HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-08-10 FILED
MOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA Dat
d
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 10 , 1988
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on August 10 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman -Henry -Aron. ;,- -Edward - Austen , Edward King , Building
Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners , and Town
Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT . Lauren Stefanelli , Doria Higgins , Roger
Perkins , Michael May , Mike Daley , Herbert D . Brewer , C . Jankey ,
T . Martin , N . O ' Shea , George Hascup , Arthur Wright , Don Vitters ,
William Paleen , John Hollywood , Bill Wendt .
The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m .
Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the
public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of
same were in order .
Photographs S of the subject properties were passed around for the Board to review .
The first item on the agenda was the following :
ADJOURNED APPEAL of Ernest and ,Beulah Pittman , Appellants ,
Rochelle Alexander , Agent , requesting variance of Article
III , Sections 7 and 9 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , and , Section 280 - a of the New York State Town
Law , with respect to a parcel of land not fronting on a
Town , County or State highway , for the construction of a
residence on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 1 - 1 , located
on Pittman Lane , a private road off Stone Quarry Road .
Chairman Aron announced that the matter of Beulah Pittman
had been adjourned since he had been informed by the Zoning
Enforcement Officer that the Pittman case was incomplete as far
as the Pittmans were concerned in that they did not have the
necessary documentation to bring before the Board . For this
reason , Chairman Aron moved as follows :
11
RESOLVED , that this matter be further adjourned for an
indefinite period and as soon as the Pittmans were ready
with all papers satisfactory to, the Zoning Officer and the
Board it would then be scheduled for rehearing of the
adjourned appeal .
Edward King seconded the motion .
2
i
The voting was as' follows :
Aye - King , Austen , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
Since the parties connected with the next two appeals were
not present as yet , the Board went into Agenda Item Executive
Session to discuss the following interpretation .
Chairman Aron referred to a memorandum written by Andrew
Frost , Building and Zoning Enforcement „ Officer , wherein Mr . Frost
asked for an interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals of
Article IV , Sections , 13 and 14 . Chairman Aron read from the
letter as follows .
"This letter serves as a request for interpretation of
Article IV , Section 13 and Section 14 with respect to the
yard set back requirement for garages . Section 13 suggests
that a garage is an accessory building and may be located up
to three feet from any site or rear lot line but may also be
built across a common lot line with a party wall with a
• mutual agreement , between adjoining property owners . But
Section 14 on the side yard states a garage either attached
to the principal ” building or separate therefrom may be ten
feet from a side lot line . If I were to receive a building
permit application for the construction of a detached garage
proposed to be located 3 feet or perhaps 1 foot or even
adjacent to a property line with a written agreement between
adjoining' property owners , could the building permit be
issued . "
Mr . Frost stated that in fact he had a building permit
application where a person wanted to put a garage up that might
be 3 feet from the side property line . Chairman Aron said that
the question posed to the Board was whether a garage was an
accessory building .
Mr . King said that he had come to the conclusion that the
regulations for R- 15 , R- 30 and R- 9 stated in rather cumbersome
language that all accessory buildings had to be in rear yards
except as the Board might otherwise provide to allow a garage in
the side yard . He ` concluded that a garage is an accessory
building and could be built in a rear yard . He read from the
regulations : "All accessory buildings in rear yards must be at
least 3 feet from ai lot line . " Mr . King stated this would
include a rear line or a side line so long as the side yard line
was not part of the side yard itself . Mr . King continued that
• the side yard was the area between the principal building and
that side lot line so you could not put a garage in that area
3
within 3 feet of that line but you could put it behind the
building within 3 feet of that side yard and within 3 feet of
that rear yard . Mr . King stated that another exception thereto
would be that if that " side lot line was a street line then there
was a further restriction on placement .
Mr . King further stated that as' to Mr . Frost ' s question
about parties agreeing that a garage could be put up within 10
feet or 5 feet or 4 ' feet or 1 foot ; the neighbors could not
dictate the zoning to that extent . Mr . King said that they could
not modify the zoning ordinance and the only right they were
given was to agree on a joint garage ' crossing the line of the
party wall .
Chairman Aron said the problem he had was between accessory
building and garage . Mr . King said the garage was an accessory
building but the cumbersome language stated " except a garage " and
at first sight that could mean the garage was not classified as
an accessory building , but on further inspection , in R15 , R30 and
R9 zones , what that exception really meant was that there were
special provisions for garages in side yards and front yards
where other accessory ; buildings could not be built . Mr . King
said what they were saying was that generally all accessory
buildings must be in the rear yard except for garages which had
• special provisions . He continued that you could still put a
garage in the rear yard as an accessory building upon its
complying with those accessory requirements - three feet from a
line unless it was across a common boundary line and the party
wall - and was not in the side yard or the front yard .
Mr . Frost said 'that if the garage was in back of the
building then it could be three feet from the side yard . Mr .
King said this was correct so long as the garage was wholly
behind the building .
Mr . Frost said that in regard to the application he had
mentioned earlier the man would have to come before the Zoning
Board of Appeals . Mr . Frost said that he suggested to the man
that if he moved the ' garage to the back of the house then he
might be able to say that three feet was sufficient which he felt
was what the Board was saying . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost
then if he concurred with the remarks made by Mr . King which were
in line with the ordinance . Mr . Frost said he did . Chairman
Aron stated that there was no further interpretation needed .
Attorney Barney stated that perhaps it would be a good idea
for the Codes and Ordinances Committee to consider an amendment
to specifically state the above . Mr . King said that all it would
take would be a clarification as to the exception for garages
which was included in the accessory building section , and that
was what made it confusing . Attorney Barney asked Mr . King
whether it was his feeling that what was intended was that you
4
• could have the garage three feet from the side yard as long as it
was in the back yard . ° Mr . King said this was correct .
Since the parties^ connected with the Cornell appeal were not
present at the meeting as yet , the Board heard the following
appeal .
APPEAL of Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , owner ,
Downing-Hascup Associates , agent , requesting a variance from
Article IV , Section II , Paragraph 10 of the Zoning Ordinance
for the construction of a Visitors and Convention Bureau and
Tourist Information Center , with said building proposed to
have a height of 37 ' at the point of a " stair turret " , ( a
height of 30 ' id! required ) . The proposed building will be
located at 904 - 912 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels # 6 - 18 - 2 - 8 , - 91 - 10 , Special Land Use District # 5
( Limited Mix Use ) , ( Residential District R- 15 requirements
apply ) .
Chairman Aron read a letter from Steven Sommer of
Downing/ Hascup Associates , Architects , dated August 2 , 1988 , a
copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals was
• the lead agency as to the environmental assessment and a short
environmental assessment form had been prepared .
Mr . George Hascup , architect for this project , addressed the
Board . He presented a model of the building and surrounding
area . Mr . Hascup stated there was an elaborate exploration of
this issue in the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of
severald weeks ago . Mr . Hascup said that the zoning height
requirement was 30 feet and a height restriction in zoning , in
his opinion , was there for two important reasons - one , to not
obstruct views and sight lines from neighbors in a residential
area , and two , to control density . Mr . Hascup felt that their
request for a turret ° which was above the 30 foot height did not
affect those two issues . Furthermore , he said , he felt that a
zoning requirement of 30 feet did not address the architectural
elements that traditionally happen above a 30 foot roof line such
as chimneys , elevator penthouses , steeples and stair turrets . He
stated that certain vertical elements that were very small
relative to the size of the building footprint were necessary for
the importance of architecture in general . He presented aseries
of photographs depicting certain building types in the City and
Town of Ithaca ( for example , Montessori School ) that used
turrets , chimneys and spires and showed how to enrich
architecture . Mr . Hascup felt that the vertical turret helped
break down the scale of otherwise a simple residential structure .
Most important , he said , was that this site previously had two
• derelict houses which have been removed and possessed an
incredible development of existing landscaping of mature trees .
ti t
5
Mr . Hascup said these mature trees would not be taken down with
the exception of the one that was underneath the building
footprint . The perimeter secondary trees , he continued , on the
site and the tertiary trees that were on the surrounding railroad
easements and the park conditions were not under their control
but the landscape foliage in the forefront of the building would
almost completely conceal the small building from the park
itself . Mr . Hascup said this was not just another residence but
the last block in a string of residences that would become the
building that would differentiate between a residential zone and
a park zone with public pavilions . Mr . Hascup thought it would
be appropriate and a positive thing to give the building a
special signature and this was his reason for generating the
turret . Their mechanical engineer , he said , had suggested that
this turret was an excellent location for the cooling tower for a
heat pump because otherwise it would have to be in a metal box
out on the landscape so the turret was not simply for aesthetic
reasons .
Mr . Hascup explained that the turret would be on the south
side of the building away from the residential zone and he
thought the visibility of a 37 foot high turret would help a
motorist have a memorable identifiable image of the building as a
visitor ' s center for our region . Mr . Hascup said he also used a
porch and a veranda to further enhance the building . He said
these were not totally necessary to the functioning of the
Chamber but were secondary sight features that would be nice for
outdoor display . Mr . Hascup continued that the Youth Bureau ,
which was immediately adjacent , was five or six times the size
the Chamber buildingli would be as it was a 17 , 000 square foot
building whereby the Chamber building would be 4 , 000 square feet ,
with two stories . He said the pointe of the gable of the Youth
Bureau was at 37 feet and the main gable of the Chamber building
was 30 feet and the point of the turret would be 37 feet . Mr .
Hascup stated the finished floor of the building was two feet
lower than the Youth Bureau so that the relevant height
comparison would be ,different . Their 37 foot high turret , he
said , would be in comparison , two feet lower than the gable of
the Youth Bureau . The building , he stated , was 1 foot above the
height of the railroad track . Mr . Hascup said that the house on
the site now was almost identical in size to the building
proposed to be built with the exception of the 10 foot square
turret .
Mr . King asked Mr . Hascup to show on the sketches where the
existing building was . Mr . Hascup did so and also pointed out
the tree which was under the footprint of the building . Scales ,
dimensions and design of the turret were discussed .
Mr . Hascup stated that the rationale for pulling the stair
out of the building was to keep the building very simple so that
the Chamber could have its planned functions without a big solid
5 1
stair tower in the middle of it . Mr . Hascup said he developed
the idea of giving the building a vertical scale feature to give
it its signature . He continued that the existing Chamber
building had a very nice curved porch and special gable and he
thought it would be nice to give the new building the scale
feature which would give it some visibility . He also felt it was
in keeping with waterside architecture since there were many
beautiful Victorian tower houses on the lake .
Mr . King asked if the tower peak would be at the same height
elevation as the Youth Bureau and Mr . Hascup responded in fact it
would be two feet lower than the Youth Bureau gable . Mr . King
said that the Youth Bureau gable roof was very visible from Route
13 . Mr . Hascup said that it was important to remember that they
were talking about a vertical item that was only ten feet square
and the Youth Bureau gable was truly massive , similar to a large
barn 60 feet wide and 90 feet long . Mr . Hascup said that any
Cornell building built before the 50s was inflected with
something that indicated the building was not just a box . Mr .
Hascup indicated that they were not able to enter the front
facade because of the handicap bathroom requirements so the
public bathrooms for tourists were in the front . Mr . Hascup said
they had to bypass this and use the turret as an entry device .
