masler, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated on the subdivision map, Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus is listed under certification. Attorney Barney stated there might be someone in the office that is involved with the bank listed. His firm represents a number of residential mortgages. His office is not representing anything to do with the application. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -85 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Van Nederynen 2 -Lot Subdivision. 1485 Mecklenbura Road. Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -1.2. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two lot subdivision at 1485 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -1.2, Agricultural District. The existing 47.35 +/- acre parcel will be divided into two parcels, one 5 +/- acres and one 42.35 +/- acres. Gordon Van Nederynen and Lewis Stanley Van Nederynen, Owners /Applicants; Mark G. Masler, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on October 3, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map, No. 1485 Mecklenburg Road — N. Y. S. Rte 79, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated 915100, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waivers will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -1.2, totaling 47.35 +/- acres, into two lots, one 5 +/- acres and one 42.35 +/- acres, located at 1485 Mecklenburg Road, as shown on the plat entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 1485 Mecklenburg Road — N. Y. S. Rte 79, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated 915100, subject to the following condition: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, including the appropriate seals and the signed surveyor's certificate, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Modification to Cluster Buffer Setback — Lot 5 Westwood Hills Subdivision, 124 Woolf Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Tim Ciaschi,120 Grove Road, stated the property in question is his previous residence. The home has been sold. He constructed a deck and pool. Mr. Ciaschi stated he owns the lot behind the property. He did not see it as a problem. A survey was done during the sale of the home. The deck and pool are encroaching on his property. He is not bothered by it encroaching on his property. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Ciaschi if he is aware of any environmental issues. Mr. Ciaschi responded he is not aware of any environmental issues. Board Member Hoffmann stated when the subdivision occurred, the buffer zone was required. He has violated the buffer zone. The buffer was required for environmental reasons. The lots are very small. She does see it as a problem. Board Member Mitrano asked staff to elaborate on the staff recommendation. Mr. Kanter stated he did not see it as a SEAR issue. He saw it as a precedent. There are issues at the board's discretion. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED built. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Ciaschi if he was building his house on the future road to be Mr. Ciaschi stated he is building his house on the cul -de -sac of Grove Road. Chairperson Wilcox asked if he had frontage on a Town road. Mr. Ciaschi stated he does not have frontage on a Town road. He was before the board requesting authorization to do so. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:48 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -86 - SEQR - Modification of Buffer Requirement, Lot #5 - Westwood Hills Subdivision. 124 Woolf Lane, Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Modification of the cluster buffer requirements for Lot # 5 in the Westwood Hills Subdivision located at 124 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118, Residence District R -15. The proposed modification would allow an above ground pool and a deck to remain within the 30 foot rear setback, and to allow the southeast corner of the house to be located 14.4 +/- feet from the side lot line where 15 feet is required. Doris Singer, Owner; Timothy Ciaschi, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval and modifications thereof, and 3. The Planning Board on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lot 5 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, T. G. Miller Associates P.C., dated September 6, 1988 and amended March 9, 2000, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed modification of the Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of the cluster buffer requirements for Lot #5 in the Westwood Hills Subdivision located at 124 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118, Residence District R -15. The proposed modification would allow an above ground pool and a deck to remain within the 30 foot rear setback, and to allow the southeast corner of the house to be located 14.4 ± feet from the side lot line where 15 feet is required. Doris Singer, Owner; Timothy Ciaschi, Agent. Mr. Kanter stated named owner of lot 5 is Doris Singer. It is not Rob Ainslie and Judy Singer. It was discovered after the application was processed and advertised. It is not a major flaw in the hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox stated he does not see it as a problem. The address and tax parcel number is correct. Board Member Mitrano stated in the draft proposed resolution it states that in no case should either structure be allowed to expand nor shall either structure be located within the buffer zone. Mr. Ciaschi stated he did not think anything of the deck and pool. He owns a parcel behind the property. He saw it as a big backyard. He did not know it was an issue until the sale. Board Member Mitrano asked if Mr. Ciaschi had objections to the restrictions. Mr. Ciaschi stated that they have always followed the restrictions with the exception of this application. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is unhappy with what has occurred. It is Mr. Ciaschi's subdivision and he knew not to build in the 30 foot buffer. Mr. Ciaschi did not obtain a building permit for the deck and pool. He cannot second -guess the Planning Board that made the decision. The 30 foot buffer was put in place for a reason. It was to buffer the cluster subdivision from the remaining lands in the area. He does not want to be unreasonable. Ms. Singer has closed on the property. Mr. Ciaschi does own the land to the north of the lot. The land north of the lot is cleared and mowed. It is grass. The 20 to 30 feet north of the Singer house are lawn. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would like to see this resolved by having 27 additional feet of the land to the north be subdivided from 23 -1- 11.112 and consolidated onto lot 5 of the original subdivision. The original 30 foot buffer would be restored. It is consistent with what the Planning Board approved. He does not know if the board could force it to be done. He is not sure it would be appropriate to force Mr. Ciaschi to accept it. The board could pass a resolution that gives Mr. Ciaschi and the current owner an opportunity to make the decision themselves. The current owner could agree to remove the deck and the pool. Mr. Ciaschi would then need to deal with the owner because they paid for the deck and pool. Mr. Ciaschi PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED could subdivide land to restore the buffer. The property looks like one property. The additional 25 -30 feet looks like it belongs to the lot 5. Board Member Mitrano asked why does Chairperson Wilcox as a Planning Board member care what it looks like. Chairperson Wilcox responded he does not care. His point is it looks like part of the land that goes with the lot. He assumes Ms. Singer would use the land as though it was hers. Board Member Mitrano stated she does not understand why it would matter. Attorney Barney stated the lots are very small lots. The trade -off for allowing the small lots was the substantial buffer. This is now not the case with lot 5. Chairperson Wilcox does not see a reason why the buffer could not be reinstalled by simply