Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-03-01TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. March 1. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Continuation of SEQR Determination: lacovelli 2-Lot Subdivision, 341 Coddington Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 341 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53.-1 -14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structure and subdividing the 1.47 ■¥!- acre parcel into a 0.51 +/- acre parcel (Lot 1 A) and a 0.96 +/- acre parcel (Lot IB). Orlando lacovelli, Owner/Applicant. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition project, located on the Ithaca College campus at 148 Conservatory Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 .-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves an 838 +/- square foot addition to the southwest comer of the Gannett Center for an additional boiler room. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Construction, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 2016 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SP()LCi:@TO\N N.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httpi/Avww.town.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. March 1.2016 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 1, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 341 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53.-1-14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structure and subdividing the 1.47 +/- acre parcel into a 0.51 +/- acre parcel (Lot 1 A) and a 0.96 +/- acre parcel (Lot IB). Orlando lacovelli, Owner/Applicant. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition project, located on the Ithaca College campus at 148 Conservatory Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves an 838 +/- square foot addition to the southwest comer of the Gannett Center for an additional boiler room. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Constmction, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, Febmary 22,2016 Publish: Wednesday, Febmary 24,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Halh 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. March 1. 2016 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: February 22, 2016 Date of Publication: February 24, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24'^ day of February 2016. Nqtaiy Public --DEBORAH KELLEY / Notary- Public, State of New York r- No. 01KE5025073 Oualified in Schuyler CounV Commission Expires May 17, 20_l_ THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS TuMday.Man:ht.20l6 By drecilon of tl>e Chairper son of the Plannir^ Bosnf. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tfiat Public Haahngs wO be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tues day. March 1. 2016, at 215 North Tloga Street. Ithaca, ^.y.. at the following times dnd on die folowing matters: TKXIP.M. Consklerstion of Pr^mMry end Final Sub- cBvlsion Apptiyval for the pro posed 2-lU subdvision locat ed at 341 Goddmgton Road. Town of Ithsca Tax Parcel .No.153.4.14.22. .Medium Density Resideniiel Zone. The proposal involves (temoUshtoB the eidsiing structure and subdividing the 1.47 */• sere parcel into a G-SI *!■ acre parcel (Lot 1A) .and 8 0.96 *!■ acre parcel (Lot IB). Orlando lacovalli, Owner/i^iplicant. 7:30 P.M. Consideretion of Preliminary and Final-Site Plan Approval and Special Peimli for the proposed Itha ca College Gannett Center Keating-^ant Addition proj- - act, located on the Ithaca College campus at 148 Con- servolory Drive, Town of Itha ca Tax Parcel No, 41.-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves en 838 +/- square foot addi tion to the southwest comer of the Gannett Center for an additional boiler room Ithaca College. Owner/i^lcant: Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Con struction. Agent. Said Planning Board will at eaid time and said place hear ell persons in support of such matters or objwtlone there to. Persons may appear fay agent or in person. Indtvidu- eis with visual impelrmenls. hearing Impairments or otherspecial ne^. wll be provid ed with Bsslstsnce as neces- 'sary, iqnn request. Persons desring sesistance must make auch a request not less than 48 hours prior to the dme of the public heering. SusenRtter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday. February 22. 2016 2/24/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street March 1, 2016 7:00 p.m, PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address . J-C- TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, March I, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balcstra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Continuation of SEQR Determination: lacovelli 2-Lot Subdivision, 341 Coddington Road Mr. Fabbroni said he prepared an alternative site plan drawing, as requested at the previous meeting, that shows that there is no way to create the subdivision without going for a variance because they would need 115 feet (a 15-foot side-yard setback plus 100 feet for the lot width). He said that Mr. Brittain's way of interpreting a right-of-way was incorrect and that his attempt also doesn't meet the 115 feet. Mr. Fabbroni has surveyed the property and would certify to his dimensions. He said that going to the ZBA docs not guarantee being granted a variance. On the basis of that, they would like the board to take action on the original submission, which is to demolish the house and split the lot into two legal lots. Mr. Wilcox said that the idea of subdividing the lot in such a way that the existing house can be retained and a new buildable lot created without the need for variances is relevant if the board thinks the existing house should be retained and restored in some way. If they don't think that, the whole discussion is not relevant. Then there is the issue of the board's pitching another subdivision that might require variances. In his twenty-plus years on the board, he has never been in a position where a planning board favored a plan that might require variances. Ms. Collins said she personally is not in favor of the house being destroyed; it's a historically signifi cant house, and she was very influenced by the letter from Historic Ithaca. She also pointed out that the SEQR Part 2, #8, is currently checked as no impact and should be changed to moderate to large impact. Mr. Bosak said he agreed with Ms. Collins. He was persuaded by the evidence in the 1997 assessment and by the statements from Historic Ithaca that the house is of historic significance. He thinks there's the potential for a moderate to large impact in No. 8. Ms. Meier Swain said that even if the house is a candidate for the historic register, it can still be demolished. Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Wilcox asked what laws the town has to protect historic structures. Staff responded that there are none; there is the Comprehensive Plan and a Limited Historic Commercial Zone. The comp plan indicates that historic preservation is important, but doesn't lay out any plan or program to do that. Ms. Meier Swain said she thinks there is historic significance to the neighborhood, particularly given the plaque in the 600 block. There are other historic houses along that route. Ms. Fogarty said the other option is that the house could be saved by moving it either to another property or to another location on this property. Mr. Wilcox said though the house may be significant, he doesn't think it's in any shape to be saved or moved. He doesn t know how much of that is due to the former owners' neglect or because it sat vacant for so long before Mr. lacovelli bought it. Given the condition it's in, he can't see anyone coming up with the money to save or move it. He remembers when the Cradit Moore house was moved. It was important to save it and it was in a decent enough condition to pick up and move and restore. He's not convinced that this house can stand that or is worthy of that. Mr. Beach said he stopped by the property and concurs with Mr. Wilcox's comments. At one point, it may have had historic significance, but it is decayed beyond that now. Ms. Collins said she doesn't think anyone on the board has the expertise to make that determination. She knows it would take money to restore it. Historic Ithaca thinks it's worth discussing whether the house could be moved or restored. Mr. Bosak said the question about moving hinges not on what we can see; it hinges on the bones. On the face of it, he sees no reason to jump to the conclusion that this isn't in solid structural shape. A key question is whether or not the roof is holding up. He's not excited about the thought of moving it, but rather about what we can do with certain facts about the road and measurements. Ms. Fogarty said it seems to warrant a conversation between the applicant and Historic Ithaca to see if there's some way to save the house, and that the board is not in a position to make that decision. She s not interested in going through SEQR and making decisions about the subdivision until they figure out what's going to happen with the house. Mr. Haefeli said SEQR is not asking whether the board thinks it's viable, but whether doing the subdivision will impair the character of an important historic structure. The economics of saving it is not the question. Ms. Meier Swain said that looking at the structure itself, she has her doubts about whether it can be saved. Another investigation would need to be made to determine whether it's viable to save. Ms. Brock said that what s before you is the SEQR, and you have to look at the potential for adverse environmental impacts; environmental in SEQR includes architectural and historical resources. Under SEQR, one of the criteria you look at is whether there's the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, or architectural resources. You have to decide whether Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 3 of 11 this is an important historical or architectural resource. You have to make the determination based on what s in the record, not on any speculation. To the extent that you make site visits and make observations and you disclose those, that is in the record. If you think it is important, then you have to make the decision on whether demolishing the house would be a significant adverse impact. Mr. Fabbroni said they would be happy to take the suggestion that Ms. Fogarty is making for a site visit with Flistoric Ithaca about the possibilities of moving the house, as long as they're accompanied by a member of staff. If that reaches a dead end, they'll have their conclusion about what they need to do with the building. He said he comes from three generations of home builders and his son is an architect, so he knows a little about structures. This structure is going to be very expensive to rehabilitate, and someone else will have to come up with the money because you can't dictate that Mr. lacovelli spend his own. Mr. Haefeli wanted to be more informed about whether the building is historically significant or historically interesting. Mr. Bosak said the text of SEQR Part 2, #8 doesn't ask whether it's historically significant, but whether it's an important resource. Ms. Meier Swain asked how you would impair the character of something that is dilapidated. Ms. Brock said you might decide it's not important if it's dilapidated and is a safety hazard. She thinks SEQR is referring to its current character, not the character it would be if it were restored. She said you can t look at an infinite universe of possibilities; you have to look at what you have right now. Ms. Collins said that there are beautiful architectural details that still exist. She thinks that even though the house is dilapidated, it hasn't lost its inherent character. Ms. Brock asked Mr. Fabbroni how he arrived at a figure of 115 feet. Mr. Fabbroni responded that the lot they want to create has to be 100 feet at the setback line, and that the side yard for the existing house has to be 15 feet. Ms. Brock said that they're not cumulative; they're independent numbers. Mr. Fabbroni disagreed, saying that the figures are additive. A lengthy discussion ensued. Ms. Brock said what we really need to know is where the street line is, because our zoning requires a 50-foot setback from the street line. The width includes not only the pavement, but the shoulders; if there are ditches that are maintained by the county, it will be to the back of the ditch. If you put up guide rails or signs, it includes that area. For a highway by use, you have to look at what's actually used, not just where cars drive. That's why you have to look parcel by parcel. It was agreed that staff will contact the highway department to see how they measure the road width and where the street line on this road is at this property. Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Bosak asked why the existing house can't be a two-family. Mr. Fabbroni responded that the stairs don't comply with present-day code; there isn't the headroom required in present-day code. The configuration of the partitions in the building doesn't support the one-hour fire separation between units. The structure is sagging and not plumb. Some elements would make it expensive or unworkable to correct. Mr. Bates added that once the alteration is started, any areas that are involved in the alteration have to comply with the new code. Mr. lacovelli said that the bank put canvas on the roof five years ago. The roof has been leaking for five years, and now the canvas is almost destroyed. F|^ didn't bother with it because he had a permit to demo. Mr. Wilcox asked if the planning board has a time limit by which it has to act. Ms. Brock responded that the applicant was asking that the planning board not act tonight. She then confirmed that was the case with Mr. Fabbroni, and the applicant also agreed that no time limits for subdivision approval were running. Ms. Collins asked whether the board could amend what they were asking Mr. lacovelli to do to say that it should be done quickly or that the house should be safeguarded until the process is completed. Mr. Bates said the timeframe is up to Mr. lacovelli. Wliat to do to protect his investment is up to him. Currently, the house isn't a danger to anyone's welfare. Mr. Fabbroni added that the house was in bankruptcy for five years, and whatever the bank did to secure it wasn t much. Mr. lacovelli went to the auction and bought it. There wasn't a lot of interest in the house, including from Historic Ithaca. Ms. Brock said that if it looks like there's a way the house can remain, but the lot is one foot defi cient, the applicant can always go to the ZBA first and seek area variances before coming to the planning board. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the board approved the Amabel subdivision, which is 30 units on 15 or 16 acres. This board made a determination that there were no potential significant environmental impacts for 30 new units. Two weeks ago, the board discussed that this two-lot subdivision could have potential impacts on the character of the community. These are good-sized lots. Furthermore, a developer could put up two 2400-square-foot mini-mansions with an attached mother-in-law apart ment. Would we say that would have the potential for a significant negative environmental impact on the character of the community? This developer wants to put in two unattractive homes with four students on each side. One project doesn't rise to the level of an adverse environmental impact and one does. One we like, one we don't. He wants to make sure the board uses SEQR the way it's intended, which is to look at potential issues, and not as a means to try to prevent development we don t want. He doesn t want to make up potential impacts that don't exist and he wants to make sure the board is consistent with the way they've acted in the past. Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Meier Swain said that if you travel further down Coddington Road, you see houses clustering closer together, so the subdivision itself isn't an issue for her. The question is the character of the house and whether saving it or not saving it is in line with SEQR. Ms. Collins disagreed with the analogy. There is definitely a change in the character of the neighbor hood as you get closer to the city. She thinks there's a creeping of this type of housing into an existing community with a certain character. She thinks it's appropriate to look at the character of the existing community and whether a project fits. Mr. Bosak stated that he's undergone a philosophical shift in the past seven years regarding SEQR and zoning. His basic attitude was that if the zoning says it's legal, then the planning board wouldn't have anything to say about it, as long as someone's not doing anything environmental, like poisoning the air. Over the years, he's seen that there's a lot more that SEQR is concerned with, such as the character of the community. And he now sees that there are two things we deal with: a set of constraints imposed by town law and an equally important set of constraints imposed by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. When considering SEQR, what we're being asked to certify is that the environmental impact, which includes changes to character, is more than outweighed by the benefit to the community. He's not seeing a benefit to the community in this project, so he's not convinced that it will outbalance the other things he sees as potential harms. It seems to him that there's a potential for a significant environmental impact about intensity of land use. There's the potential that this could impair the character of the existing community, which is that stretch of road. Then considering Part 2, #8, it might be the case that we'll have a problem with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilcox remained confused as to how the board can look at a 30-lot subdivision and not see the potential, and look at a two-lot subdivision and find there is the potential. Ms. Brock pointed out that this is the MDR zone and density is encouraged. Mr. Bosak argued that what SEQR has to say and what our zoning has to say are equally important. Mr. Wilcox said that he doesn't think a reasonable person could conclude that a two-lot subdivision could have potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The key word is significant and also being consistent with how he judges things in the town of Ithaca. Ms. Collins said her concern is with the existing community. Mr. Fabbroni suggested that the board take a close look at the SEQR workbook to see how they define significant. Mr. lacovelli has been the closest neighbor to this property for 15 years and has endured living next door to this derelict property that has been in bankruptcy. That is as pertinent as any argument of significance - that he's trying to improve his adjacent neighbor. Ms. Fogarty said there are two factors that make a difference in her thinking. If there were no house and it was just a subdivision, that might make a difference. Also, if there weren't 21 other buildings like this in the neighborhood. Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Wilcox said that the buildings are ugly. The reason they're ugly is not because, as the applicant claims, the town forces him to build this type of duplex. The town doesn't force him to not put in bay windows or other architectural details that would make them look more pleasant. Mr. lacovelli said he tore down the worst houses on Pennsylvania and Coddington and replaced them with these. Mr. Bosak noted that the workbook stresses that it's up to the board to make up their minds. The more familiar he is with the workbook, the clearer it is to him that the opinions of the authors are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant, in terms of opinion, is the opinion of the legislators who passed SEQR in the first place, and since the workbook is a terrible guide to whatever they were thinking, he's left with his own interpretation. Ms. Collins said she looked at the houses Mr. lacovelli has built along Pennsylvania Avenue and they look like serviceable houses. The issue for her is that she assumes Mr. lacovelli is going to build the same type of house, and the question is: Is it appropriate for this neighborhood? Mr. Wilcox reminded the board that they don't have architectural review. We can't force them to build something else. Assuming he wants to build the same gray duplexes, they are perfectly legal there. They fit the zoning. They're not too tall. We've requested that the parking be on the side or in the back. Ms. Brock took issue with Mr. Bosak's statement to the effect that the standard you're applying isn't that you think there will be a significant adverse impact, but that you can't say there won't be, therefore you must have more study, and therefore you must have an EIS. The standard is that if you find, based on evidence in the record, that there is the potential for an adverse environmental impact, then you can pos dec it. You have to make a finding based on information that's in the record. To claim that since you can't prove a negative, you're going to pos dec it, is incorrect. John Lewis said Historic Ithaca would be delighted to meet with the applicant. His role with Historic Ithaca is not to make people's lives difficult. They're not seeking regulations to make people jump through hoops and make development impossible. What they are seeking is a conversation as a community to identify what gives this community character. In other parts of the country, they don't take planning and zoning as seriously as in this county and in New York State. We in New York are beginning to realize that our historic character not only gives us a sense of place and an environment that we love, it also provides economic opportunities to build on. Board members are being responsi ble citizens for considering what it is we want to preserve and build on. Preservationists are not trying to create a museum; they're not necessarily trying to save every old building, but they are suggesting that historic character should be part of the conversation. The National Register of Historic Places has four basic areas: 1) whether a significant event or important historic person is associated with the site; 2) whether the building is of particular architectural significance; 3) whether the building or site is reflective of significant social, economic, cultural movements that reflect the history of the commu nity - and this is what we're talking about with this particular site. This building is an example of the type of farm houses built for prosperous family farms on roads leading into Ithaca. You have to weigh that story against other considerations of importance in the community. The fourth area deals with archeological resources having to do with the native population that doesn't have buildings still standing, and recognizing that there might be important artifacts. You can be on the historic register Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 7 of 11 and have no legal restrictions regarding what you can do with your property. The state of New York has local regulations that are stronger than national regulations. Bruce Brittain said one could argue that demolishing a historic house could impair its quality and character. The developer has options. One is rehabbing on the existing lot and then renting or selling the house; rehabbing costs less than new construction. The house being out of plumb adds to a house's value and is part of its charm. He has participated in moving and rehabilitating houses. He thinks the house could be moved to make the two lots legal. Mr. Fabbroni is right in saying Mr. Brittain did not survey the property himself. He hopes there's a good faith effort to preserve the house. Steve Gibbian said he has lived on Coddington Road since 1983. He's an architect and is a member of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission. He's always admired that house and he wanted to make sure some thought was put into preserving it. He bemoans the number of gray boxes popping up over the years. The reason he attended the meeting is that he thinks it's possible to move the house and preserve it. He did not investigate the condition of the building, but has worked on some pretty poor structures over the years. David George, town historian, said he just became aware of this. His general feeling is that if there is some way of preserving this kind of building, that's a great thing. He hopes people can think creatively about what can be done to preserve it since that would be better than demolishing it. He gave the Clinton House as an example of preservation. If the town can do similar things on a smaller scale, that would be a benefit. Mr. Wilcox concluded that a professional review of the existing house should be done so the board can understand what is and what is not possible with regard to moving and restoring it or demolish ing it. We also need to coalesce on what we believe is the appropriate centerline of the road or the edge of the pavement to measure from. Ms. Brock said staff should check with the county about what they maintain. Ms. Balestra stated that town engineers said this is a county road and that the county has ways to measure the width of the road. She will contact the county highway department. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition project, located on the Ithaca College campus at 148 Conservatory Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.-T30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves an 838 +/- square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Gannett Center for an additional boiler room. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Construction, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:00 pm. Mr. Dayton gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Right now, they have a 50-year-old high- pressure steam boiler with underground piping that feeds both Dillingham and Gannett, and they Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 8 of 11 don t know the condition of the piping. They elected to separate the system and put new boilers in Gannet and Dillingham. It will require an addition to Gannett for a room for the boiler; the one in Dillingham will be in an existing mechanical space. They picked a location in back of the building, so the only thing you'll see is the stack. High-efficiency boilers will save a lot of energy for the campus. Mr. Bosak said he was startled to see the assertion that having the heating system in the individual buildings is more energy efficient, because every study he's read says that district heating is the way to go- Mr. Dayton responded that that's true in most cases, but in this case, they've been putting boilers in for ten years and in those years, the efficiency of the boilers has increased dramatically, and the technology just keeps getting better. It's also a matter of redundancy. If you were to put in a central plant and the power went out, think of what it would take for gas generation to keep it going. With this boiler, it would take only some gas and a small generator to have heat in the building. It's more resilient. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:06 pm. PB Resolution No. 2016-015: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Ithaca College - Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition, Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2, 148 Conservatory Drive Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition project, located on the Ithaca College campus at 148 Conservatory Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves an 838 +/- square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Gannett Center for an additional boiler room. Ithaca College, Own er/Applicant; Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Construction, Agent, and 2. This is a Type 11 Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(8) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi ronmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes "routine activities of educational institutions, including expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and school closings, but not changes in use related to such closings." Thus, approval of the site plan and special permit are not subject to review under SEQR, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Regulatory Plan" (A-002), "Floor Plan - Ground Floor" (A-101), and "Floor Plan - Existing Grade, Partial Reflected Ceiling Plan" (A-102), dated 10/2/2015, "Eleva tions - Exterior" (A-201), dated Nov. 2015, and "Heating plant Construction" (M 102), dated 11- 2015, all prepared by Weeks Engineering and QPK Design, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 9 of 11 That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning are being promoted and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, because for all public buildings and educational buildings wherein the principal use is research, administration, or instruction, the same is presumed to exist, and b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use because all publicly owned or educa tional buildings are deemed to be adapted to the proposed use, and c. the proposed use and the location and design of the addition is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located, since it is attached to the existing building, is located in the middle of the campus, and will have similar exterior finish as the existing building, and d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, since the addition is located in the middle of campus and is not visi ble from any public road or adjacent landowner, and e. the presumed benefit of such a use is not outweighed by the objectionable impacts of such use on nearby properties, for the reasons stated above, and f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective services, road ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of ad equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and g. the proposed use, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i. the presumed benefit of such use is not outweighed by the detrimental effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, for reasons noted above, and j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, and k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and 1. the proposed use and structure comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. Tliat 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 waiver will result in a significant alteration of Planning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 10 of 11 neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Gannett Center Heating Plant Addition project, located at 148 Conservatory Drive, as described on the drawings listed above, subject to the following condition: a. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2016-016: Minutes of February 16, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Joseph Haefeli RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of February 16, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstentions: Collins, Beach, Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Other Business Ms. Ritter explained that the upcoming Cornell Kite Hill slope repair project is on the city-town line, with most of the project being in the city. The slope gave way a few years ago, and now they have a plan to repair it. For us, it doesn't come under site plan approval and would require only a fill permit. A walkway and sidewalk are involved and they are taking place in the city. She asked whether the board would be okay with a coordinated review with the city, where the city would be the lead agency and would make the SEQR determination, and we would have a special permit because of the excess amount of fill. Town engineers will coordinate with city engineers. The board agreed with Ms. Ritter's recommendation. Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Ms. Ritter explained that the reason for the handout in the packet regarding site plan review is that sometimes the board wonders why they review projects such as the Ithaca College heating plant Phinning Board Minutes 03-01-2016 Page 11 of 11 addition. Should that go away? She thought that the planning board would be the best board to consider any modifications to this section of the law. It's food for thought if board members don't want to see projects like the IC heating plant addition. Discussions on this topic could happen at meetings where there isn't much on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Liebe Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ra DeAugistine, Deputy/Town Clerk