• Mr . King said the site plan showed a house on the east side
across the road . Mr . Hascup said this house was much higher up
because of elevation than their intended building . Mr . King
asked if this house was directly opposite the proposed new
building and Mr . Hascup responded it was not . Mr . King wondered
where the Youth Bureau was on the sketch and Mr . Hascup indicated
where it was . Mr . King wondered whether this house on the east
side of the highway was the closest building to the proposed
Chamber building and Mr . Hascup responded it was .
Mr . Austen inquired about landscaping and Mr . Hascup stated
that the Chamber had ;; agreed to plant shrubbery as conditioned by
the Planning Board and showed the Board on the sketch where
existing trees would remain .
Mr . Austen asked about the cooling tower and Mr . Hascup
indicated on the sketch where it would be placed inside the
turret .
Chairman Aron at this point read a letter from Doria Higgins
dated July 28 , 1988 , a copy of which letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 .
Chairman Aron then read the requirements for area and use
variances . He said that height came under area variances .
• " The area regulations and zoning are designed to control the
amount of open space surrounding structures on a lot in
order to provide safe access , sunlight , air circulation , and
beautiful landscaping , which the area regulation governs . It
governs setbacks , frontage , lot size , density and yards . It
Chairman Aron said that in order to be considered for a
variance the appellant would have to prove hardship as follows :
" ( a ) Practical difficulties . In order to satisfy the
practical difficulty test the applicant must prove at a
public hearing that the zoning ordinance as it applies to
this property creates significant economic injury and that
the variance if granted will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood . "
Chairman Aron said that in order for the Board to determine
practical difficulties , it had to have findings to prove this .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hascup whether the tower was functional
or aesthetic . Mr . Hascup explained that the three functions for
the tower were for the mechanical cooling system , to identify
entrance and to give this very important visitors center
visibility through high trees .
Chairman Aron said that as far as visibility was concerned
the trees were higher than the turret would be . He stated that
• he , as well as other members of the Board , had seen the property .
Chairman Aron ' s personal opinion was that the trees do obstruct
the visibility of the turret so the turret would not be of any
significance as to visibility . Further , he continued , the State
of New York would place a blue sign on the highway indicating the
Chamber ' s location . 11 Chairman Aron said he personally could not
see where the turret „would make a difference as to visibility for
visitors . In his opinion , he said , he did not see how he could
vote to grant the variance and still comply with the zoning
ordinance .
Mr . King took issue with Chairman Aron ' s statement that the
trees would block the tower . He said that some trees would block
the tower but the tower would be quite visible because there were
openings between the trees . Not only that , he continued , the
highway behind there was much higher than the trees or anything
else '. Mr . King said that Chairman Aron said he had difficulty
with the charge to comply with the zoning ordinance because he
could not see a practical difficulty in this matter . Mr . King
said that if the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance would not permit
the kind of tower which they did permit on the Montessori School ,
and be so inflexible so as to not allow something out of the
ordinary , then the Town of Ithaca would have a bunch of
cheeseboxes and he did not think this was good . Mr . King thought
it was an unnecessary hardship to limit constructive design . Mr .
King mentioned that ` he had represented Mr . Hascup privately in
• something totally different but his concern tonight was totally
for the community . Mr . King said that this building was so far
• „ 8
from any existing houses that the tower would not impinge on any
adjacent building . He continued that the Youth Bureau was quite
a distance away and °the roof line was actually higher ; Stewart
Park was essentially off to the south and west of this site ; he
agreed with Mr . Hascup ' s argument that a Chamber of Commerce
building had a right to be visible , ' the economics might not be
immediately apparent because the Chamber of Commerce was not a
money - making industry but it certainly promoted the welfare of
the community ; and the functional aspects of the turret might be
incidental but there , had to be a stairway somewhere and putting
the stairway outdoors would free up space indoors . Mr . King
thought the Board should seriously consider approving the turret
thus assuring the freedom of design ',' that provided some of the
beautiful buildings in our area . Mr . King said that very often
the Ithaca Journal did feature articles on houses with towers
built into them . ^ He said that he thought the houses were
attractive and gave charm to the community . Mr . King did not
think this building should be limited because it was unique and
in a unique setting . He also did not think the building was
egocentrically self - assertive but instead thought it was very
subdued , not overpowering and respected the environment . Mr .
King strongly favored the turret and 'felt that there were several
factors to show economic hardship . He also felt the ordinance
• should give a little leeway in the matter of height requirements
to prevent everything looking like cheeseboxes .
The public hearing was opened .
Doria Higgins of 2 Hillcrest Drive , Ithaca , New York ,
addressed the Board . She stated that she represented a group
formerly known as " Citizens to Save , Stewart Park " and recently
renamed " Citizens to Save Our Parks " . She made the following
comments :
1 . Her group wished the Chamber of Commerce and George
Hascup well and thought it was a handsome building also . The
aesthetics of the building was not the argument .
2 . Their concern was the impact that the tower would have
on Stewart Park . The Youth Bureau loomed overpoweringly upon the
park . They were concerned that a similar effect would occur with
the Chamber tower .
3 . Ms . Higgins went to Mr . Hascup ' s office that morning and
on behalf of the group wanted to tell Mr . Hascup how much they
appreciated his graciousness in making himself available to them
and explaining his building . Mr '. Hascup had reassured Ms .
Higgins that this ilbuilding would not be visible from the park
• because of present trees . Ms . Higgins phoned to check with
members of the group and one member of the group remembered Bill
Downing telling Ithaca Landmarks that the Youth Bureau building
being proposed would fit into the architectural style of the
• 9
park , would follow the architectural style of the large pavilion ,
and generally be unobtrusive to the park . Clearly this was not
so as the Youth Bureau loomed over the park and clearly
interrupted the feeling of seclusion of the park .
4 . Although the Chamber building was handsome it would
still impinge on a very precious part of the community , the sense
of serenity , privacy and seclusion that people have at Stewart
Park . People go there often for refuge from the City .
5 . Another member of her group asked what reassurance they
had that the Chamber would not cut down trees which now serve as
screens , That member" of the group reminded Ms . Higgins that at
an earlier meeting with the Chamber , a Chamber member proudly
promised to clear out all the green undergrowth and trees , which
trees her group cherished as the green buffer from the Bowman and
Wells buildings and the road .
6 . They would like to recommend that if the Board did
decide to grant the variance that it be put in writing that it
was granted only with the understanding that the tower would not
be visible to what was generally known as Stewart Park . They did
not see why the Chamber would object to this written condition
since it was what they claimed to be so .
• 7 . They thought this was a fair request in that the Chamber
had already been given one special dispensation by the Town to be
able to build the building in that area . As everyone knew , the
designation " Special Land Use District " was really a euphemism to
camouflage spot zoning which was illegal in New York .
8 . She reminded the Board that the local law creating that
special land use district clearly stated that the Chamber
building should adhere to certain specifications . The Chamber
has chosen not to adhere to those specifications and appeared
before the Board tonight to ask for further special dispensation .
If the Board granted the further dispensation it would only be
fair that the larger community which loved and enjoyed Stewart
Park be protected . It should be put , in writing that the Chamber
would live up to its promise that the tower would not be seen
from the park .
9 . They did not understand why the Chamber was determined
to have a tower . In her opinion , Mr . Hascup ' s building was much
handsomer and had a more consistent integrity without the tower .
The tower looked stuck on and had a staccato or nervous
aggressiveness which she thought detracted from the dignity and
very nice sense of placement that the building had without it .
ir
Mr . Hascup was an artist and knew something was not right with
the turret .
• 10 . In the article by Mr . Pelli attached to her letter
10
• there was a statement , that said "Architects for centuries have
worked with ordinances and regulations without weakening their
artistic achievement . " They thought Mr .. Hascup could work within
the specifications and still have a beautiful building . If the
tower was taken off he would be within the specifications and you
would have a beautiful building . The public was not going to
find the Chamber of Commerce by looking at the tower as this
would be dangerous driving . Instead , they would find the Chamber
by looking at signs on the road .
11 . In sum , she thought it was a lovely building and would
be much handsomer without the tower . She . did not see any need
for the tower and certainly there was no economic need . If this
variance was granted , it should be in writing that no trees would
be removed and the turret would remain invisible to the park .
The public hearing was closed .
Mr . Austen asked where the cooling element would be if not
in the turret and Mr . Hascup responded it would be out on the
landscaping in a metal box .
Attorney Barney asked if the tower were lowered by seven
feet would it still be possible to have the cooling element in
• there . Mr . Hascup responded that he disagreed with Ms . Higgins
in that he used a horizontalality that gave a nice low scale to
the building by . using the secondary layer of the veranda which
was reinforced by the long eave of the roof . He said he had a
counterpoint of a vertical turret to help break down the scale
and balance the building and to suggest entrance . He chose the
design of the turret to suggest something poetic , he said , and to
have the tower shortened would not state its presence but instead
would start competing with the gable and not be successful .
Attorney Barney felt his question was not answered and
repeated it . Mr . Hascup said if the tower were shortened by
seven feet they would not have enough grill space and not enough
area to have the cooling element in there . Attorney Barney asked
if the tower were shortened would the stairway still fit in and
Mr . Hascup responded that the stairway would still fit in but
they would lose the ability to put the mechanicals in there . Mr .
Hascup said that visual delight was function and if people could
not see this function he was saddened . This building , he said ,
was very symmetrical and simple and allowing entrance by the
turret was a serious functional consideration . Mr . Hascup said
that the issue of seeing this small vertical element was so
insignificant in terms of visual impact that he hoped they were
only talking about the principal of going over the height limit
but he thought the meaning to architecture and why they do
buildings was clearly very important here . He felt most zoning
• codes would applaud this design and there were clauses that
indicated bonuses for doing things above the height line that
• gave a building profile and significance . Mr . Hascup felt that
Of the turret were visible in the fall it would be a positive
impact .
Mr . King asked what the vertical height was from the top of
the ' square part of the tower to the pinnacle . Mr . Hascup said
that, was almost the same height as the gable . He stated the
massing stopped at 30 feet . Mr . Hascup said they had changed the
gable pitch to 45 degrees so they hadpulled out the mass of the
tower another 2 feet and had lowered the earth of the building 2
_ feet so they had scaled down the tower as much as possible to
have it still be aesthetically proper . ',
Mr . Austen said he had reservations until he learned that
the turret would be used for a stairway and a cooling tower . Mr .
Austen thought he would much rather see the cooling tower there
than on the ground in a metal box . As far as visibility was
concerned , he continued , he had spent several hours at Stewart
Park the evening before , and did not think the Youth Bureau
building imposed any visual problem . '' He said the Chamber turret
reminded him of a lighthouse tower which he enjoyed .
Mr . King asked Mr . Hascup to comment on whether the existing
trees on the lot would block the view] of the tower totally from
• the park . Mr . Hascup said he would be willing to put red
balloons up at 37 feet . He further stated there were at least
100 feet of trees and presented a ( picture of the trees and
explained the location and height of ",the trees that would limit
the visibility of the turret .
Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Hascup when the concept of the turret
originated and Mr . Hascup said that at their very first planning
session with the Chamber they developed the idea of pulling the
stair out and designing something special . Ms . Beeners asked
when this was in relation to the establishment of the special
land use district . Mr . Hascup said that the model was shown at
the Sheraton over a year and a half ' ago . Ms . Beeners thought
that the model did not have any tower on it at that time . Mr .
Hascup said that was correct . Ms . Beepers asked when the concept
for the tower occurred relative to his firm doing work to come
back in and have the special land use 'district zoning modified to
allow a larger site . Mr . Hascup said he would have to look
through the early sketches . He continued that in perceiving the
building he assumed the zoning had clauses for penthouses ,
steeples and chimneys . Mr . Frost had pointed out to him that
there were provisions for side overhangs . Mr . Hascup thought he
was well within legal limits to have 'ila small element less than
20 % of the roof area go above 30 feet . Ms . Beeners asked if it
was his assumption , without carefully reading the zoning
ordinance , that this would have been?,• exempted from the height requirement . Mr . Hascup said he assumed that penthouses , turrets
and steeples were elements allowed over that very strict line .
1 1
12
Ms . Beeners asked then if this turret would not be used for human
occupancy and Mr . Hascup responded that was correct . Mr . Austen
said then it would not be a look- out tower and Mr . Hascup
responded it would not be , that they would like it to be a look-
out tower but the liability issue was too strict .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead
agency in this matter as to environmental significance .
Chairman Aron stated that there was an environmental impact
study which had to be considered . Chairman Aron read from a
document entitled " PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed
37 ' Turret For Proposed Visitors and Convention Bureau , Tompkins
County Chamber of Commerce " , dated August 10 , 1988 , reviewed by
George R . Frantz , a copy of which document is attached hereto as
Exhibit 3 .
Ms . Beeners stated there was a minor correction in the above
statement and asked that the reference to a " 6 ' x 6 ' footprint "
be changed to 010 ' x 10 ' footprint " in paragraph C2 .
Ms . Beeners said that the site for this building had been
extensively reviewed by both the Planning Board and the Town
Board . She continued that they had extensively looked at the
turret at two meetings recently when they were considering
granting site plan approval .
Attorney Barney said what was unclear was whether these
Boards had looked at a 6 ' x 6 ' tower or 10 ' x 10 ' tower . Mr .
Hascup said that firestairs required actually 9 ' x 91 . Attorney
Barney asked what was presented to the Planning Board and Mr .
Hascup said that the present model was presented to the Planning
Board . Verbally , Mr . Hascup said , they might have said 6 ' x 6 '
but the dimensions on the drawings were 10 ' x 10 ' . Attorney
Barney thought the Planning Board had been told the turret would
be 6 ' x 6 ' so it was unclear in his mind what they approved . Ms .
Beeners said the Planning Board was fully aware it was a stair
tower and had to comply with the State of New York regulations of
44 inches per stair . Mr . Austen pointed out that the letter from
Downing Hascup ( attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ) did have the tower
listed as 10 ' x 10 ' and was written before the environmental
assessment form .
A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of
environmental significance .
The motion was seconded by Edward King .
• The voting was as follows :
r
13
• Aye - King , Austen , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
Attorney Barney asked Mr . Hascup to explain the mechanics of
this turret . Mr . Hascup said the stairs would be switchback and
above the ceiling of the two - story switchback stair would be the
cooling mechanisms . The cooling mechanisms , he said , consisted
of an evaporative cooler that had to have a fairly large amount
of air surface ( perhaps 15 square feet above open grill space ) ,
there would be a screen above it so the birds could not get in
it ; and you could not see the machinery but could hear it like
you could an air- conditioner .
Mr . Frost said there was at least one group of residents who
had submitted petitions in terms of growth in the Town containing
some 300 names , and at certain meetings concerning developmental
projects there had been 50 or 60 people at the meetings . Mr .
Frost wondered why , when Ms . Higgins said there were over 7 , 000
signatures on a petition to save the park last year , there was no
one in the audience opposing this matter other than Doria
Higgins . He continued that at all meetings concerning the Chamber
no more than three people had attended and tonight only one
• person was speaking out against the Chamber . He said there were
also no petitions .
Ms . Higgins said she was not the only person against the
matter but her group had been fighting for Stewart Park for over
three years and the group was tired and weary and she was the
only one who was retired and had the stamina to keep going . She
said there were many people concerned about Stewart Park even if
they did not know about this matter . She continued that the
community did love Stewart Park and were very much upset by the
Youth Bureau .
Mr . Frost said that being a citizen who utilized Stewart
Park himself , he had to agree with Mr . Austen because when he was
at Stewart Park he did not really notice the Youth Bureau and did
not think he would notice the turret on the Chamber building .
Chairman Aron said he felt that Mr . Hascup had proven that
there were certain difficulties involved in not having the turret
provided the turret would have limited ; visibility . Chairman Aron
said that even though Mr . Hascup had presented a very good case ,
they were still in an R15 district and he wondered whether the
tower was that necessary . He said he was not sure at this point .
Mr . Frost said that perhaps it should be noted on the record that
only one person showed up at the meeting against the proposal .
• Mr . Austen said he had spoken with several of the residents
that lived in the area and they were delighted to see something
' r
14
• decent going in on that corner . Ms . Higgins said she had spoken
with several people who were concerned with the increased
traffic . Chairman Aron said they , were not talking about the
traffic problem as that was a Planning Board and Town Board
decision , and tonight the Zoning Board of Appeals had to decide
whether to grant a variance for the height of the turret . Ms .
Higgins said that if the Board were to grant the variance would
it at least extract a promise from the architect that the turret
be invisible to the park . Chairman Aron said it would not be a
promise but a condition if the variance were granted and a
building permit could not be granted " if this condition were not
met .
Mr . Austen asked what kind of access there would be to the
cooling tower and Mr . Hascup said there were be a shift ladder or
a hatch which would not be available to pedestrians .
Mr . King made a motion as followsl':
WHEREAS , this Board finds the building will not be very near
any other residential building , the nearest residential
building being north of the proposed building and across the
road from it , and the proposal would not impinge unduly upon
the site view from that building or from any other building ;
• and
here
WHEREAS t
. are practical difficulties and unnecessary
hardships in having to locate cooling towers outside the
building , and there are aesthetic reasons for not locating
such units outside the building , �,, and the proposal to locate
the cooling units and the stairway inside the tower has
practical benefits and merit ; and "
11
WHEREAS , the proposal would be 'I within the spirit of the
ordinance and would not impinge upon public safety or
welfare ; and
WHEREAS , no neighbors appeared in opposition to this
proposal ; it is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a ' variance to the Chamber of
Commerce to construct a tower not exceeding 10 x 10 '
square , the footprint not exceeding 37 ' in height above the
ground floor , conditional upon the following :
( a ) The agreement of the applicant to maintain existing
mature trees on this lot such that they will continue to
limit the visibility of such a tower from Stewart Park .
( b ) If it is desired to remove any of those trees which
• would in effect uncover that tower , special application
should be made to this Board for further modification of the
15
• variance .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
Chairman Aron said that listening to the whole subject ,
including the public input , as to the necessity of the tower , and
having considered the applicant ' s presentation before the Board ,
it had been proven to him that there was a necessity for the
tower , not because of aesthetic reasons , but because of necessity
for mechanical uses .
The voting was as follows .
Aye - Aron , King , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
The second item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
APPEAL of Cornell University , owner , Albert L . Wright ,
Cornell University Architectural Services , agent , requesting
Special Approval under Article III , Section IV , Paragraph 4
• of the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of student
housing at the Cornell Quarters site , between Maple Avenue
and Mitchell Street , on 17 acres on Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels # 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 21 - 3 , and - 14 and - 10 . 2 , Residential
District R- 9 ,
Mr . Albert Wright addressed the Board . He explained that
the University proposed to construct 170 dwelling units for
graduate students on the current Cornell Quarters site . Added to
that site , he said , would be the contiguous storage yards that
are currently owned and used by the University and two houses on
Maple Street as well as the Campus Store warehouse facility on
Maple Street . Those additions , he said , of approximately 40 % ,
would bring the total site area to 17 acres for this 170 units of
housing development . He continued that it would provide 241
parking spaces for the inhabitants of that community . He said
that those units were broken down as follows : there would be 90
two -bedroom units that would be family units for married graduate
students , and 80 single - student units '° which primarily 77 of them
would be four-bedroom units for four graduate students , and three
efficiency units for resident advisor , graduate students .
Chairman Aron asked when the old units would be removed and
the new units constructed and Mr . Wright responded that next week
the asbestos would be removed from the existing units and the
existing units would be demolished in late September or early
• October , and grading and excavation of the site would then begin .
He said that the majority of the work for constructing the
• 16 .
foundations for the new units would not be done until next
Spring . He continued that this fall they anticipated they would
relocate an electric line , and they would do grading work and
putting in underground utility services and things of that sort .
He further stated that some of the foundation work might begin
but the majority of the real construction would not begin until
next spring .
Chairman Aron asked if the sidewalks would be put in next
spring and Mr . Wright said that the sidewalks would be near the
end of the project , and the project would be ready for occupancy
in August of 1989 .
Mr . Austen said that he drove through the area and had a
hard time determining where there were 17 acres there . Mr .
Wright showed on the map the area in '' question and where the 17
acres was . Mr . Frost asked if the University owned the
dilapidated house in the corner and whether this would be part of
the project and Mr . Wright responded it would be . Mr . King asked
what would happen to the two quonset huts in the picture , and Mr .
Wright said that one quonset but would be demolished and the
other would remain and be remodelled into a community activities
center . Mr . Wright said that neither the program nor the budget
was fully identified at this point . Mr . King asked Mr . Wright to
• indicate on the map the bikeway which Mr . Wright did .
Mr . King asked if the old buildings would be demolished and
Mr . Wright said they would be . Mr . King inquired if the presence
of asbestos in the existing buildings was an impetus for this
project and Mr . Wright responded that it was not , that the
buildings had far outlived their usefulness being over 40 years
old , and all of the systems were , in need of upgrading or
replacement . He added that the units were also too small by
today ' s standards to serve the University .
Chairman Aron asked how large the community would be after
I completion and Mr . Wright said it ' would be 170 units and the
population would be 491 including spouses .
Mr . Austen asked if there would be parking by the units
themselves and Mr . Wright responded there would be parking in a
central lot , and showed on the sketch where the street parking
would be on a private street . Mr . Wright said there would be two
remote parking lots also .
Mr . William Paleen , director of Residents Life of Cornell
University , addressed the Board . Mr . Paleen said that this
proposed development would function as part of the University ' s
housing system in response to critical needs for additional
housing for families and for single graduate students . He said
• that the site had been defined as particularly appropriate for
this kind of development by virtue of its proximity to the campus
17
• and also in terms of its effective relationship with the
surrounding community and the school being in walking distance .
Mr . Paleen said that the critical need for additional student
housing was the primary impetus for this development .
Mr . Don Vitters from Sasaki Associates , the landscape
architects and architects for this project , addressed the Board .