conveying 27 feet. It would not need to be 27 feet across the entire property line. It could be extended in the area of the deck and pool. Mr. Ciaschi has used it as if the buffer was in place. The buffer is not there. Board Member Hoffmann stated the Planning Board resolution of October 6, 1987 states, "as a condition that the final landscape working drawing includes adequate vegetation and re- vegetation to buffer the project site from adjacent properties and that such plan and installation is subject to the approval of Town planners and that landscaping be installed around each cluster, substantially as delineated, as shown on the plan "Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision ". It does sounds as if it is intended to be planted. The plantings were to act as a screen to adjacent properties. The lawn is not sufficient. She agrees with Chairperson Wilcox. This was a special case. Small lots were created. Mr. Ciaschi was allowed to have many more lots than they would normally be able to have in return for certain condition that were supposed to be upheld. Mr. Ciaschi stated he owned lot 5 and the back lot. He thought of it as a large backyard. Board Member Hoffmann stated that he was the applicant before the board to get subdivision approval. She is surprised Mr. Ciaschi has done these things and then sold the property with the existing problems. She would like to see the situation corrected. There needs to be a 30 foot buffer. Mr. Ciaschi stated the problem is that the new owners will probably have to take their deck down Board Member Conneman stated the buffer was required as part of the approval and it should be restored. Board member Thayer asked Mr. Ciaschi if he was building on the lot adjacent to the lot 5. Mr. Ciaschi responded no. He is building further up the road. Initially he was going to build right behind lot 5. Board member Thayer asked Mr. Ciaschi if he had any objection to a 30 foot buffer being reestablished. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Ciaschi stated he gave the owner a great deal. They might want to buy the back lot from him in the future. He does not want to give up land. He is not going to do it. The board could increase the side yard setback of 45 feet instead of 15 feet on the lot behind him. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Ciaschi why he could not convey a small triangular piece of land to lot 5. It is not a lot of land, but still preserves the 30 foot buffer. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would be easier than requiring the new owner to remove the pool and deck. It is something Mr. Ciaschi would need to discuss with Ms. Singer. Board Member Mitrano stated she is in favor of reinstating the buffer. Board Member Howe stated he is also in favor of reinstating the buffer. Mr. Ciaschi stated he is zoned R -15 for the remaining houses in the area. It could be changed to R -30. Chairperson Wilcox stated Mr. Ciaschi is offering to put the buffer in place by having the buffer on the adjacent. Lot 5 needs to have the 30 feet behind it, not the lot behind it. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. feet Mr. Kanter stated there is the issue of the 15 foot side yard setback. The board indicated that they did not have a problem allowing the side yard setback to be 14.4 Mr. Ciaschi asked if the board granted variances. Everything cannot be set in stone. Attorney Barney stated it is not a fair assumption. Mr. Ciaschi stated he did something that was honest. He owned all the property behind lot 5. He is coming before the board saying it should not be a big issue. When the life of the pool is over, it can be taken down and the 30 foot setback can be reinstated. The deck can also be removed. The life of the pool cannot be another 7 or 8 years. He does not want to give up more land. The Town has taken 10 %. He has wetlands. He has to build roads and turn them over to the Town in order to develop. Attorney Barney stated that they are all somewhat sympathetic to it. How much sympathy are they to have for somebody who is a developer that came in and put the proposal before the Town and then builds his own house and pool in the middle of the buffer? It is not an appealing case to make. He respects that Mr. Ciaschi is a great builder. This is an easy solution. He is not giving up a lot of land. Mr. Ciaschi should withdraw his current application and submit a new application with a slightly PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED modified subdivision that picks up the 30 foot buffer. The other alternative is that the board denies the application. Mr. Ciaschi stated that he does not understand why they board would not grant the appeal. Who would be bothered by it? He is the back lot owner. Attorney Barney stated he might not always be the owner. Mr. Kanter stated in 1995 Mr. Ciaschi came in with a sketch plan for developing the back lot with the future road. The Town has seen several different plans. Most of them have had a range of 8 to 10 lots of further development. Mr. Kanter stated he does not know of Mr. Ciaschi's intent to build at this point. There has been a road right -of -way that has been upgraded and cleared. It looks like a future subdivision. It has public sewer line with a manhole. Mr. Ciaschi should not be too pushy. Mr. Ciaschi put himself in this situation. The Planning Board did not put him in this situation. The board could approve the side yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -87- Modification of Buffer Requirement, Lot # 5 - Westwood Hills Subdivision, 124 Woolf Lane, Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Modification of the cluster buffer requirements for Lot # 5 in the Westwood Hills Subdivision located at 124 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118, Residence District R -15. The proposed modification would allow an above ground pool and a deck to remain within the 30 foot rear setback, and to allow the southeast corner of the house to be located 14.4 +/- feet from the side lot line where 15 feet is required. Doris Singer, Owner; Timothy Ciaschi, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to the modification of this Subdivision Approval, has on October 3, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for Westwood Hills, a 21 -lot, clustered subdivision on Woolf Lane on October 6, 1987, in which each lot in the cluster arrangement was subject to a 30 foot rear yard buffer setback, pursuant to the cluster provisions of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a 15 foot side yard buffer setback to reflect the R- 15 Residential zoning of the subdivision, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Lot 5 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Surveyor, T. G. Miller Associates P.C., dated September 6, 1988 and amended March 9, 2000, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for modification of this Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants the requested Modification of the cluster setback requirements for Lot # 5 in the Westwood Hills Subdivision located at 124 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.118, Residence District R -15 to allow the southeast corner of the house to be located no closer than 14.2 feet to the side lot line where 15 feet is required, and 3. The Planning Board denies the requested modification to allow an above ground pool and a deck to remain within the 30 foot rear setback. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Wilson Lab — Addition of Temporary Modular Offices, Route 366. