Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2020-02-18TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 18, 2020 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Canopy Sign, 1229 Trumansburg Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex Demolition, 217,221 & 301 Maple Avenue. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2- 6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. 5. Persons to be heard 6. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2020 7. Other Business Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273.1747 or SPOLCE@TOWN.1T11ACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (http://www.town.ithaea.nv.us/meetin2-aj!endas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, February 18, 2020 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential- Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant.single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, February 10, 2020 Publish: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: February 10, 2020 Date of Publication: February 12, 2020 Sew, d� C r Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18'h day of February 2020. �A6"Zca— Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 KE0025073 k Qualifies! in Schuyler County,�3 Commission Expires May 17, 20 l WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2020 4 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, February 18, 2020 By direction of the Chair- person of the Planning Board, NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Plan- ning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, Febru- ary 18, 2020, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed mod- ification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Tru- mansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Oper- ating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pro- posed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Resi- dential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The proj- ect involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building struc- tures and two adjacent va- cant single-family homes, and the installation of ero- sion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement pro- cedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, HLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engi- neers, Agent_ Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objec- tions thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in per- son. individuals with visual impairments, hearing im- pairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessa- ry, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hear- ing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 ($32.73) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, February 18. 2020 Minutes Planning Board Members: Liebe Meier Swain, Chair; Members Fred Wilcox, Ariel Casper, Jaime Vanuccni, Gregory Lindquist, Yvonne Fogarty, and Christopher Biehn Staff. Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Jasmin J. Cubero, Deputy Town Clerk, David O'Shea and Justin McNeal, Engineering Ms. Meier Swain opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Item 1: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +1- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent. Karen from ASI Signs gave an overview stating that the applicant would like to put some dimensional letters on the entrance canopy, so visitors and vendors know which entrance to use. Ben Harris, Nursing Home Representative added that they basically want to put the letters on to direct people because they have several exits on the same side and we want people to enter where they should be entering. The sign would face east and will not be visibly from the road or from the adjacent neighbors' houses and will be facing the lower parking lot. SEQR DETERMINATION Ms. Balestra noted that this is similar to the last meeting where the signage wasn't quite ready at the Final Approval of the project, so they had to come back for this approval. PB RESOLUTION 2020-009: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Cayuga Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Canopy Sign 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) Tax Parcel No. 26.4-46.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 1 entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project; and 3. The Planning Board, on February 18, 2020, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a set of plans entitled "Cayuga Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, 1229 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," prepared by Schopfer Architects, LLP, dated 8/20/19 and revised 9/6/19, including sheets LLOIA, L1.0113 and L2.01A, a drawing titled "Cayuga Nursing & Rehab Center Exterior Signage," prepared by ASI Signage, dated 10.15.2019, and other application materials; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Gregory Lindquist Seconded: Yvonne Fogarty Vote: ayes — Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Fogarty, Casper and Kaufman PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Meier Swain Opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Peter Rogers spoke saying his property is adjacentto the nursing home and he was here to complain about old business; He asked if this is a residential neighborhood and if the nursing home and church are there by special permit. Ms. Balestra responded that they received special permits or special approval many, many years ago. Mr. Rogers said he just received the notice and he is confused about preliminary and final approvals being held together. Mr. Wilcox asked the Chair for a moment with the speaker and showed him a picture of the proposed signage and the location. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 2 Mr. Rogers said when he was Chair of the City Planning, Byrne Dairy wanted a sign and was turned down because they bordered a residential neighborhood which has since been approved. He wanted to commend the board for their efforts and said he would wait for Persons to be Heard to talk about older matters. Ms. Meier Swain closed the public hearing at 7:1Opm. The Board had no questions or comments on this action. PB RESOLUTION 2020-009: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Cayuga Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Canopy Sign 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) Tax Parcel No. 26.4-46.