He presented site plans for the proposed development explaining
that all of the units would be made of pre -manufactured modules ,
either 24 x 24 feet or 24 by 36 feet . Mr . Vitters said their
role in this project was to come up with a plan of placing these
units on the site and creating a pleasant environment . Mr .
Vitters said the community would be made up of clusters and
courtyards with open space for the community . He said there was
concern about traffic both on the site and off the site . Mr .
Vitters continued that there was a center access road which would
run through the property and they had developed devices which
would discourage any kind of through traffic . Mr . Vitters said
there would be two laundry buildings which would be located near
the center of the site . These buildings , he said , would look
like large houses and have a little more architectural character
than the actual housing units . The paving material in front of
these buildings , he said , would change to another type . There
would be two remote parking areas , one off of Maple Avenue and
• the other off of Mitchell Street , Mr . Vitters stated they had
done as much as possible to preserve the existing vegetation of
trees . He continued that there would be a building used for
maintenance and administrative purposes . Mr . Vitters said there
would be play areas for the children in the community . Along the
east side of the site , he said , they had created an informal walk
path with very easy access in both directions .
Mr . Frost asked if this site plan reflected the discussions
before or after discussions with the Fire Department on access
and Mr . Vitters said that it reflected all of the discussions
with the Fire Department prior to the actual development .
Mr . John Hollywood had attended a meeting with the Fire
Department officials that day and , reported that they were
satisfied with the accessability to the units . In addition , he
said , they had discussed and agreed upon fire hydrant locations .
Mr . Frost inquired what the distance was from the access
road to the furthest most building . Mr . Hollywood said that it
was less than 200 feet .
Mr . Vitters presented sketches showing the layout of the
community proposed and the design of the various buildings . He
showed what the family units would look like as well as the
single family units , and the elevations and designs of both . Mr .
• Vitters said they were working on color schemes now . He
continued that they had visited several projects that were
• 18 •
constructed by Cardinal Company . Mr . ° Vitters also said they had
looked at traffic considerations and their in-house traffic
engineers had determined that there would be no significant
impact in terms of additional traffic on the existing
intersection and streets . He said they had also looked at
drainage considerations and were not , aware of any major impact
issues as a result of this project .
Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if the Planning Board had
looked at this project as far as drainage was concerned and Ms .
Beeners responded that they had looked at it but the Zoning Board
of Appeals was the lead agency . Chairman Aron said he knew this
but wondered if there was any discussion as to the drainage at
the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners said there was discussion on a
number of issues but the Planning Board was reasonably satisfied
in their review of the project .
Mr . Frost had a problem in terms of fire department access .
He said that the Building Code states that buildings other than
one and two family dwellings shall be 100 feet or less from a
street , road or driveway so as to be accessible to the Fire
Department for emergency service apparatus .
Mr . John Hollywood , a civil engineer with the firm of Sasaki
• Associates , said that prior to their meeting they had anticipated
the availability of the bikeway to serve as an emergency vehicle
corridor to access these units from both sides . Mr . Frost asked
if there would be designation of the bikeway , if necessary , as
being an emergency fire lane . Mr . Hollywood said he was not sure
what kind of designation it would be ,, whether it would be signed
or not , but certainly the emergency services people would be .
aware of it .
Chairman Aron asked what type of housing this would be and
Mr . Wright responded this , particular product was designed for
University student housing as opposed to single family residences
or an apartment development . Mr . Wright said the units would be
manufactured within a building under a controlled environment as
opposed to being built on the site under the elements and this is
what was meant by manufactured housing . He said this type of
housing came under certain requirements of the State of New York .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared , and the
public hearing was closed .
A document entitled PART II -A & III - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW-
PROPOSED GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING AT THE CORNELL QUARTERS SITE "
reviewed by Susan C . Beeners and George. Frantz , dated July 15 ,
1988 was presented to the Board . A copy of such document is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Ms . Beeners reviewed her
• recommendation .
Jo
19
• A further document entitled " Subject : Cornell Quarters
Environmental Review Update " dated August 10 , 1088 is attached
hereto as Exhibit 5 .
Chairman Aron commended Mr . Wright and his associates for a
very fine presentation as to this project . Ms . Beeners said they
should also be commended for spending time with the community
associations in the development of this project . Ms . Beeners
said that before application was made to the Town there was a
great effort to get community input as , to this project .
Mr . Austen wondered whether the walkway would be adequate
for so many people . Mr . Wright said that it would be , that they
were convinced that it would not be a safety hazard .
Chairman Aron said he would like the record to show that the
Zoning Board of Appeals was appreciative of the community spirit
of Mr . Wright and his associates and hoped that seeking community
input would continue in all future endeavors . Once again , he
commended Cornell for its presentation .
Mr . King asked if there would be sprinkler systems in these
buildings and Mr . Wright said the law required this .
• Attorney Barney asked if sprinkler systems would be provided
in the manufacture of these homes and Mr . Wright said this was
still actually being assessed but at the moment it seemed that
the manufacturer would be able to do this .
Attorney Barney said he and Mr . . Frost still had a problem
with the emergency access because the Code was explicit in
requiring there be accessability from 100 feet or less . He asked
if the bicycle path would be the method of access . Mr . Frost
wondered if the walkway that went from the parking lot could also
be used as an emergency access . However , he said , the walkway
was 6 feet in width and firetrucks were eight feet in width and
his concern was that regardless of the fire department saying
they were comfortable with 190 feet from the road the Code was
clear on 100 foot . He felt that perhaps Cornell should designate
the walking path as an emergency access as well should any
building , be over the 100 foot distance .
Mr . Wright said that all of the buildings were well within
the 100 feet . Mr . Wright stated that it was not a requirement
that the building itself be within 100 feet , just the front of
the building . He stated he would have difficulty in designating
the walkway as a fire access because it would require 24 feet for
access . Mr . Frost wondered if the bikeway were designated as an
emergency access would that include snow plowing sooner than any
other walkway on campus and if so who would be doing the clearing
• of the bikeway . Mr . Wright said that their understanding was
that the Town was responsible for maintaining the bikeway .
20
• Attorney Barney interjected that the Town would not do this as an
emergency access . Mr . Wright said the University could certainly
do it on the weekend but did not know why there would be any need
to do it during the week . He added , if the Town did it , why
would the University need to . Attorney Barney said his point was
that the Town had responsibilities on its highways and the like
and the bikeway was not top priority as to snowfall . Attorney
Barney said that because the bikeway was now being transposed
from an incidental , casual and quasi - recreational use to
something that might be essential for fire protection for a
number of buildings , there should be some discussion between
Cornell and the Town as to who should assume responsibility for
maintenance under those circumstances . Attorney Barney said a
license agreement that gave it to the' Town specifically required
the Town to carry that responsibility .
Mr . King asked if there were codes governing bikeways as
emergency accesses . Mr . Frost read from the Code "Access roads
and fire lanes shall be adequately maintained and kept free and
clear of obstructions at all times . "
Chairman Aron said the question ;was who owned the bikeway .
Attorney Barney said that Cornell owned the bikeway and granted a
license to the Town , and under that license the Town would
actually install the gravel or whatever substance the bikeway
• would consist of , and the Town had undertaken to maintain it .
Chairman Aron asked if this would be both in the summer and
winter and Attorney Barney said this was correct . Mr . King said
this did not mean the Town would have to clear it on a high
priority basis . Attorney Barney said this was correct , that the
Town had limited capabilities and the ' Town would be out clearing
higher priority , streets before worrying about a bikeway behind
Cornell Quarters . Attorney Barney said he could not speak for
the Town on this but he had some concern that if Cornell were
going to rely on this bikeway as a means of access for fire
protection , then it should be clear as to whose responsibility it
was to make sure the bikeway was clear at all times , or at least
that portion of the bikeway that was needed for access .
Attorney Barney said if the Board were to grant approval a
condition should be imposed as to a mutual resolution of the
determination as to who was to maintain that access so it could
be available at all times for emergency vehicles .
Mr . King said that if the buildings were sprinklered , would
that not change the picture . Mr . Frost said no , not as far as
the Code was concerned .
Ms . Beeners noted that some of the buildings in this project
were within the City and she had asked Mr . Frost to check with
• the Building Department of the City , which had been receiving
plans , to see if there were any problems . Chairman Aron asked
21
• how , many buildings were within the City limits and Ms . Beeners
responded she thought there were four„ and portions of about four .
Mr . Frost said that the City Building Commissioner informed
him he believed the area was in a multiple residence zone for the
City and given that Cornell had do nothing further except go
through the building permit process .
Mr . Wright pointed out on the map those buildings that would
be within the City of Ithaca limits ,, and thought there would be
about eight or nine buildings affected .
As to the environmental assessment , a motion was made by
Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that based upon the environmental review received
from the Town Planning Department , this Board finds a
negative determination of environmental significance as to
11
this project as proposed .
Mr . Austen asked where the maintenance of the bikeway
entered into the environmental impact . Attorney Barney said he
would view it not so much as an environmental consideration as a
special approval condition .
• Edward Austen seconded the motion .
11
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
Mr . Austen wondered about security in the parking lots so
remote from the buildings . Mr . ' Bill Wendt , director of
transportation at Cornell , addressed , this question . Mr . Wendt
said that these lots were designated by permits for residents and
were regularly enforced by Cornell ' s , public safety department ,
either through patrol cars or walking patrols . He said the area
in question would be patrolled by cars . Mr . Austen asked if
there would be safety phones and Mr . Wendt said there was a blue
light system for the campus but he was not sure there were any
phones on this site . Mr . Austen was' quite concerned about one
area that was heavy with trees and quite remote from the dwelling
units . Mr . Wendt said there would be site lighting and he was
sure that there would be lighting included in the parking lots .
Mr . Wright said that the blue light system had not been extended
to the site and did not anticipate it being extended to the new
community . He added there would be ', extensive lighting for the
• parking lots .
• 22
Chairman Aron asked if the patrols would be within a 24 hour
period , and Mr . Wendt responded there would be regular patrols
established .
As to the special approval , a motion was made by Edward King
as follows .
WHEREAS , this Board finds that this proposal would be in an
area that has been devoted to college student housing , and
that it would exist between existing multiple dwelling
facilities on the east and the west , it is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grants the applicant the requested
special approval under Section ° IV of the Zoning Ordinance
for the proposed dormitory residential construction ,
conditional upon the following .
( a ) Approval of the final drainage report and final
drainage design by the Town Engineer and the City of Ithaca
Engineer .
( b ) Approval of final working drawings by the Town
Engineer .
• ( c ) Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town
Planner .
( d ) The execution of an agreement between Cornell
University and the Town of Ithaca implementing Cornell ' s
offer to contribute $ 10 , 000 toward the cost of constructing
a sidewalk from the Town/ City line to the west side of the
Cornell Quarters project , and from the east side of the ,
Cornell Quarters project eastward to the East Hill Shopping
Plaza ( in addition to the sidewalk adjacent to the Cornell
Quarters project ) , and providing for the deposit of such sum
with the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits
for the Cornell Quarters project , such sum to be returned to
Cornell if the Town ' s portion of the sidewalk is not
constructed by December 31 , 1994 for reasons beyond the
control of Cornell University , such agreement to be in form
and substance as approved by the Town Board and the Town
Attorney .