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:19 p.m. Bob McIntyre, Bovis Lend Lease, stated they would give the board an overview of what happens at Wilson Lab and why it is important to the community. Chairperson Wilcox stated what is being presented is different from what the board received in their packets. Ms. Ritter stated the applicant has made modifications to the plan. Maury Tigner, Cornell University, stated the Wilson Lab facility was originally constructed in 1967. It was solely for the use of the Cornell faculty of the Lab of Nuclear studies. Thirty or forty persons were expected to use the facility. In 1978, a major upgrade, the Cornell Synchrotron Ring, was installed. The facility contained two activities. The first was continuing particle physics and the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED other was X -ray science. This field of action is to study the structure of biological systems. This facility has an extremely broad use. Due to these facilities, there are 150 visiting users on any particular day. Cornell is one of eight such facilities across the globe. It is an advantage for students and faculty. It is important to have this facility in Ithaca, New York. It gives Ithaca a world class facility for students and faculty. It also brings scholars from around the world. Laboratory space is needed for students and faculty. When they came to this phase in 1978, they had considerable amount of laboratory space available. They had 14,000 square feet of laboratory space available to do the developments needed. Today, they only have slightly more than 1,000 square feet of laboratory space available. They have used the other space to use as services and offices. As a result there is no large laboratory space. They need temporary laboratory space. Mr. Tigner stated they would need the temporary space as soon as possible. They hope that within two years they are able to make a proposal to the National Science Foundation for the facilities and that they will approve them. They could then begin planning detail designs on the new facilities. Board Member Mitrano asked what do the temporary modular offices look like. Mr. Tigner stated they would look similar to the existing modular offices. Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, stated they have submitted slight modifications to the site plan in response to the comments Ms. Ritter prepared in her review. Ms. Ritter called to discuss her concerns about the project. Ms. Wolf stated she then met with the University. They attempted to respond to her concerns. Cascadilla Creek is located along the bottom of the property. The drive to the site is aligned with Pine Tree Road at the Route 366 intersection. The proposal it to locate the modular buildings in the furthest parking bay. The balance of the parking would remain. The parking would be replaced on site. The existing will be maintained with slight modifications. Ms. Ritter expressed a concern about the proximity of the parking to the creek. The eastern edge of the property does not have vegetation growing on the bank. It is eroding in that area. There is existing vegetation that does hold up the bank further to the west. The eastern edge is not vegetated, therefore it is more vulnerable to erosion. The proposal is to replace the existing parking that has been removed. They are not adding additional parking. Wilson Lab is concerned that they maintain the amount of current parking. The modification is to eliminate four parking spaces that are located closest to the creek. The drive will also be narrowed. This allows the applicant to gain 10 feet of buffer between the parking and the edge of the creek. In most of the area, they have between 18 and 24 feet separation. Another aspect of the proposal is to grade the bank back at a more gently sloping angle. They are going to add landscaping to stabilize the bank. The other significant aspect to the project is that the parking lot currently drains to two catch basins that are located near the southern edge of the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED parking lot. They outlet directly to Cascadilla Creek. They are proposing to convert the existing traffic island in the parking lot and an area in front of the building to a biofilter strip. It is a depressed grass area that allows water to sit in it and filter down. Below that are a sand filter and a pipe that takes the water to the creek after the water has been filtered. They are able to capture a good share of the water from the existing lot and treat it. The new lot is sloped to the new biofilter. One disadvantage of the biofilter is that they are unable to plant trees on top of it. This causes them to be limited to the number of trees planted in the islands. Multi -stem trees are being investigated. Ms. Wolf stated there is an issue with large trucks being able to turn around. The large trucks back into the first bay of parking where the new modular offices will be located. They are truncating the existing traffic island. It will be striped to allow the trucks to back out without hitting another car. There are two existing light poles at the end of the two existing islands. The lights will be relocated to the ends of the new islands. There will be lighting mounted to the modular facility. Handicap accessible parking has been provided. A new curb will be installed with a sidewalk along the front face of the building and the side of the building with handicap accesses to the front door. Mr. McIntyre stated their timeline is driven by outside forces. Site constraints and programmatic requirements of the laboratory drive the site location. The structure is limited by market availability in the temporary modular market. They intend to match the existing modular offices. The previous provider is GE. Elevations of their standard offerings were included in the original package. The color scheme will match the existing offices. It has a dark flat roof with a maroon trim around the top. It has a light white siding with a tan skirting. They have addressed some of the lighting concerns raised by Town staff. The lights are low wattage. They are 150 watts at each of the entrances. The existing lighting on the site will be relocated because of the configuration. They provided a picture of the fixtures to the board. The fixtures were installed 30 years ago. The literature no longer exists on the fixtures. If the funding comes through on the next phase, then they will be back before the board in a few years to address new lighting concerns and the remainder of the project. They are trying to address the short -term requirement to create better office environments to be more competitive in their chosen market. Board Member Howe asked what happens if the funding does not come through. What is the longevity of the building? Mr. McIntyre stated the operation would scale back and they would not need as much space. The proposal would need to become more attractive to attract the funding. If they do not get the funding, the modular offices would be removed. Board Member Conneman stated the funding timeline is long. Mr. McIntyre stated the National Science Foundation controls the timeline. In October of 2003, Wilson Lab will make their next application. It takes approximately 1 year for the review process. In November 2004, Wilson Lab would get the results of the funding. If they were approved for the funding, they would commission an architect and go through the design process. The design process would take 6 months to 1 year. It brings them to October 2005. Construction would take one year to a year and a half. This would bring them to 2007. There are many a number of steps where they could stumble for 3 to 6 months. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked when was the last time the lab applied for money. Mr. McIntyre responded they are on a 5 year cycle. Mr. Tigner stated they are in the second year of the 5 year cycle. Board Member Hoffmann asked when would they have applied for money last time. Mr. Tigner stated they would have applied in 1997 with approval in 1998. The end of the 5 years is 2003. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they applied for building money for this site in the last cycle. Mr. Tigner responded they applied for money to upgrade the current facility. They receive $20 million per year for 5 years. This money will be used for current operations and carrying out their current scientific program. They will use some of it for the R & D that will be used to support the next proposal. The proposal in 2003 will be asking for funds to erect and operate a new facility to address the new buildings. Board Member Mitrano asked if there has ever been this type of proposal that was not accepted. Mr. Tigner stated they have made proposals in the past that were not accepted, but then made another proposal that was accepted. Mr. McIntyre stated Wilson Lab has always been able to put together proposals that have kept them viable for another 5 year cycle. Every 5 years they need to start over. Board Member Hoffmann stated she is sympathetic with what the laboratory is trying to do. She is also concerned about what happens to the lands surrounding the site. She is very concerned about the creek and the unique natural area. Did anyone contact Cornell Plantations that operates the unique natural areas? Mr. McIntyre responded they met with the Plantations. They have addressed some of their concerns. Ms. Wolf stated they met with the Plantations on more than one occasion. The Plantations reviewed and gave input on the plant selections. They were concerned that no exotic plantings be established in the unique natural area. They were actively involved in the planning, layout, and design and plant selection of the site. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they had any concern that the building is going to be close to the creek. The parking lot is also very close to creek. The southwest corner of the parking lot is closest to the creek. The southern end of the parking lot has very little vegetation between the parking lot and the water. She thought parking spaces would be eliminated all along the edge of the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED parking lot in the modified site plan. She is disappointed to only see it done in the area of the proposed new parking. There could be more of a barrier between the parking lot and the unique natural area. Ms. Wolf stated they tried to minimize disturbance to the existing parking lot. Mr. McIntyre stated the reduction of spaces would increase some of the parking problems they have. They have a replacement in kind for the lost parking. Board Member Hoffmann stated there were a row of cars parked along the curve drive in on the northern side of the lot. Mr. McIntyre stated the site is constrained for parking. People has started to park there due to the lack of available parking spaces. Board Member Hoffmann stated the area is flat ground. Why cannot parking be created in the area to replace some spaces to be taken out closer to the creek? Ms. Wolf stated the area is occupied by parking now. They might be able to have a few additional spaces, but it is very wet. Chairperson Wilcox stated Board Member Hoffmann would like the parking along the drive to be formalized. Ms. Wolf stated she understands Board Member Hoffmann's point of view. This would not gain any spaces for Wilson Lab because cars currently park in the location. It does not make up the loss because it is currently occupied. Board Member Hoffmann stated it would help to have some parking spaces in that location. There is a lot parking on the other side of the lab in the Kite Hill Lot. Why could not some of those parking spaces by used by personnel of Wilson Lab? Mr. McIntyre stated it is used as a contractor's parking lot. It is a remote site for some of the other on -site construction projects. They tried to address some of the parking issues in several different ways. They have a portion of the visitor's use public and Cornell transportation. Others park in adjacent lots. Visiting scientists are from out of town. They do not understand the existing transit system. They have a constant flow of short -term scientist visiting the facility. Board Member Hoffmann stated she is sure the scientist can learn just as everyone. They are very intelligent people. Mr. McIntyre stated he is certain they can learn. They are only here a short time. The space could be formalized. This plan does not show that there is a steep hillside along the site. Ms. Wolf stated they did look at extending the parking along the drive. They are unable to do so because of the hillside. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated there is enough space in the gravel area for people to park in an informal manner. It should be possible to create a more formal way of parking there without coming up into the hillside. Ms. Wolf stated the area is currently full with parking now. Board Member Hoffmann stated it is has not been counted on the drawing. Ms. Wolf stated they have not included it. They did not go into the area. The area is already full. To say they could replace the parking in that location does not really replace it. Board Member Hoffmann stated the parking spaces that are indicated that are existing are also full now, but they are indicated. Mr. McIntyre stated the parking was not counted because it is not changing. The parking that is being removed is being replaced minus 4 parking spaces. If all the parking were included in the overall calculations, the net change between the original configuration and the proposed configuration would still remain 4 spaces less. Mr. Kanter stated Board Member Hoffmann asked if it was possible to further reduce the number of spaces. In conjunction with that, the discussion has evolved into are spaces available where parking is informal. Are there other places where new parking could be added? If the answer is no, then they need to move onto another discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to see it pursued. She would like to find parking spaces in close proximity that can be used by people who work in the facility that are not located along the creek. She has a strong concern about the effects of the project on the creek and the unique natural area. Mr. Tigner was discussing biologically interesting molecules. It is an interesting topic, but there are biologically interesting molecules in some of the plants and animals that live in the unique natural areas. It is her job to look after that. Ms. Wolf stated it was explored as part of developing this plan. There are obstacles and limitations in the surrounding sites. It was determined that this was the only nearby location where it was possible to make up the parking. Board Member Conneman asked what were the options discussed. Ms. Wolf stated she was not privy to all the discussions. Mr. McIntyre stated they reviewed about 9 different siting locations. Each had its own unique problems associated with it. After reviewing the different options, this plan appeared the best. He hoped that they had addressed some of the concerns with erosion on the bank by improving the plantings and the problems of the existing runoff with the addition of the biofilter areas. Board Member Hoffmann stated she appreciates that the plan has been improved. She would like to see it improved further. She is not feeling happy being expected to approve preliminary and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED final site plan on a project where the applicant cannot tell the board what the various alternative looked at for parking are. It is not good enough. Board Member Conneman stated there are many people at Cornell University that park away from where they work. Not everyone is able to park outside their office. Mr. Tigner stated they work 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Many of the outside users come in for a period of a day to 2 weeks. They work odd shifts. There are no parking spaces available after 8:30 a.m. It is difficult when scientist bring apparatus with them. They need to come in very close to the building. They need to use the apparatus immediately because they only have a few hours of beam time. It is very difficult for them to deal with a situation when they have to park in A -Lot or another lot. Board Member Hoffmann stated she understands, but everyone has to make accommodations to situations and allow enough time. Board Member Howe asked if staff could respond to the changes presented to the board. Ms. Ritter stated this is not an ideal site. If it was undeveloped they might be able to reconsider it. There is existing parking. Throughout the Town and City there is development right up to our streams. She is hoping in the future they can get away from that. This is the existing situation. She does appreciate the applicant putting in the biofilters to the existing parking lot. It will help to treat the runoff. They have also added an additional buffer. The applicant has compromised. Board Member Mitrano asked Ms. Ritter if she would be happier if the 4 spaces closest to the stream were removed from the existing parking. Ms. Ritter responded she had not thought of the applicant removing the existing parking. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would like to encourage the board to tread lightly on something that was approved before. He does wish the previous approvals did not allow the parking to be within a couple feet of the bank. He presumes the Planning Board before allowed it. The thinking, rules and regulations were different. Concerns and considerations were different. It was done. Chairperson Wilcox stated his issue is the new parking. Where the new parking is proposed and how close it was proposed bother him. In addition, the erosion is continuing. He was worried about the parking lot eventually falling in. He is concentrating on the changes being proposed. He is worried about the biofiltered system and making sure that it is monitored and maintained. The Town needs to know it is being monitored and maintained. Ms. Ritter stated they do need to make sure that Cornell has a plan. It is important that the storm filters be maintained. They will not work after a certain point if they are not maintained. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to know more about the plans for the future when the temporary offices are eliminated and a permanent building is in place. Where would it be located and where would parking be located? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. McIntyre stated they would bring a separate proposal before the board at that time. They do not have the information to propose it at this time. They do not know what funding will be available or if any funding would be available. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board is being told that in order to eventually eliminate the modular facilities the board should allow one more. In order to eliminate them, additional laboratory has to be funded and built. He would like to know where it could be built on the site. If it cannot be built on the site, they might have temporary modular facilities for the next 20 years. Someone could come back in 2005 or 2008 and want another extension. Mr. McIntyre stated they have looked at several sites. Going into this area represents a possible segmentation issue in the SEQR process. He is not sure if it is appropriate. He could share potential sites, but none of it has been developed. Chairperson Wilcox stated he wants to be assured there is room on the site to build what they are looking to get funded so that the trailer could be removed. Shirley Egan, Cornell University, stated she does not think there is a potential segmentation issue. The point is they do not know where it would be. It would depend upon what is required, what is funded. This approval before the board does not force or pave the way for some improvement or extension on this site. It might be in another township. This application should not be connected with something else happening on the site. It might be, in which case they would come back before the board. The board would be free at that time to judge it by the same site plan criteria that they would judge any other application by without this having forced it to have to be approved. It is not relevant. This is something they did spend a lot of time discussing. She wanted to make sure that they did come before the board without this straying near a segmentation issue under SEAR. She does not believe it does. This could be a project that requires it be built elsewhere. They do not know at this time. Chairperson Wilcox stated the new modular trailer could also be built elsewhere in the same way. The new facility would be lab space. Ms. Egan stated this is office space for people whose labs will be inside the building. They do need to be connected with the existing space. It is going to be inconvenient for them having to come to another building. This is deliberately close to the existing space. The future shape of Wilson Lab is not known. It is far in the future. It would be impossible to say where it would be located. Attorney Barney asked where are the offices currently for the people they are intending to house Mr. Tigner responded they have a facility operating 7 days per week. The R &D that will be needed to support a new proposal is being done. This is an operating facility. Whenever something goes wrong these people have to be available to go back into the building. They need to be in close proximity. Those people are now crammed into Wilson Laboratory. They have 45 square feet per PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED person on the average. They do not intend to increase the number of personnel on the site. They have to get them out of the space that was taken over from the original labs. Board Member Conneman stated he is unclear why they would not give up some parking space to protect the creek more. Mr. Tigner stated they have to put themselves in the hands of the experts. He is qualified to emphasize to their professional colleagues is that they are in a competitive situation. They have users that could go to another facility. It is to their benefit to have these people come to them. If they make it to inconvenient for them they will go elsewhere. Board Member Mitrano asked where would they go. Mr. Tigner responded they would go to Brookhaven. Board Member Hoffmann stated she assumes the red twig dogwood likes to grow near water. Ms. Wolf stated it does like the water. They are going to grade the portion of the bank that is vertical. It will have a gentle slope. They will then do the plantings. The red twig dogwood is very good for holding soil. They are going to plant them closely so that very quickly there is coverage of the surface area. Board Member Hoffmann asked if this plant could be planted along other areas of the bank as well. The drainage will be changing. She is concerned about the other areas of the bank. Ms. Wolf stated the area drains directly into the catch basin and out the culvert. It will be held longer in the biofilter areas. There will be less going out immediately. It should result in an approved situation. One issue is the impact of run -off on water quality. They want to filter the run -off. The filtering of the run -off occurs inside the parking lot in the filter strips. The second issue is the stabilization of the erosion that is occurring because of the natural flooding, lowering and rising of the stream. The purpose of the red twig dogwood is to stabilize the bank. If there are places along the bank that would benefit from the treatment at the time they were doing the plantings then it would be something the University would be willing to do. Board Member Hoffmann asked where does the run -off from the roof go. Ms. Wolf stated there are scuppers that will go into the parking lot, into the biofilter, and into the grass area. It is not being treated subsurface. It is considered clean water. Board Member Mitrano asked if the bank was eroding because of the parking lot. Ms. Ritter responded it is eroding because of the bridge embankment. It is common around bridge abutments. Mr. Walker stated this area is not natural. The velocity of the stream is eroding the bank. The configuration of the bridge on Route 366 and the bridge to Wilson Lab has caused erosion. It has PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED been an ongoing problem. They have addressed it whenever it washed out bad enough to threaten one of the structures. It needs maintenance, but the vegetative treatment will improve the area. They have a good plan for stabilizing the stream. Ms. Wolf stated there are other alternatives, but this is more appropriate treatment. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:21 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -88 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Wilson Lab — Addition of Temporary Modular Offices, Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2. MOTION made by Rod Howe, Larry Thayer. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval for the proposed addition of temporary modular facilities (until 2008) to serve the Wilson Laboratory Synchrotron, located off NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Residential District R -30. The proposal includes construction of 7,056 +/- square feet of temporary modular office space and the relocation of 33 parking spaces. This also includes consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend the current Special Approval for the existing 4,200 square foot modular facility until 2008. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert L. McIntyre, Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. and Katherine Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Site Survey," sheet S001, dated September 5, 2000, "Layout Plan," sheet L101, "Planting Plan," sheet L102, "Grading and Drainage Plan," sheet C101, and "Utility Plan," sheet C102, dated September 14, 2000, and further revised October 2, 2000, and "Site Details," sheet L103, dated September 6, 2000, and revised 14, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval for the proposed addition of temporary modular facilities (until 2008) to serve the Wilson Laboratory Synchrotron, located off NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Residential District R -30. The proposal includes construction of 7,056 ± square feet of temporary modular office space and relocation of 37 parking spaces. This also includes consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend the current Special Approval for the existing 4,200 square foot modular facility until 2008. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert L. McIntyre, Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., and Katherine Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:22 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated he has issues with the resolution, not with the plan. The proposed resolution is that the special approval is granted until the end of 2008 for the temporary structures. It would be appear based on previous actions by this Planning Board the 5 years was the amount of time given. He is uncomfortable with granting approval for 8 '/4 years. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it does not need to be 5 years. Each Planning Board can decide what they deem appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox stated it appears by the timeline, Cornell will know if they have funding by 2005. He is more comfortable with granting approval until 2004 or 2005. It would require them to come back and extend out until 2008. The board would have a better idea of what is happening. Board Member Mitrano asked how was the date chosen. Mr. McIntyre responded the date was chosen on what they considered the project start date and end date. They did not want to tie up the board's time with 3 or 4 separate meetings. They have a firm grasp on what the future holds. Board Member Mitrano asked if Mr. McIntyre would have a problem coming back to the board in 5 years. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Shirley Egan, Cornell University, stated when Cornell applies for grants she is called upon to give title opinions. The opinions state what our rights are, what an approval says, or what the zoning says. She has to guarantee the potential funding agency that they have the ability to be there for a certain amount of time. It is a factor they discussed. They need to be able to assure the potential through an opinion she gives them about the viability they have for the site to see it through. It would be a large cloud for their project. Board Member Howe stated that he is comfortable with 2008. Board Member Conneman stated he is not comfortable with it. It is a long time. Chairperson Wilcox stated he is not going to vote against the project. Board member Thayer stated they are going to have to come back to the board with the plans of the building in 2005 or 2006. Chairperson Wilcox stated the substance is what is being proposed. Board Member Hoffmann stated she does not remember the timeline. When will the money be secured? Chairperson Wilcox stated they will know sometime in that timeframe if the grant money if available. The modular facilities will be on site until the new project is done and the new office space is available. Board Member Hoffmann stated the Town can give extensions and the board has given extensions before. Attorney Barney asked when the applicant would know if they had the funding. Mr. Tigner stated there is no fixed rule. They have the great benefit of having a 5 year agreement. In the past it has been 1 year at a time. They do not know what will be in the future. It will depend upon what the plan is and how big it is. Certain NSF projects require a 3 year period of review of the proposal. If they make their proposal in 2003, they will not know until 2006. Attorney Barney stated they figured a period of time for design, preparation and building. In order to have the temporary offices moved by 2008, the applicant will need to be notified by 2005. The temporary offices could be approved until 2008 conditional upon the funding in 2005. It would automatically be renewed if the funding were available. This is an 8 year extension of modular offices constructed in 1993. They will be there 15 years as temporary office space. It is a long time. The board is concerned. Ms. Egan responded she is concerned that when she has to write a title opinion in 2003, she would have to mention the condition. It is something that would be complicated for them. She would like to have something clean that does not look like they are being micromanaged by the local government. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Attorney Barney stated they are asking for a temporary situation. This board does not want to grant an 8 year situation in the absence of some kind of evidence that they are needed for 8 years. They should know by 2005 if the funding is available. Ms. Egan stated she would have to tell someone they are only assured being able to keep their offices until 2005. If their decision is not made until 2006, it throws a wrench into it. Board Member Mitrano stated Attorney Barney meant something subtler. It could be used to Cornell's advantage. A good proposal is needed because Cornell is competing with many other institutions. Cornell would like a proposal that is clean and fast. Ms. Egan stated they do want a clean proposal. They do not want anything that looks "iffy ". Board Member Mitrano stated Ms. Egan could explain the condition. Ms. Egan stated they gave the timeline as their best guess. NSF might ask for a 3 year review period. NSF is comparing competing applications. They are not going to call if they do not understand something. The cleaner, more assured, and more supported the application is, the better the chances are. They are tick marks against the application. What is the Town gaining by not allowing the approval for 8 years? This is vastly important not to jeopardize. Board Member Mitrano stated she does support the project. She is concerned having something extended that far into the future, especially if it has begun 7 years ago. Ms. Egan stated she is going by her experience and the briefing she receives from people. If they knew by 2005 that they would not get the funding, they would not need the modular offices. They will be removed because something was built, or they will be gone because something could not be built. If Cornell wanted to extend it beyond 2008 they would need to come back to the board. Board Member Conneman asked Attorney Barney to restate what he had proposed. Attorney Barney stated he had suggested the board grant the application until October 2005 with the condition that it be automatically extended if the funding is available. Chairperson Wilcox stated they need to build more space in order to remove the temporary space. If the University receives the funding to build permanent space, then the board will grant the additional 3 years. The board has shown continuing willingness to grant extensions for the modular trailers. Board Member Hoffmann stated Ms. Ritter has recommended that the board make a condition there be an agreement for regular maintenance of the biofilter. Ms. Ritter stated for a parking lot this size, the sand would only need to be replaced every 3 or 4 years. They also need to change the date in the resolution for the new revised site plan. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Tigner stated they appreciate the continuing patiences the board has had with them. They are not happy with the temporary buildings either. One reason there was a continuing appeal to extend it is because of the extreme skill in managing a facility that they were able to extend the lifetime of the current facility by upgrading it. It continues to be attractive to the users for whom they have to provide space. They have come to the end of the line. They have used up the upgradability of this particular facility. They have to make a real "college try" to address a new frontier. He understands where the board is coming from. They will abide by the board's decision. He is appealing for some flexibility. He does not know if he is going to have guaranteed funding by 2005. It could be another year later. It is true that the NSF looks for home support. They need to demonstrate that their home team is behind them. Board Member Mitrano asked if they did not receive the funding one year could they obtain it the following year that starts another 5 year cycle. Is the concern that the year there is no funding would fall within the board's time limit of having the approval? Mr. Tigner stated it might not be a 5 year cycle. It was something that they were successful in negotiating with the NSF. Five years from the time that they made the last proposal they need to make another one. It could be for 1 year or 10 years. If the proposal is not accepted then they will immediately make another proposal. They were fortunate in being able to secure the 5 year cooperative agreement. Board Member Conneman stated the approval would automatically be extended if they obtain funding. Does not it mean anything? Board Member Howe stated the applicant might not know in 2005. Board Member Hoffmann stated if the plan was not in place, they could come back to the board and ask for an extension. Board member Thayer stated the contingency is not necessary. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would accept the extension until 2008. Chairperson Wilcox stated the resolution requires that a submittal of the maintenance and inspection plan be given to the Town of the storm water and biofilter area. The board could require an annual report. Mr. Kanter stated it would be helpful for the enforcer. It will require a periodic inspection. Chairperson Wilcox asked what timeline is reasonable. Ms. Ritter responded it is a small parking lot. The clean up of the biofilter would be every 4 or 5 years. Ms. Wolf stated it is not unreasonable to inspect it yearly. The biofilter under normal operating situations would still be functioning after 5 years. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Ms. Ritter stated the Town might want to do inspections. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to see additional plantings on the bank. She would like Cornell Plantations to give the advice on the plantings. Ms. Ritter stated it could be done if it is found necessary. Board member Thayer stated he is not clear how it would be inspected. Board Member Hoffmann stated she did not look carefully at some of the locations on the bank. The bank closest to the southwestern corner of the existing parking lot is eroding. She would like to protect the bank and water from erosion. Board member Thayer stated it has been addressed by the biofilter. Board Member Hoffmann stated there is also a problem with the creek. They are doing something to the creek bed further to the east. She remembers going to a stream bank workshop. When changes are made along a stream it very often creates problems not anticipated downstream. Ms. Ritter stated she does not know of any location on the bank where it is eroding. There are some big trees along the bank. Riprap and rocks change the energy of the creek. The plantings would not create that problem. Board Member Hoffmann stated it would also change the slope. Ms. Ritter stated she would not anticipate that kind of problem. It would not change the energy and cause erosion down the creek. Mr. Kanter stated his concern is that it is an unenforceable condition. They are problematic for staff to decide if the condition has been met. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the condition is not necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -89 - Wilson Lab - Addition of Temporary Modular Offices and Parking, Cornell University, Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation for Special Approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed addition of 7,056 +/- square feet of temporary modular office space (until 2008) and the addition to the current parking lot of 33 parking spaces to serve the Wilson Laboratory Synchrotron, and consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend the current PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Special Approval for the existing 4,200 square foot modular facility until 2008. Located off NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Residential District R -30, Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert L. McIntyre, Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., and Katherine Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting a lead agency in environmental review has accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part Il, prepared by the Town Planning Department, and has on October 3, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on October 3, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials presented by the applicant, including drawing entitled "Site Survey" sheet S001 dated 91512000, "Layout Plan" sheet L101, "Planting Plan" sheet L102, "Grading & Drainage Plan" sheet C101, "Utility Plan" sheet C102, dated September 6, 2000, revised September 14, 2000, and revised further October 2, 2000 and Site Details" sheet L103, dated September 6, 2000 and revised September 14, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, and supplemental information provided by the applicant. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waivers will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition of 7,056 +/- square feet of temporary modular office space (until December 31, 2008) and the addition to the current parking lot of 37 parking spaces to serve the Wilson Laboratory Synchrotron, as shown on the drawings entitled "Site Survey" sheet S001 dated 91512000, "Layout Plan" sheet L101, "Planting Plan" sheet L102, "Grading & Drainage Plan" sheet C101, "Utility Plan" sheet C102, dated September 6, 2000, revised September 14, 2000, and further revised October 2, 2000, and "Site Details" sheet L 103, dated September 6, 2000 and revised September 14, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. the granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, b. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, including the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic survey and the date of the survey, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit; C. submittal to the Town of Ithaca prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, of a maintenance and inspection plan for the stormwater biofilter area, for review and approval by the Director of Engineering, such plan to include at least annual reports of PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED inspection to the Town and replacement of the filter material as necessary to insure the adequate operation of the biofilter area. AND BE I T FURTHER RESOL VED: 1. That the Planning Board in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant, b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project, C. the proposed use as a result of the proposed project is not in conflict with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval for the installation of a 7,056 +/- square foot modular office and expansion of the parking area be granted, subject to the following: a. That such Special Approval shall expire on December 31, 2008. 3. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for extension of the existing Special Approval for the existing 4,200 square foot modular facility until 2008 be granted, subject to the following condition: a. That such Special Approval shall expire on December 31, 2008. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of a new 18,000 ± square foot carpenter and paint shops building in Cornell University's Precinct 7 /Orchards area, located on Palm Road off Route 366 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 64 -1 -1 and 64 -1- 2, Special Land Use District No. 9. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven Wright, Director of Planning, Design & Construction, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Steven Wright, PDC, stated they are trying to build a metal building in Precinct 7. Precinct 7 serves as the service area for the rest of the campus. They are proposing to put the building across PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED from the Orchards. This area stores debris, cut down trees, among other items. Sometimes contractors store equipment. They also store building materials that they do not want to dispose of. The Cornell Masonry and Carpenter Shops are currently located at the Humphreys Service Building on Maple Avenue. The Paint Shop is located in Beck Hall. They would like to take the Carpenter and Paint Shops and move them to the new facility. The building has an eave height of about 14 feet and the peak of the roof is about 25 feet. Parking will be adjacent to the building. Carpenter and Paint Shops functions would be performed inside. There will be a loading dock off the building. Chairperson Wilcox asked if it is a staging area for craftsmen to go out onto the Campus or is it warehouse facility where functions are done. Mr. Wright stated there are people who would work in the facility. Their job would be to manufacture items. There are other people who come to the site as a staging area. There could be 30 to 40 workers in the wintertime, or 80 or more in the middle of summer. They have morning and night shifts. They come to the building and leave in buses to go to a site. Chairperson Wilcox asked if these are the shops that were housed in Pleasant Grove. Mr. Wright stated it was a different function. Their maintenance forces are at one satellite office located in the basement of Donlon Hall. They serve the North Campus facilities. It is an organizational and geographical separation of the shops. Board member Thayer stated they would initially drive to this area. How many cars are anticipated? Mr. Wright stated there is little carpooling. Shifts are staggered. The busier they are the more likely they are to spread out the shifts. One car per person would be average. In the winter the shops could be a low as 50. In the summer the shops could have 100. The department runs like an enterprise. They bring more people on when they are hired for jobs. They have 6 regular painters and 15 regular carpenters. It would never be less than 21 people. Chairperson Wilcox stated this is great location for this function. Board member Thayer asked if the building would be visible from Route 366. Mr. Wright responded no. They had originally designed a smaller footprint and a higher building. The building could be seen from Route 366. They made the building a little larger and brought the pitch of the roof down. Chairperson Wilcox stated when Mr. Wright comes before the board for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval he should have a good idea of how many employees are going to be there, their shifts. Traffic is very important. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Wright stated he could tell the board what they have done. It changes from year to year. He will try to be as accurate as possible. Chairperson Wilcox stated the materials the board received indicate because there are berms all the way around, the drainage stays on site. The water will need to go someplace at some point. Mr. Wright stated the material is porous. They have a lot of fill on the site that helps to absorb the runoff. Chairperson Wilcox stated this is a staging site for contractors and debris. There is a lot of fiberglass insulation on the site in the northeast corner. He would like to see it removed. He also drove around the site. The berms make it difficult to see the fill, mulch and concrete. There is a lot of material that cannot be seen from the road. Board member Thayer stated he assumes the parking lot will be lit and outside lighting on the building. Mr. Wright stated they are incorporating a series of lights around the building. There will be a 100 watt light at the entrance of the building. The masons arrive at 6:00 a.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated lighting is needed for safety. Mr. Kanter asked if there is going to be a buffer between the building and the debris on site. Will the appearance of the site be improved? Mr. Wright responded if there were shops out there the appearance would improve. They also allow contractors to stage equipment so that it is not spread over campus. Mr. Kanter stated the board would need information on paint and other dangerous materials. Mr. Wright stated in the current paint shop it is a 90 day satellite accumulation area. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would come up during SEAR review. Board Member Hoffmann stated she was reviewing the regulations for Precinct 7. She understands the word site to mean where each individual project is happening. Mr. Wright was indicating the larger area to be part of the site. She assumes he will be treating the area of the building and parking lot as a site. Mr. Wright responded they realize they will influence much of the area. Board Member Hoffmann stated in terms of how large a percentage could be buildings and parking, the board would look at the smaller area. Chairperson Wilcox stated it is not unreasonable to think this is the first building on this piece of land. There might be others down the road. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 29 OCTOBER 3, 2000 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -APRIL 3, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Wright stated he would work on the concerns of the board. Mr. Kanter asked if the board would be willing to do Preliminary and Final Site Plan in one meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated the board would consider the possibility. They would not like to grant Final approval if there would be a lot of conditions to the resolution. It would not be a problem if the materials are sufficient and the board's questions are answered. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:25 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Kanter stated the Town Board promoted Susan Ritter to the position of Assistant Town Planner. The Town Board also promoted Mike Smith to the Environmental Planner position. The Planner position is vacant. seat The board congratulated Ms. Ritter and Mr. Smith on their promotions. Board Member Howe asked if there had been any applications for the vacant Planning Board Mr. Kanter responded they have not had any. Board member Thayer asked if someone would have to live in the Town for a certain amount of time. Mr. Kanter stated they need to be a resident of the Town. It includes the Village of Cayuga Heights. One Town Board member is a resident of Cayuga Heights. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 3, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie L. Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.