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jarnot, ASI Signage, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project has, on February 18, 2020, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on February 18, 2020, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a set of plans entitled "Cayuga Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, 1229 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," prepared by Schopfer Architects, LLP, dated 8/20/19 and revised 9/6/19, including sheets L1.01A, L1.01B and L2.01A, a drawing titled "Cayuga Nursing & Rehab Center Exterior Signage," prepared by ASI Signage, dated 10.15.2019, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 3 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby determines that the proposed sign is acceptable as to design, materials, illumination, placement and size, and approves the sign based upon the following criteria: a. Signs should be legible in the circumstances in which they are seen, and the layout should be orderly. • The proposed sign will be seen on the main entrance canopy, as visitors approach the building entrance. The proposed layout, color, size and font of the sign lettering will clearly indicate the entrance and make the sign orderly and very legible. b. Sign panels and graphics on the building should relate with and not cover architectural features or details; and should be sized in proportion to them. • The sign panel and lettering style match the architectural character of the building, and the lettering is sized in proportion to the canopy. c. Illumination should be appropriate to the character of the surroundings and shall be in accordance with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law. • There is no lighting proposed for the sign. d. Monument signs are preferable to pole signs. Pole signs should be as low to the ground as possible. • This criterion only applies to freestanding signs. The proposed sign is not a freestanding sign. e. Multi -use or multi -tenant signs located on the same premises should meet the requirements of §270-256 C and F. • The proposed sign is not a multi -use or multi -tenant sign. f. The reviewing Board may require that landscaping be used at the base of a freestanding sign if such landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the sign. • The proposed sign is not a freestanding sign, so the criterion is not applicable. 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, as shown on the submitted plans referenced in Whereas 93 above, with the following condition: a. Receipt of any necessary sign variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moved: Gregory Lindquist Seconded: Yvonne Fogarty Vote: ayes — Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Fogarty, Casper and Kaufman ITEM 2: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 63.-2-5, 63.-26, and 63-2- 7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 4 demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. Jeremy Thomas, Cornell Real Estate gave an overview and presentation. Mr. Thomas stated that Planning Staff has summarized the request in detail and this presentation is intended to provide a bit of color behind the request tonight. He added that he submitted a letter outlining the reasons for the request along with a letter from CU Police Chief. Mr. Thomas went through a presentation giving the history of the property and showing the location of the structures to be demolished. The property was set to revert to the College in 2028 and the owner was behind in taxes and there is a history of criminal activity at the location. The owner was willing to negotiate with the College to pay the back taxes and take early ownership of the property. Mr. Thomas said it was unexpected to own the property this early and now they have the responsibility of maintaining it and it is in bad shape and is a blight in the area and an attraction to criminal activities. The College immediately fenced the site and hired private security to patrol the property from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. each evening. The property does not meet minimum standards for occupancy and even with the security efforts, it is nearly impossible to secure the site. The College plans to demolish two other single-family properties, one of which is vacant now and the other will become vacant next month, to create a single site to mitigate the impact of the demolition in preparation for a seamless process. The site will remain gated and locked until redevelopment is possible. The College is starting to look at the feasibility of redevelopment but there are no development agreements in place with any developers. The economics will be challenging, and the College does not know at this point if redevelopment will happen. Mr. Thomas said due to these factors, they believe the demolition is an independent action and request approval. Mr. Biehn asked if the Cornell Master Plan for 2028 didn't identify plans for the lot. Mr. Thomas responded that the site was included in the Maplewood site adjacent to it for potential student housing in the future. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 5 Ms. Fogarty asked how many units were there now. Mr. Thomas responded that there are I I buildings with 82 units total. Ms. Fogarty said she didn't have questions about the demolition in particular and didn't see any reason to keep them there, but she had questions about the single-family houses and would like to see Historic Ithaca go and take a look at the older one and see if it isn't eligible to be moved by someone interested in doing so. Mr. Thomas said they are proposing to demolish them because it is very difficult to separate them out for mobilization of the equipment. He said moving them would be quite difficult because of the grades of the roads and the site. Mr. Hale added that those buildings, on the interior, have been dramatically changed from their original layout and have asbestos and other hazardous materials and they would have to be gutted before any movement would be practicable. He added that during the inspection of the property in preparation for demolition, we have talked to the State preservation officer because they are over 50 years old and they are not eligible