( e ) The designation of the bikeway as an emergency access
road and maintained as such .
( f ) The execution of a mutually acceptable agreement
between the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University regarding
the allocation of responsibility for the maintenance of the
bikeway as determined by the Town Building Code Enforcement
Officer , with a view to the priority of keeping this bikeway
clear for access by emergency vehicles , said agreement also
23.
• to contain provisions as to indemnification responsibilities
for accidents or injuries on the bikeway , said
indemnification responsibilitiesu to be specifically agreed
upon by the Town of Ithaca and Cornbll University .
( g ) Cornell University obtaining from the City of Ithaca
Fire Department a statement as to the adequacy of the
bikeway as an emergency access for fire protection of the
proposed buildings , such statement taking into account the
effect of installing sprinklers in the building and the
possibility that the bikeway might not be as essential an
emergency provision if the buildings are indeed sprinklered .
( h ) That even if sprinklers are installed , that would not
satisfy the condition that an agreement between the Town and
the University as to the maintenance of the bikeway be
arrived at as a condition of approval .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
Mr . Austen thought the University should be responsible for
the maintenance of the bikeway . Attorney Barney felt the Town
Board would ultimately make the decision on this matter .
• Mr . Frost said it was not clear to him whether the bikeway
would be called an emergency access : road . He stated the Code
would prohibit the parking of vehicles on emergency access roads
but he did not think it would prohibit bicycling on the access
roads . Mr . Frost said he would like to see the bikeway formally
called an emergency access road .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Austen , King , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was unanimously carried .
There being no further business to come before the Board ,
the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
• Exhibits 1 through 5 attached
24
APPROVED °
d
Henry Aron , ChairmanB ,
owning
ascu
• kSSOCIATEl
RCHITECT
02 August 1988
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
New York
Reference . Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
and Visitors Bureau
Gentlemen .
We respectfully submit this appeal for a Building Height
Variance for a maximum 37 ' turret " as part of the design of
the proposed facility . We believe that strict observance of
Zoning Ordinance Article IV , Section 11 . 10 would impose
practical difficulties in building identification and scale
• issues .
Clear visibility is an essential requirement of the facility
functioning as Chamber of Commerce offices and Visitor ' s
Center . The site is such that motorists on Route 13 and
Route 34 might miss or mistake the facility for a private
residence without proper building identity and signage .
Expression of the required stairway as a turret marking the
site is a logical architectural element .
A turret is also in keeping with the historical aspects of
Stewart Park and the surrounding neighborhood . Many
turn -of-the - century yacht clubs and maritime facilities often
had vertical features incorporated into their designs . An
example of this is the present boat house at Stewart Park . In
order to give the simple two story with gable massing of the
Visitor ' s Center a sense of scale , traditional building
elements such as dormers , porches , and the turret have been
utilized . Both the turret and main building will be sheathed
in cedar beveled siding . The finest examples of residential
design in Tompkins County make use of such historical
building elements .
The plan dimensions of the turret are approximately 10 ' x 10 '
or less than 5 % of the building footprint with the balance of
• the structure meeting the 30 ' requirement . Shading patterns
would not affect any off - site areas . Visually the vertical
massing of the turrent will break down the scale of the
horizontal roofs and give the building a smaller more
residential blend .
THE DEWITT BUILDING 215 NORTH CAYUGA�STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 14850 607 / 273 6464
xh) b ► T 1
DOWNING/HASCUP ASSOCIATES , ARCHITECTS
• Zoning Board of Appeals
20 June 1988
Page 2
Existing foliage on City land will screen the facility from
Stewart Park . Visability of the turret from Route 34 would
allow the lower areas of the facility to be screened with
shrubs and small trees .
We believe that incorporating a turret of 37 ' maximum height
will enhance both the building design and surrounding
neighborhood . Thank you for your consideration .
Yours truly ,
DOWNING/HASCUP ASSOCIATES , ARCHITECTS
Steven Sommer
SS/ cl
•
•
0 lag
z 314eeV• , � 1 .� Zs J
•• JAF M
0 f�4. oj tl d
I
An awl* a
4J All "000
wa
L, �'LM1L i, M16 •.ee0 CYaYD
,�. —� — — s.—oss=371140 ?Loj{g s�'3�
oh ""414oloom,
L 1
`mow `\ • .� t ) It
rs dop
look
d • t \ ' ,t1
t�y�^•._. ow
.,/ of `\\,:•`r . ` LS 833 ,, .
ol
: .%:e%, ,
INN z
• ::: •`- '
.,,
loll
1 ,
,
\'=1• -•` ,``\ '\ \`•,•` • • 1
too or
Abo
A,• 1 1 .
\`\`\` ,\
lN
to \ XN\
1 \ '2•: r
)ow �1 \ \
1
*0 AAAA.
l of ; 1 )
i
% i if
it I fro ;
.00 to I
01
Cl
, I
f�.�� elan ,r.•i � 3
Y � � $ f07 d �Y� •33 � �'
t.IOy� a9 :a
4 `
• i
dM
ft
i
CE
In
ti
r
July 28 , 1988
Mown of ZtkacS To Wh QDAroI + Z T3A �. Cd w► u: . t'f' rc
L�, r� ►� ht ,. of Cow% Mcrc ,f CdWH, . Ctf e t-
Citizens to Save Our Parks thinks that Stewart
park with its serene views of the. lake is one of the loveliest
spots in Ithaca . We see it as a precious community resource
to be properly preserved and maintained . That the community
also feels this way is well attested by the over 7 , 000
signature attached to las =c year ' s petition to preserve the park .
The proposed new Chamber of Commerce building as
presently planned with a 37 foot turret will obtrusively impinge
upon the privacy of the park . The proposed turret is so high
( the same height as the Youth Bureau building ) that it will
Irelcuire either a variance to current zoning ordinances or an
amendment to the spot zoning ( the Special band Use District
Law ) which permits the Chamber to build there .
We. ask that you not grant the variance re :. uired
or not write an amendment to the Special Land Use District
Law and that you thus help to preserve the uniquely lovely
environment of Stewart Park .
We bring to your attention ( sea. attached ) some
comments by a very distinguished modern architect , Cesar
Pelli , which points out that good architecture should not be
egocentrically self- assertive , but should respect the
environment into which it is placed . We hope his comments
will be helpful to you in understanding the architectural and
environmental variable involved ' in deciding whether or not to
let the Chamber of Commerce ignore present zoning requirements .
r �
Citizens to Save Our Parks
By Doria Higgins
* We know how busy you all are but perhaps you would have time
to read at least the three paragraphs outlined - - one on the first
page and two on the last -. page .
2 Hillcrest Drive , Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
_ -• a i " iM 1 % b
GUEST SPEAKER CESAK PELLI
Pieces of the .City
THERE Is NOTHING quite so pleasurable "The postmodernist reaction has brought re-
for me as to visit my buildings when .; ; TX;-
Was
newed concern for the quality of our cities,"
or says Cesar Pelli, "but two great enemies are
they're finished and occupied. It is o „ aesthetic ideology and artistic signature . "
like being part of a miracle taking ^�j s LEFT: Pelli in his New Haven, Connecticut, of-
lace: Months and even ears of car- (ices with a model for the World Financial
p Y all^^^ Center in Manhattan . BELOW: "The World Fi-
.
ing and dreaming become reality. �o, I'Mi ago Its;;�;;;;; nancial Center towers, each with a distinctive
{t a inii:ii•as
Beyond all the expected pleasures, . �'•.� .:.b...j.... roofline, have varying heights correspond-
mks ....
•btNuu
k 41
there are the unexpected ones. New "' � ' •• ^••�• ••es ■ ing to the surrounding buildings," says Pelli .
. ••NN4Y.a
vistas, compositions and d patterns of
„..•1...••
sunlight come to life, and the are --
GUEST SPEAKER LESAK PELLI
Pieces of the City
i nntnnii•i1 )rum {'a:Cr 19 ',
tant work of art of any culture. The
making of good cities requires not
just pragmatic responses to context It is clear to me that the
but lyrical, creative acts respectful of
the greater purpose. obligations of a building to be a good
The often wrenching clash be- piece of the city are greater than its
tween the inner drives of an architect obligations as an art object or as part
and the external forces he or she must
respect are not a weakness but a per- of an architect's oeuvre.
manent source of strength and re-
newal of the art of architecture. Great
w
ell
_tr
t
t�. .
cities are the product of this dynamic are the concepts of aesthetic ideology ABOVE LEFT: Pelli's design for Herring Hall at
balance. It has to be dynamic to be and artistic signature. Rice University in Houston, Texas, was com-
pleted in 1984. "It is a modern building, true
art, and it has to be in balance for the Architectural ideology, whether to its time and to its system of construction;'
necessary harmony of the whole. it be modernism, classicism or post- says Pelli, ''but it is also very sympathetic
I question blind contextualism, be- modernism, tells us that there is an to the beautiful older buildings designed
by Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson in 1910."
cause if the art of building yields aesthetic system that is best in all ABOVE: Pelli's diamond-patterned brickwork
completely to context or external con- circumstances. It is clear to me that for the Ley Student Center expansion, 1986.
ditions, we have no renewing, only this is not so, that each circumstance "A particular design challenge was to con-
tinue the system of expression and orna-
blandness. On the other hand, if the is unique and requires a uniquely cal- mentation begun with Herring Hall," he says.
architect's internal agenda—be it in- ibrated artistic response. The concept
tellectual, aesthetic or ideological— of individual artistic signature says
is imposed on the building, a piece of that an architect .should have 'a per- today, when every well-known ar-
the city may be harmed. Good cities conal style like a painter or sculptor, chitect is working in cities that range
are very, resilient and have been able usually with a consistent system of from Fairbanks to Miami, from Hong
to absorb rather violent attacks on forms, materials and colors that is Kong to Berlin—completely different
their fabric. Sometimes the intruding then used.- with variations, for every contexts that should require carefully
object can become a beautiful and building type in every place. Fidelity considered and different architectural
vitalizing exception, such as the Gug- to an aesthetic ideology, to an indi- responses. If we continue to build sig-
genheim Museum on Fifth Avenue, vidual vision — or, worse still , to nature buildings in every city of the
but we can see now that there is a both—has been highly applauded world—and if architects keep on imi-
• limit to the resiliency of our cities, and respected. More so, it has been tating the latest forms and ideas of
The postmodernist reaction has considered an essential quality of a a few—each city will end up as a
brought renewed concern for the good architect. I believe these atti- collection of disparate individual
quality of our cities, but two great tudes to be damaging to our cities. statements, be they first-rate or
enemies are very much alive. They The problem is particularly severe second-rate, originals or imitations,
continued un ptWe 30
32
GUEST SPEAKER LESAK PELL [
Pieces of the Citv
continuer! from 7uge 32
• The importance of an artist's indi- buildings is an absurdity both physi- guide a design through a thicket of
vidual style is a concept that comes cally and intellectually. A collection laws and ordinances. We all need to
from painting—an art that can detach of photographs, drawings and mod- understand the circumstances, but in-
itself completely from external pres- els of buildings can have historical stead of doing so to figure out what
sures. Architecture is very different, interest but does not in itself have we can get away with, we must do so
It is not a three-dimensional, inhab- much artistic value. with respect. I believe that our artistic
itable painting. An architect rarely The architect begins by under- purpose gains strength from this atti-
chooses a building's site, purpose or standing and responding to these tude of respect. Architects have done
size. A collection of an architect's conditions and then must continue to so for millennia without weakening
their artistic achievements.
After every new design of mine be-
comes a building, I am once again im-
pressed with its uniqueness. More
and more, my designs have been
responding . to the unique circum-
stances of purpose and place; more
and more I find the greatest excite-
ment in arriving at the deepest pos-
sible understanding of a place—its
character, its past—and through that
understanding nurturing a fresh, po-
etic response into a design.
Instead of concentrating on one
particular personal style, I find that to
be a good architect I need to be more
• flexible and open. We work today in
more places and with more building
types than architects ever have. Not
only do I collaborate with engineers
and consultants and with other archi-
tects in my studio, but I also need to
collaborate with the architects who
preceded me in a city and with those
who will come after me.
We should not judge a building by
how beautiful it is in isolation, but
instead by how much better or worse
that particular place—a city or cam-
pus, a neighborhood or landscape—
has become by its addition. If the city
has not gained by the addition, we
should seriously question the design
and the building itself, no matter
how beautiful and theoretically cor-
rect it may be.
Architecture is so complex and
multi-rooted that its learning is slow
and gradual. I know that I am a much
better architect now than I was ten
years ago. I can feel that I am in a
• particularly rich and creative period
of my architectural life, and it is obvi-
ous to me that if I continue to learn as
I have, in another ten years I should
be very, very good. ❑
v -
•
DART II - Environmental Assessment Froposed 37 ' Turret i+' or
----------------
�rQp2s �d_Vis� tQrs_ani_4 �nyention_�u_reau� _ �'StmPkir:: �_ County_ Chamher
of_ Commerce
A . Action is an Unlisted Action
B . Action has received coordinated review .
C-_Could � Q- 0 2n.resu_lt_irl cdn adverse effects —oil,--tv _or CL -1 �,T
-- -- — --
from the foll owing_
Cl _ Existing_air guality ,, .-surface _or _groundwater_q_, u;� it _or
uant .it 1_noise levels , existin traffic atterns ,_ solict _waste
production or dis osal ,�_ otential _for _erosi on , c': ra, ir: a e or
---------- - p- --- P Re._. .---
flooding_problems ?
No adverse environmental impact is anticikyatec .
C_2 _Aesthetiagricultural l_gic +
c
�_ �_ �_a_rchoo ��
other_natural or cultural resources,i_ orcommuni_tY_ or_neighborhood
character ?
_ The proposed turret , with al ® ' x (®' footprint and 37 '
height , will not unduly intrude into the surrounding landscape or
conflict with existing aesthetic , historic , cultural resources
including the adjacent Stewart Park , or community or neighborhood
• character . Any potential visual impact , due to -the proposed
turret extending 7 ' above the current maximum height limit of 30 '
under Town of Ithaca zoning regulations is expected to be
mitigated by . existing mature trees , nearby hillside , and the
adjacent Ithaca City Youth Bureau build . ng ' .
C3 . _ Vegetation_or_ fauna�fish�_ shellfish .. or wildlife
spec es , _ s ' n ' ficant_hab'tatsor threatened_or_ en_dangere_cl
spies ?
No adverse environmental impact is anticipated .
CA._.A._c o mn unity'sox i sting_Plans_Q goal s_a s_off i c ial l x
adopted , or a change in use_ or_intgnsity_ of use_ of_ lancd_ or other
natural�resources9
The proposed turret is in conflict with and does require a
variance from the height restrictions set forth in Article L
Section 11 , 10 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . No adverse
impact with respect to the environment to existing community
plans or goals as officially adopted is expected .
C5 , GrQHth... 51AhQQsuQ td_QYe.1QPment _or_rel ed_ tivit.ies
likely to_he_induced by_the_Proposed_ action?
No growth , subsequent development , or related activities are
anticipated as a result of the proposed action . .
• idQntified in CI -CSS
None expected . ,
, C7 . Other_impacts _jincluding_changeS _ in use ._of _either
guantity_or_tYpe _of energyi9
None expected .
p -
•
pgtential _adv_.Qrse _environmental _
impact
n"
There may be some objections to the proposed turret based on
differing opinions regarding architectural design and aesthetic
I
ssues .
• FARTI T I
No significant adverse environmental impact as a result of
this action is anticipated due to the small scale and location of
the proposed turret , existing surrounding land uses , and existing
and proposed landscaping � on the site .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner
Review Date : August 10 , 1988
•
•
.< �t�I2E�IT�iS�ii�. Li��.�T�.i3E�4E�ET►li_4��.6I�TEF���LTE .
a
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Involved Agencies : Town of Ithaca Planning Board , City of
Ithaca Office of the Building Commissioner , City of Ithaca
Engineering Department , Tompkins County Planning Department ,
Tompkins County Health Department .
There would be a potentially large , localized impact on
land as a result of this action . There would be an increase
of impervious surface coverage from .3 to 8 acres of roads ,
buildings , and other paved surfaces , representing an
increase in impervious surfaces from 17 percent to 47
percent on the 17 acre site . Included would be the
demolition of the existing Cornell Quarters buildings ,
parking areas , and driveways , a single - family residence on
Maple Avenue , two storage yards , the removal of a quonset
but warehouse , and essentially totally new construction on
the site except for the renovation of a warehouse for use as .
a community building . Lot coverage by buildings would
to
increase from 7 percent to 20 ' percent on that 17 acres ,
within the 25 percent maximum building coverage requirement
". ' in R - 9 Districts . The five percent of the site with -slopes
ranging between 5 and 10 percent gradient , are proposed to
remain undisturbed .
> r Impacts to this land which has seen prior use for more
housing than at present , for storage yards , and for other
non - residential use ( brickyard ) , are expected to be site
r localized , irreversible , and continuous , though mi igatible
,.
tri'> , through standard site construction and soil :- conservation
a � practices , and the_ , establishment of landscaping on the. site . _ .
'
No regional
d adverse impacts to land are expected . While the
'd
No
impact with respect to land coverage could be reduced by the
qtyy;+t use of two - story buildings , it is understood by the reviewer
blfY Id -
r,A ;,, .
„ ,. ' that no two - story modular housing was found suitable for .. the
purpose proposed by the applicant . ,
i ` - The construction period is expected . to be of - 9 months
rr ,Rk
F • r` . duration and to consist of several stages . Demolition ,
including the removal of asbestos from existing buildings
following approved practices , the removal of approximately
2900 cubic yards of material from the site , . and rough d grading are proposed to occur prior to winter , . 198 $, . Soil
conservation and erosion control practices *are proposed to
mitigate potential soil erosion during the winter period
prior to further site construction in spring , . 1988 . Any
'd" ' localized visual impact resulting from the stockpiling of
, � : .
� F ',. !: ( 411 ) housing modules is expected to be mitigated by % the
benefit of speed of assembly possible with modules ( assembly
.is estimated at a rate of 40 modules per day ) . No .
significant adverse impact is expected from this staging
Y VY
I, s . ,subject to compliance with all pertinent requirements
rd
r .,_�,�M,. .� -�1 .
related to asbestos removal , the minimization of trucking of
excavated material along residential streets , the practice
of soil conservation and erosion control , . and the location
of any staging areas away from adjacent residential 'areas
and towards the interior of the site .
IMPACTQN WATER
The project would generate an increase in water usage
from the existing 12 , 000 gallons per day to 45 , 000 gallons
per day . Water is proposed to be supplied through the
Cornell system with an emergency interconnection to the Town
system . Because of this arrangement , no significant adverse
I
mpact is expected from the proposed water -usage increase .
Potential cumulative impacts related to other potential
future development in the East Hill area are expected to be
mitigated through such provision for interconnection and
through continued cooperation between Cornell and the _ Town
in water system improvements .
Development of sanitary sewers is expected to include
• the construction of a main on Vine Street with a connection
to a manhole above the existing monitoring station near
Mitchell Street , and to include a stub on Maple Avenue for
possible Town extension to serve 3 existing residences on
=' Maple Avenue . Its development would cause no significant
adverse environmental impact . Maintenance .: ea
on all
public water and sewer lines would be Yrequired, as a
condition of final site plan approval .
Existing site drainage patterns would be . altered as a
.J'1xy.
result of site development and would include the development
of surface and subsurface drainageways . The increase in
. , _ . . impervious surfaces described above under , .impacts - to land ,
: - and resultant increase in site runoff is . prel _minarily
. . expected to be substantially mitigated through the proposed
r ^=A construction of retention areas designed to prevent the rate
r of runoff from a 25 -y_ear storm " after development .from
exceeding that which would occur at present : Preliminary
rr�y j drainage calculations have been reviewed . A .full report , on
drainage impact and improvements design is require : for ; -
further review . It is recommended that the drainage. plan be
: . subject to approval by the City Engineer , for evaluation of
w. potential impacts on downstream storm drainage systems ,. : as _
would be 'expected in coordinated review < of ahe project . ` ;. . No
v> ° substantial erosion or , siltation is expected ; rsubject to the .
practice of soil conservation ,and -_erosion •control during the
�.• .
stages of site development , and to the provision of a
drainage report as described above .
y ; . * No significant adverse impact is expected to air h • the .
- ; quality provided that asbestos abatement associated wit
-_ , . . p,:d..x . . ._. Ih, e-r=M+a- . . . . • +. ,. ..-4 r. ,.....+d �- .. .,d+..-A>......v ...l,lm.+n-..+ 4 . -. +
• u
I:
demolition of the existing Cornell Quarters buildings is
performed according to all pertinent requirements .
P
10 significant species or habitats are known on the
P g
site that would be adversely impacted . Applicants propose
landscaping and the relocation of ' major trees where
possible .
The change from the old Vets burg buildings , storage
yards , and warehouses to the proposed new manufactured
housing is considered to be an aesthetic improvement , as
11
subject to additional landscaping, that should be required .
The narrow frontage of the project site on Mitchell Street
and Maple Avenue will assist . in mitigating the ,. uniformity . of site and building design that is '•proposed . Additional u
landscaping along the perimeter of the site and along the
• bikeway should be provided to assist in mitigating the
impact of siting the housing with minimal setbacks from
public ways .
IMPACT-QJLHJ.ST RIC AHDLABQHEQLQQ.QAL.IM
No sites of historic or archeological importance are .
9 known that would be adversely impacted . The Mitchell Family
,L cemetary_ . would. be .preserved in . the open , . space to"- the north .