for the historic register and usually they would just ask that good pictures are taken prior to demolition. Ms. Brock asked a number of questions to determine whether moving the house would disturb the asbestos and the applicant stated that in his professional opinion, it would. Ms. Fogarty stated that she still wanted a local opinion because the outside looks well maintained, and it seems silly to tear it down when there might be another use for it. Mr. Wilcox asked about the use of the term "challenging economics" and what makes this site different from the Maplewood site next door. Mr. Thomas responded that this is a smaller site and it is two years later than the Maplewood construction and there has been considerable increase in the costs of construction in Ithaca. Mr. Wilcox asked if lead paint was in the houses, and Mr. Thomas said that is the assumption given the age of the homes. Mr. Wilcox asked what the site would look like after demolition is completed; if there is no slop there, could we play soccer there? What state is it going to be left in? Mr. Hale responded that the existing pavement, walkways, retaining walls and vegetation will remain and the underlying utilities will be capped and remain. The structures themselves that are above grade will be brought down to grade. It will be essentially level with the grade but there are small areas amongst the apartments that contain boiler rooms which are slightly depressed and those will be brought up to a grade that doesn't exceed a 30" inch drop so if someone does traverse the property there isn't an excessive drop. The same goes for the single-family homes where there is a basement; those will also be brought to the 30' inch grade. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 6 Mr. Wilcox said he is getting at the statements in the submission where the possibility is the site will remain vacant so maybe more remediation needs to happen to make it look like a nice lawn and get rid of the asphalt walks and parking lot and the basements to make it look nicer. Mr. Wilcox said it seems you want it both ways; you want to be able to segment the project with demolition now and site plan approval later but you hold out the possibility that development may never occur and so more remediation might be necessary. Mr. Thomas responded that the College hopes to redevelop this site, consistent with the Town's Planning but part of the unknown feasibility is how it would be redeveloped and we do not want to remove something that may make that feasibility harder. Our principle interest is in making this site safe and in order to do that we need to bring down these structures. Further demolition could occur as a part of the redevelopment process of course, but for now, we want to make it safer while keeping some things there that might be used in the future. Mr. Hale added that not knowing what might be proposed, there is the possibility that some might be needed to meet grades and limit the disturbance of the site. Mr. Wilcox noted that there are a lot of truck trips involved and there are roads that are not in good repair nearby and there is a requirement to review and approve those routes. Mr. Wilcox turned to staging because a number of years ago we had issues with staging with the College in the vacant lot at Pine Tree Rd and we do not want to see that again. Ms. Fogarty said in terms of the disposal of air conditioners and refrigerators on the site, she would like to see them disposed of at a recycling center that does that properly. Mr. Thomas said that was handled by the previous owner and any in the single-family homes would be handled under Cornell's very strict policy regarding that. Mr. Casper asked if the security would remain. Mr. Thomas said the fencing will remain but not the security since there will not be any structures on the property to break into. Mr. Casper added that implies indefinite fencing? Mr. Thomas responded yes, for the time being. SEQR DETERMINATION Mr. O'Shea requested the addition of the need for a SWPP in Part 1, Q2. Mr. Wilcox asked about the indication that "less than a lenth of an acre will be physically disturbed" and he found that hard to believe. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 7 Mr. Thomas said the area of operation is going to be largely on the paved surfaces and the removal of the buildings themselves; there is not going to be any new disturbance of the land with the exception of the building footprints of the two garden apartments and the single-family homes. All the rest is not disturbed. Mr. Wilcox didn't think that took into account contractor staging and moving of large, heavy equipment traversing the site to get to the structures. Mr. Hale responded that there is paving all around these buildings and the machinery will be operating on the pavement. Mr. Wilcox reiterated that it seems too small although he would agree it is less than an acre, a tenth of an acre seems too small. Minor changes made to the SEQR form. PB RESOLUTION 2020 — 010: SEQR - Demolition Preliminary and Final Site Plan Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex 217,221 & 301 Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval; and 3. This action is the first phase of an anticipated development project that is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which segmentation from the environmental review of subsequent phases has been recommended; and 4. 