The existing Vetsburg buildings are not known to * be ,
jr considered. of architectural merit .
k _ - _. _
q JMFA.LT_91L _ PACE_�_B,ED.REATIDN
It I There„would ' be a modErate impact ari the spatiYal
relationshipIt I _ between . the bikeway thIt
at ' the }
and hou°sing in
existing 5Q - foot -distance between the , bIII
ikeway an
ry Cornell Quarters buildings would be reduced to approxim g ,
;y ately' „
25 feet with . the proposed new - buildings . This impact would
+” be mitigated - by ,the provision . ,of additional buffer plantings , w„
., .
dings ' and the bikeway ,
Jb between the buil _
1
With a . , possible child population of 55 or moreII-, If Ito ' I.
r5 children , tat : . lots convenient to the family`: units are
_ .
proposed to be provided , with additional play area near the
(T; O proposed community building . , Active field. ' recreation would
be expected expected to occur on an informal basis at. the nearby ;
61
Belle Sherman School fields , and „ at Cornell facilt es . on
campus . No significant adverse impact is expected -• with
M r respect to open space and recreation , but itis expected
that Cornell will provide for suitable recreational areas
5” 1 such• as a community playfield , as well asset aside u
•
conservation _ open space , in any potential future development
of nearby lands south of Mitchell street , to assist in
, . providing for the recreational needs of future development .
' Possible impacts related to pedestrian and bicyclist
commuting needs are discussed below under transportation
impacts . iL
IMPACT QN..1RANSEQR1A110
A . IMRAP-t On EXI ssting—RQad5
According to data available in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers ( ITE ) Trip Generation Handbook the
proposed project will generate approximately 1192 trips per
day , or an increase of 767 trips over the approximately 425
trips per day the current Cornell Quarters would generate at
full occupancy .
Estimated Trip Generation
A . M . P . M Daily -
�. Peak Peak Volume
Single Student Units 14 37 713
Family Units _ - 1599__---479
Total 29 66 1192
rf
` • The above represents increases of 123 % in A . M . peak .
hour , • 154 % in P . M . peak hour , and and 180 % in total daily
traffic volumes over the existing level of land use .
In order to analyse the potential traffic - related
impacts of the project the following • assumptions were made : ,
Assumptions : : ., ..
7t ;^ j 1 . Because the proposed development is of a student
a{`
ted A . M . and P . M . peak hour .,•
housing nature , _ work- re ae leas than Ghat which . is ,�
traffic generation will b
normally associated with residential areas . - .• Due -to
daytime ;parking restrictions on the , main campus , most
G , residents will be walking or usir_g public transit to.
r{� get to their daytime destinations . - Reduced daytime .- . _ _.
traffic generation is expected to be offset by evening
ff ^ traffic between the site and libraries and other
research or office facilities on the main . .campus .
2 . 60 % of trips generated would be oriented to main '
Cornell campus , with 70 % using Maple Avenue and 30 %
, �[ using Mitchell Street . Of the 70 % of trips • u_ sing Maple
a Avenue , 50 % would be eastbound to Judd Falls - Road and '
the eastern portion of the main Cornell campus and 50 %
would be westbound to the Six Corners intersection and
fir , the western portion of the main campus . Given the
daytime parking restrictions on the main campus , almost
"fz , 9U s. _ - - _ _ T ! �•. d •7v' kx d ' `1fA��+%�
f
•
all of- these trips will occur during evening hours as
students return to the main campus to use university
libraries and other research facilities .
3 . 25 % of trips generated would be shopping oriented
( ITE Trip Generation handbook ) , 4090 of which would be
directed to East Hill Plaza , 401/0 to downtown Ithaca and
beyond , and 20 % to the Cayuga Heights /Village of
Lansing area .
4 . 15 % of trips generated would be of a miscellaneous
unclassified type . These trips would be evenly divided
between Mitchell Street and Maple Avenue .
Based on the above assumptions the following analysis
of traffic impact on individual roads in the vicinity of the
project was made :
Campus Shopping Misc . 'Dotal Perc ..
Inc . *
Mitchell St .
east . 0 80 45 125 2 %
• west 220 70 45 335 5 %
Maple Avenue
east 246 100 45 391 14 %
west 246 50 45 341 15 %
Total. 712 300 180 1192 - -
'' ' * Percent increase in existing street traffic volumes
over . that generated by the existing Cornell Quarters .
Ip _ - Traf.fic volume data for Maple Avenue' and Mitchell
k` 04 ' t Street. has been collected by Town of Ithaca planning staff
in the last month . Data collected shows that traffic volume
on these streets averages : 2 , 323„ vehicles per day for Maple
P aAvenue , , just. west of . the _. entrance to Cornell Quarters::, and
Jtm
; : .. . 2 , 832 vehicles per day near its intersection . wth ' Juidd Falls '
, , =-f Road ; _7 , 049 vehicles per day forINK ' Mitchell Street just west
,w' of the south entrance to Cornell Quarters , and _6 , 577;
dd
vehicles per day between the cemetery and the entrance 'to m
} gyp Ide ' s Bowling Lanes : - - - - - - - - - - - --
The increased traffic due to the expansion at the . ' _ site
�” r
; is not . expected to create - an
y significant adverse impact on
local streets and ' intersections .
While the project will ,
w, tt }
generate . a + / - 15 % increase in traffic on Maple Avenue , the '
t increase is considered to be well within the capacity of the
easterndandtwestern endscitAdditihe intersections at ' its
' onal traffic on Mitchell
I. IoStreet west of the site will be within the capacity of both
the street and the Cornell Street /Mitchell Street
} ` intersection .
The impact of additional traffic at the Mitchell
-Street/Judd Falls Road intersection is expected .to , be4 r ,
minimal . Traffic volume on the ' west approach to this " T "
intersection , controlled by 3 - way STOP signs , is expected to
increase by a maximum of 13 vehicles per hour . This
represents an increase of approximately 3 . 5 % . Any . increase
in traffic due to the proposed expansion is not expected to
be coincident with the normal morning and afternoon peak
traffic hours of the intersection and thus should not create
a significant adverse impact : The anticipated traffic
volume after development is within the intersection
capacity .
a
B . �rriPet _s�r�_P_cdc�triaTr .f.1c
It is expected that the proposed expansion of the
Cornell Quarters site will increase the amount of pedestrian
traffic along Mitchell Street between the City / Town line and
East Hill Plaza as well as on Maple Avenue between the site
and the main campus . Pedestrian traffic is expected to
increase proportionately with the proposed increase in
population , or approximately 300 % .
Given the existing pedestrian facilities between the
site and the main campus no significant adverse impact due
• to the projected increase in pedestrian traffic is
anticipated for this area .
Currently approximately 120 dwelling units including
the existing Cornell Quarters are within 3 , 000 feet , or
within 12 minutes walking time of East Hill Plaza . via
Mitchell Street . These dwelling units represent
approximately 265 persons within walking distance, of , the .
shopping center . Pedestrian traffic generation data*
suggests that the existing population may generate between
ten and twenty pedestrian trips per day along. ,_ Mi.tchell
Street . Based on this the expansion of the Cornell Quarters t Ip
complex may more than double the number the ' amount of
pedestrian traffic along Mitchell Street" bletween . Cornell , , ;, .
z , Quarters and East Hill Plaza .
Traffic data collected by Town planning staff shows,
that between 70 % and 75 % of the traffic volumeon local , - :
roads . occurs between 9 a . m . and 7
p . m . For Mitchel I; Street 1.
G� P t
this represents a rate of between 6 . and 8 vehi. eles, per ;
minute passing a spot in both directions ,Thus the. .,_average
s . : . , pedestrian walking to and from the East Hill shopping area
may be exposed to between 70 and 100 vehicles during the
"ear time of their trip . Although the number of pedes,trians: . .may, '
11 be considered low , the existing traffic volume combined , wi. th.,`
a narrow cartway and no shoulders represents a :; dangerous
condition for pedestrians .
7«� The potential impact of the project with regard to
. pedestrian safety , which is a major concern of . the Town ,
planning staff and members of the public , could . b ®
substantially mitigated through the contribution . by Cornell
University of a fair share amount for the construction of a
sidewalk between the Cornell Quarters site and the East Hi11
shopping area .
Id — t
Source : National Cooperative Highway Research Program .
Report # 187
C . Other TransR9XtAti.QU.Aa1Oecta
The proposed offset drive lane , and plazas with
contrasting pavement are expected to minimize through
traffic use . More information has been requested with
respect to the sight adequacy of ^ the proposed intersections
of the Maple Avenue Gate and the North Parking Lot . At . the
time of this review , regrading at the west edge of the Maple
Avenue Gate should improve sight safety . The North Parking
Lot intersection needs further evaluation with respect to
the nearby crest on Maple Avenue .
The proposed parking facilities are considered adequate
for the proposed number of occupants . The Ithaca Fire Dept .
has been in ongoing review of the site plan with respect to
fire access suitability .
. . . . _ -
RQ13Z.AN.D_QDOR IM 'ACT z
® The site is 150 to 200 feet fromIthe nearest existing
residences , which would receive a . temporary impact from
construction noise . Considering the regional benefits of
the proposed housing , no significant adverse impact . is
expected . Based on the residential management proposed by
Cornell , no excessive residential noise is anticipated that
would adversely impact adjacent residential neighborhoods ._
ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The project site is adjacent to the former Koppers. .
�sr asphalt plant site , now used by a trucking company . ` ` N.o-
, .• ,
information is known at present as to any possible . existence
s of tar wastes on that site that would be impacted by the
- _ proposed Cornell Quarters expansion It - is ._ expected that
} ? any work by Cornell. along the bikeway would be, , monitored ,,: by-
1
y
" Cornell to see that any possible buried waste would ' not .'be . .
� dist_ urbed s i `
Sprinklers would, . P be required in all buildings � in 4 this
project pursuant to the Town sprinkler ordinance . ,. This,. wille . . -
' I substantially reduce demand with respect to fire protection,.
� r 4 . • , .
rIMPACT ON GRQWTH.JWD. CHARACTER QF. CQMMUNITY 0A MIGHBQRHQQD
-r
3
•,� .� The proposed student housing use is permitted by ''.
a," i• special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals .' ;'. '.No
significant adverse impact to the character of the ; ; ;
Y ,I • .
surrounding neighborhood is expected , subject to the . .
}a;c mitigating measures described elsewhere . in this . review and
as proposed by the applicant , and also when one considers
x �}
. • . •_ - • ... ....�.._ .... �... » . . .+.- e. .. v • rn .. . ... r.-fn rtwn .v ry nvu: .S nv. navt� •�. nwarxnA".w�6a�irsv alrrnwn .mswbeMON•snea w¢st
I
adjacent land uses and the community benefit of low to
moderate income student housing development .
The proposed residential density , an increase from 6 . 6
dwelling units per acre on 12 acres to 10 units per acre on
- � -17 acres exceeds that permitted for two - family residences in
R - 9 Districts , however , the site is nearby two multiple
residence developments with higher densities than is -
proposed , and is also partly adjoined by nonresidential land
uses which have a part in reducing effective residential
m densities . On the east is the Multiple Residence District
containing the Maple Hill Apartments , which with 74 units on
4 . 79 acres has a density of 15 . 45 units per acre , and the
Maple Hill Cemetery . To the west in the City of Ithaca is
the 150 - unit Fairview Heights , which on 5 + / - acres has a
density of 29 units per acre .
The population of the 65 . 5 . acres in the Town between
Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street would increase from
approximately 364 to 697 persons . Approximately 5 . 7 acres
of R - 9 land not currently in housing use would remain . This
would include the 2 . 57acre former .Koppers site , zoned R- 9
but in use by a trucking company . The impact of this
increase in residential density ;; is partly mitigated by the
41
24 + % - acres of essentially committed open space to the east
owned by the East . Hill CemeteryAssociation . It is assumed
that there will be . _ additional open space designations on
fill
=s' '
adjacent Cornell land . on the south side of Mitchell Street ,
particularly along an existing stream .
; . Considering ,„ nearby land uses and open . space , the
proximity of the site to Cornell and East Hill Plaza , the
- - = proposed mixture of . single - student and family - student
housing , and the need for low to moderate- income housing
; . close. to Cornell , lno significant adverse impact with , respect ..
to land . `use. _ density - i s expected .
µ - With respect toll - -community iservices ;- police-protect-ton . _
would be supplied by Cornell . Increased demand for fire
protection would be partly mitigated by the provision of
<
sprinklers � in - all
_ . units_ . The applicant _ has, reviewed the.
Yx possible. , increase ' ' in' . . school - aged children with theI . IkCity
School ' District : :A community building would be provided= � n
s4
an existing ” warehouse , with availability to thea, publaic x; , - t :.._
fi proposed . ' On the basis of these aspects , and based. on the
;t�;kl assumption that . Cornell will contribute a fair share in
local service improvements_ to mitigate impacts of potential
future *`growth , no. : , significant adverse impact , Witli ' respvect
r ° an increased , .demand for community ' services is expected ar ~ ry
( ; . With ;. resPect to possible precedent - setting , _ . the_ project _ .. . _
may contribute to setting an area precedent for other
development of manufactured housing for low to moderate -
° ' incomes , Any possible future projects . of that. - �type ,,may � -
. ' `LL prove to : be' an economical housing form , filling- all� communi'ty
need , and would be subject to site - specific review .
llp3j33ridi}tt t x 1 :.t ' / i .
}} q
, . f
- I . .__ . -- • __.-d'.. .- .. +.-. .act-* *t•*rVt7.'C�i9� '4f7R+S'n"^.C!,iy`.i"'
a I
uu ' _V11 i�.b6ddel��L� ddi...dX—�iiy�3.Yi1il6]L�YILY.A�X�3LiLA
9 In
BELA�TE—D �_LTd.Q.E.Qa.TEUTIA. .AnnSERSE IomflnU
S "
ii At the time of this reviews known. public concern
specifically related to this project has been centered on
potential pedestrian /bicyclist /vehicular conflicts due to
the present pattern of use of Mitchell Street and the lack
of a sidewalk . This potential impact is expected to be
mitigated by the contribution of a fair share by Cornell. in
® the construction of adequate improvements for pedestrians
and bicyclists .
Based on recent presentations "by neighborhood
associations at 'Town meetings , it is expected that there
will be concern about related to increased residential
development . Cornell has reported holding several meetings
with local residents during the '' preliminary design of this
project and has incorporated their input in the present
design , especially with respect; to the
�1 single - student / f.ami.ly - student housing mixture .
Impacts associated with this project are expected to be
Substantially . mitigated . by the zeasures proposed by the
applicant ., as described in this review , and as .would be
required in any further project approval . There is a- high
probability . that there will beincreased pressure for low to
moderate income housing convenient to Cornell , and that
development to % alleviate this pressure will continue in the
µ forseeable future . - It is a desirable and efficient land . use
to locate such housing a location such as that proposed ,
y- where services exist or' will be
provided . No permanent ; loss
_ .
of. ,` resources - 0 . value " is. anticipated by t- e. ..conversion - of
the existing site for the proposed use .
Local impacts with respect to site development , an
increase , . . and associated- .- increased
. in residental . :. density,
x ° Or demand on services ' and infrastructure .are ` cons, dered
seaondaxy rte : the region°al beneficial impact of : partalY
,r - a i'on • of :, the, pressure for . ' student " housing = on ' '
eyy
neighborhoods surrounding Cornell . Such allevi ation wi h be
.10
especially beneficial in the maintenance of established
{ P neighborhoods in ., adjacent - axeas of . the City.,, , Potential
417�tr V
a t ;+ i. L .
cumulative ° impacts of increased growth on ;East ° Hill ,-`<must Abe > w� u
{E ', dealt ,with in ongoing coordinated , planning :>`between ` Corne11
"
and ` involved . j
urisdictions .
,
• y RFrnMMF�DATION -- - - -
; - . .. .n .. ::. .you .. .n a•
A negative determination of environmental signcance
is recommended , subject to the following conditions :
1 : Submission of further information on drainage
design .
UP
4
4
r
t ar
n
1 �
� I
2 . Submission of further information on sight
adequacy at the proposed intersections with Maple Avenue .
3 . Provision of additional landscaping adequate to
scren buildings along the bikeway and Mitchell Street ,
4 . The contribution by Cornell of a fair share of the
cost of constructing a sidewalk between the project site and
East Hill Plaza .
n
vt � L
�-40� 1Z
TFW ?�) OF iTHftA QCT
,
11 1
>,i a
t _
I 1 , ,
F�
C }
,l 4 1 n ryr.
PY
' - .f ♦ .rv - r \ ! - . ._.. 5^,VIYFv��tT •�Yp(t?YYSC.P'1 .�T3N.sM,� t.-m--
r
To : Zoning Board of Appeals
From : Susan C . Beeners �1
Subject : Cornell Quarters -Environmental Review Update
Since the July 19 , 1988, Planning Board Public Hearing ,
additional information has been reviewed so that the
following recommendations are made :
The drainage and grading plans submitted have been
approved by the Town Engineer , with -- he final drainage
report and design to be subject to Town and City Engineer
w '
approvals .
Reports have been submitted snowing satisfactory sight .
distances at Maple "Avenue and Mitchell Street .
Cornell representatives have volunteered to contribute
to the Town of Ithaca , in connection with the Cornell
Quarters project , the sum of $ 10 , 000 toward the cost of
construction of a sidewalk between the City of Ithaca Line
and East Hill Plaza , which sidewalk is in addition to the
sidewalks shown on the site plan .
Based on the information reviewed up to the present time , a
negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended .
It is further recommended that the application for special
approval be granted , subject to the following conditions :
a . Approval of the final drainage report and final
drainage design by the Town Engineer and the City of Ithaca
Engineer . 11
b . Approval of final working drawings by the Town
Engineer .
c . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town
Planner .
d . The execution . of an agreement between Cornell
University and the Town of Ithaca implementing Cornell ' s
offer to contribute $ 10 , 000 toward the cost of constructing
asidewalk from the Town/City line to the west side of the
Cornell Quarters project , and from the east side of the
Cornell Quarters project eastward to the East Hill Shopping
Plaza ( in addition to the sidewalk adjacent to the Cornell
Quarters project ) , and providing for the deposit of such sum
with the Town prior to the Assu 'ance of any building permits
for the Cornell Quarters project , such sum to be returned to
Cornell if the Town ' s portion of the sidewalk is not
constructed by December 31 , 1994 for reasons beyond the
control of Cornell University , such agreement to be in form
and substance as approved by the Town Board and the Town
Attorney .
�. Bch � b► .� 5
s } Sq"C".- 'C , rewri ._ r,e-.., ..rt' t •rc--' w. v} w -
� } d�rr ' ..r r .ci { fi » ry+•, t-i '-x-• r'T+-•-
a } n} .. :, . k , t � r"� li, tr 1 r �' 7. ' o"•"". '.F'S� 3 , t"Z" t, a�t,.^ -
., . - etil. IJ , r \ a " n, t 1 `4: rl �5�.r r r P:, . t ,. . e •, r t � .e� eu.L p1� /45si'� y� 1 � % f r \a ����":�11W:`. ,`,.... ,
AFF1 DA1117 Of PUALdCA71ON
THE ITHACA JOURNAL .
Attu af t r Ot >7riL, sa22TkIIt15 '! � �—; TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING,
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICEi) OF PUBLIC HEAR I _
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST Ga i 1 Su10,
1. i
. ns . .. .. . being duh Mx orn, deposes 1988, 7:00 P. M.
By direction of the Chairman
of the Zoning Board of Ap"
and says , that he resides in Ithaca, Count)* and state aforesaid and peals NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings`.
tbat he iS C le r •: will be held by the Zoning;
-•».... .._. . .... ..^........, ._.._..�^..- Board of Appeals of the Town"
___......
......_..... .._._...^
of Ithaca on Wednesday, 'Au=;
gust 10, 1988, in Town Hall,
Of T= ITiLAcA jova.>; ,u, a public newspaper printed and Flo
blished East Seneca Street, (FIRST
Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST
Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM-'
MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on`
in Ithaca aforesaid, and that It Dotice, of which the annexed is a true the following matters.
ADJOURNED APPEAL of Ernest
and Beulah Pittman, Appel-
COPY, was Published in said paper ....-...._. - - lonts, Rochelle Alexander,
th
Article III,requesting
7 and 9, of
-------•-----_»• .Y.-.-.�.......^....J •, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or-
�.�. t...- . ... . .__.._......_... .....
dinance, and, Section 280-a'o
the New York State Town L'ow,
... with respect to a parcel 'of.
...._. ... ......... ._...--•••--
•"'_'••--•^^•-• ••-•--•---••^•—••^-.. land not fronting on a Towh,
and that the first publication of said notice was n the ._t.- County, or State highway, for
the construction of a residence
p 0 ._ on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6-40- 1 - 1 , located on Pit-
tman Lane, a private road off
day Of _ t gt•. f Stone Quarry Road.
APPEAL of Cornell University,
Q /� owner, Albert L. Wright, Cor-
nell University, Architectural
•'-•'••-••-•••• •--••---•—• Services, agent, requesting
Sppecial Approval under Arti-
Su and sworn to before me, this cle III, Section IV, Paragraph 4
-------• ••--.^.... day of the Zoning Ordinance for
the construction of student
housing at the Cornell Quar
—•---•••----- ..-----._-.. 19.___....-, ters site, between Maple Ave-
nue and Mitchell Street, on 17
acres on Town of Ithaca Tax
- - • - Parcels N6-63-2- 1 , -2. -3, - 14 and
- 10. 2, Residential District R-9.
Notarry, pubj uc, APPEAL of the Tompkins Coun-
ty Chamber of Commerce,
�E FOR owner, ' Downing-Hoscup As-.
NotNO R� sociates agent, requesting a
ary Public, variance from Article IV, Sec-
. c, St= ;A
Of tion Il , Paragraph 10 of the .
No. New Yo Zoning Ordinance for the con
Q�aGfied 46 ,54410 struction of a Visitors and Con_
In �O vention Bureau and Tourist In-
Commis mpkins COUnf formation Center, with said
S'On exp) y building proposed to have d
Ma height of 37' at the point of a
y 31i � 914
"stair turret", (a height of 30
is required). The proposed
building will be located at
904-912 East Shore Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels N6_
18-2-8, .9, - 10, Special Land
Use District #5 (Limited Mix '
Use ), (Residential District R-15
requirements apply).
AGENDA ITEM - Executive Ses-
sion
Said Zoning Board of Appeals
will at said . time, 7:00 p. m. ',
and said place, hear all per-
sons in support of such matters
or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in
person.
Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca l
273- 17471
• August 5, 1988
� az.� �