6NYCRR, Part 617.3(g) notes specific instances where said segmentation of environmental review is allowed; and PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 8 5. The Planning Board, on February 18, 2020 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, drawings prepared by Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, titled "301 Maple Ave Demolition," including sheets H100 -H104, dated December 20, 2019, and sheet AC100, titled "217, 221, 301 Maple Ave Demolition," dated January 16, 2020, and other application materials; and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That, per the requirements outlined in 6NYCRR Part 617.3(g) of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the segmentation of the above -referenced action from future phases of development is warranted, given that: Information on future project development phase(s) is too speculative to include in the environmental review for the proposed demolition action; 2. Future phases may not occur, because Cornell has not yet determined the feasibility of re- development; 3. Town of Ithaca Planning Board approval of the proposed demolition does not commit the town to approve any future phases of development associated with the property; 4. The proposed demolition, which would take place before the applicant develops information on future project development phases(s), would alleviate the existing public safety hazards associated with the vacant Maple Hill Apartment Complex; and 5. Segmentation of the environmental review for the demolition phase from the environmental review for any future development phases will not be less protective of the environment because the demolition phase of the project involves different environmental considerations than a future development plan (e.g. asbestos abatement), and the Planning Board conditions of approval for the demolition will ensure that the action has the least negative impact on the environment possible. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Christopher Biehn Seconded: Liebe Meier Swain Vote: ayes — Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Fogarty, Casper and Kaufman PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 9 PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Christine O'Malley, Historic Ithaca spoke and stated that Historic Ithaca is a preservation organization in Tompkins County since 1966. She said they are concerned about the detached homes and would like to raise the question about moving the homes. She said moving straight to demolition is not a very green or sustainable practice since a lot of those materials are moved to the landfill. We were active a few years ago with a property up on Coddington Rd where the owner asked for demolition and we were able to work with the Town and the owner to have the house available free to anyone that wanted to move it. She asked if that would be possible again. It was a success in that instance and could possibly be successful here. Mr. O'Malley said it is important to think about as we are in a housing crisis and those two buildings could be repurposed and provide housing. They would be happy to talk to Cornell and work with them. There was no one else wishing to address the board on this topic and the hearing was closed at 7:48pm. Mr. Lindquist asked what the timeframe was for beginning demolition with an eye toward whether there is time to allow for investigating the moving of the houses? Mr. Thomas said they were looking to begin demolition at the end of February. Mr. Lindquist said there seems to be some concern about the aesthetics of the site post -demolition; the fencing etc. If the site remains undeveloped for say a period of 5 -years, could there be a condition that we allow the demo to proceed as requested but put a timeframe on it where if it stayed undeveloped for 3 or 5 years, it would advance to another stage of restoration? So it couldn't be left in the state described for 25 years. Ms. Brock responded that the Board could do that if they wanted but the Board would have to fully explain what it wanted done at a certain time. Ms. Vannuccni said she would be concerned because that material when demo'ed could be used as sub -base material and it is a lot of trucking if that material could be used later, potentially. Mr. Lindquist said he wouldn't want the neighbors exposed to that type of environment just waiting for the market to be ripe for development. Mr. Wilcox stated that one thing Cornell has going for them is that this site is not very visible from a public perspective. If you are walking or driving along Maple Ave, except for the single family homes, you are not going to see the apartments back there given the lot configurations. He said although we are concerned about leaving a scar in the neighborhood, but scars are awful when they are seen and not as bad when not visible. He also thought it would not remain PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 10 undeveloped for too long, it is too valuable. He said he likes the idea but he is less concerned because of where the lot is located and can't be seen from the public thoroughfare. Mr. Wilcox said although he is sensitive to the point, he was also sensitive to the idea of moving earth a second time and the effects of disturbance and then possibly a third time when it is eventually developed. Mr. Lindquist said he understands, but with no future plans and no timeline at all and that uncertainty is troubling. Mr. Thomas said, to build on Mr. Wilcox's point, there are the front properties that are certainly more visible and we could take some action to make those areas directly fronting Maple Ave. to make sure they are more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Biehn stated that the plans call for the preservation of the trees and that will help and the smoothing of the land in front of the houses would accomplish those purposes. Ms. Fogarty asked about the lot line between the property and the cemetery and maybe some shrubbery could be planted there to mitigate the view from the cemetery. Mr. Wilcox said some bushes could soften the fences, something to hide he asphalt but don't forget, there is the City's water tank there which is unsightly so maybe some landscaping to hide the asphalt from the public roadway would be good. The Board looked at the plans to determine the boundary lines and noted that there is a lot of greenery there right now and went on google street view to see the existing conditions. Options and ideas that wouldn't obstruct emergency access to the site were discussed including large planters and how long after demolition added landscaping would be wanted. After looking in more detail at the plans and trees that will remain, the consensus was that landscaping existed and would be preserved to mitigate the view of the demolished site. Ms. Meier Swain returned to the question about moving houses. Ms. Fogarty said it sounds like Historic Ithaca has interest in getting involved and she would like that to be considered. She suggested that the demolition of those houses could be postponed for 5 months to allow that. Mr. Thomas asked for clarity on what the goal or achievement would be if they were to postpone demolition of those two buildings. Ms. Fogarty said she would like to see another agency evaluate whether they were worth keeping and trying to find someone who would like to move the house. If another agency declares that the houses are not in any shape that anyone would want them, then go ahead with demolition. We just need another opinion; not saying you are wrong, just want another opinion. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 11 Ms. Meier Swain wanted to summarize the request; evaluation of the houses, determination if they can be moved, a posting to see if there is interest at the cost to move them, and then if none of that happens, then Cornell could proceed. Mr. Thomas said he is happy to work with Historic Preservation but it would be best to move on that evaluation quickly and document it and some type of Town Staff review of that so it could be moved on quickly. He added that his other concern is what we have heard from certified engineers about the safety concerns of leaving the houses like this and if we have a certified engineer saying that moving this house or using this house is not safe because of environmental and health reasons, and they have said this, we should be able to move forward. Mr. Wilcox asked which house we are really talking about. Ms. Fogarty said she was particularly concerned about the 1910 house; the 1930's house didn't look in great shape, but we should have a second opinion about it. Ms. Meier Swain asked who would shoulder the costs of that evaluation because she could understand how Cornell might not want to do that since technically they already have someone who has given a qualified opinion on that and if we are asking for a different opinion, how does that play out? Historic Ithaca representative said it would be great if they were allowed to go in and give an opinion and at the least salvage materials before demolition. Mr. Hale said they would be happy to work with them on that. Mr. Casper asked if there was an order to the demolition and the representatives said that hasn't been determined yet but this would be one demolition project. Ms. Brock stated that this is too tentative of a situation to have Historic Ithaca go in and determine whether someone else should then also go in and give a professional opinion. She did not think it was appropriate for the Board to put in a condition for one group, who says they are not experts, come in and then say we are interested so now we need an expert. It is delegating to much to people or groups outside the Board's control. She went on to say the Coddington Rd house was a very different situation. It was an 1845 house and was eligible for listing and it was significantly gutted before it came to the Planning Board. Ms. Brock said if the Board feels like they don't have enough information on the houses, then you should vote no if that is a significant enough reason to vote no on the whole. It sounds like Cornell has agreed to work with Historic Ithaca so they can salvage historical elements from the house and we can write that in as a conditions but in terms of this whole prospect of trying to figure out whether the house are even worth moving, and then we still have the engineering and physical aspects, where we have been told by their qualified engineers that the PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 12 houses would probably have to be gutted before they could be moved, and what does that mean, and who pays for it and so on. This isn't appropriate for conditions for a Planning Board. Ms. Fogarty said she agrees the apartment complex has to come down but there is no reason to glom these two houses to it other than well, we are going to be there. She said she understands it sounds like a lot of conditions.... Ms. Brock said it isn't the number of conditions, it is that they are not appropriate conditions. We could ask if Cornell is willing to delay the vote on this and come back at the next meeting with more information; but they have a right to have you vote tonight. Ms. Fogarty asked if they could just vote on knocking down the apartment and not the houses. Ms. Brock said that isn't the proposal that they have made so you need to vote on their proposal. Mr. Wilcox asked if there could be a condition that puts into writing that Cornell will work with Historic Ithaca to allow elements to be salvaged as appropriate? Ms. Brock said yes, if they are willing. She turned to Mr. Mosely to ask about the timing of the permitting process and whether demolition permits were issued per structure. Mr. Mosely said a permit has to be issued for Historic Ithaca to remove structural items. Mr. Wilcox said then Cornell would have to agree to that then and what if they don't agree? Some back and forth discussion followed and Ms. Brock said she will craft language. Third representative (unnamed) spoke and said we understand the principle and we are willing to work together, but we do have asbestos in these properties and they have started to crumble. For example, we had offered to let the fire department do training, but once we realized there was asbestos, we had to stop that training. He said he is a little worried because if we agree to consult, where would we be if we had an obligation to remove certain pieces of the property that may be contaminated, that may not be safe. He said if we could consult on it without coming to a fixed agreement, that might work. Ms. Balestra turned to the issue of a Road Use Agreement in 2d and the suggested wording by staff and another by the applicant. She had suggested that this be discussed here at the meeting rather than through emails with staff. Staff suggested change is: Submission of a Road Use Agreement for review and approval by the Town Highway Superintendent and the Ithaca Town Board in compliance with Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 230, and full execution of the approved Road Use Agreement. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 13 Mr. Thomas said our understanding of the Code is that that only applies if the project generates more than 500 truck trips of gross weight of 30 or more tons. He said if we didn't get up to that threshold, they would ask that they would not need to exercise that. Ms. Balestra responded that the Applicant suggested verbiage then would be as stated but including "in the event the project generates" instead of assuming the project was going to generate that number. Ms. Brock asked when they would know the numbers. The applicants said without the contract, they don't know the size of the trucks the contractor will bring, first of all and secondly we can say with a good deal of confidence that the majority of the trucks are very unlikely to be over 30 tons based on the types of material being demolished. There may be some, if the trucks were large enough, but we believe it is quite unlikely to reach that threshold. Mr. Wilcox asked how you can move 11,000 cubic yards of waste, which is 800-1,000 full standard dump trucks, and somehow, through a loophole, not have a proper road use agreement? That is a tremendous number of trips on a town road or roads and the wear and tear... Mr. Thomas said it could be a 1,000 trips but they may only be 20 -ton trucks or 10 -ton trucks; we don't know if they are going to be 30 -ton trucks. He said they will meet the terms of the Code but let us see what they are before obligating to that agreement. Mr. O'Shea said if the Road Use Agreement isn't needed, it will be waived. Once you provide that information, this condition could go away. There is really no change in the language needed. If it is not required once you provide the truck weights and quantity, then it is satisfied. Ms. Brock said that is not what our language says here and verbiage was changed to make it the Highway Superintendent's determination as stated in the law. She said the project could be bid which will provide the information, and you say yes, there will be 450 truck trips that are at that limit, and the Highway Superintendent looks at that and say ok, yes, but the property is going to be redeveloped and we need to look at the project as a whole, even though for SEQR purposes we have segmented environmental review, should we be segmenting truck trips under the Road Use law, that is a separate issue. Ms. Brock said maybe the answer will become clear after the Superintendent looks at the information you provide, but keep in mind that if it is pretty close, it would be reasonable for the Highway Superintendent to determine that it is needed because we need to look at the trips now, getting the site ready for redevelopment and then the trips that will happen once there is redevelopment. She asked if the applicant's representative understood and they said yes. She added that it would depend on the timing of redevelopment too. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 14 PB RESOLUTION 2020 -011: Preliminary and Final Site Plan - Demolition Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex 217, 221 & 301 Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on February 18, 2020, made a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on February 18, 2020, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, drawings prepared by Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, titled "301 Maple Ave Demolition," including sheets H100 -H104, dated December 20, 2019, and sheet AC100, titled "217, 221, 301 Maple Ave Demolition," dated January 16, 2020, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East2 (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, as described in the drawings noted in Whereas # 3 above, subject to the following conditions, to be satisfied before the issuance of any demolition permits or external plumbing permits: a. Revision of sheet AC100, per sanitary sewer comments 91-3 and sediment and erosion control/SWPPP comment 98 on the Engineering Memorandum written by Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer, dated 2/5/2020; b. Submission of the sediment and erosion control/SWPPP items in comments 41-7 on the Engineering Memorandum noted in "a"; Submission of truck routing plan, for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Highway Superintendent; and PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 15 d. If the Town Highway Superintendent determines a Road Use Agreement is necessary, submission of a Road Use Agreement for review and approval by the Town Highway Superintendent and the Ithaca Town Board, in compliance with Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 230, Article IV (Road Preservation Law), and full execution of said approved Road Use Agreement. (Slight revision after file date) 3. The following condition must be satisfied before the issuance of any demolition permits or external plumbing permits for the two single-family homes: a. Consultation with Historic Ithaca as to architectural elements that Historic Ithaca might remove from the buildings, and submission to the Director of Planning of a report regarding the outcome of such consultation. Moved: Fred Wilcox Seconded: Liebe Meier Swain Vote: Ayes — Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Casper and Kaufman Nays - Fogarty ITEM 3: Persons to be heard Peter Rogers addressed the board saying that he Lives on Cliff St in Ithaca and he has property at 122 1 Trumansburg Rd. He said he spoke to Mr. Mosely and got a letter from Ms. Ritter about the expansion of the Nursing Home. (Ms. Ritter noted that he was referring to the agenda sent by her department) Mr. Rogers said they are expanding the parking lot to the east, which is toward the(inaudible). Spoke to Sue R about the agenda received, reg Cayuga expanding the parking lot toward the east. He passed out two drawings showing the common border with the parking lot and his property. He said he has had a good relationship with the nursing home, and it seemed to him that you would check to see if they complied with approved plans. He has asked what the setbacks are for the lot and hasn't received an answer. He went on to ask Ms. Balestra if she got his pictures. Ms. Balestra stated that she did get an email, but it wasn't clearly labeled or give any context about what the pictures where off or for. Mr. Peters said the picture shows the snow plowed and he believes the nursing home expanded to the south. He said he checked with Mr. Mosely and the approval did not say anything about expanding the parking lot to the south and he was upset that his nice residential home and property has a huge parking lot within 30' feet of his property line. He said he talked to the maintenance man here earlier and asked him when the lot was expanded to the south because there used to be 30' or 40' feet there and now there is 10' or less feet and he thought they should have had the lines resurveyed. Ms. Balestra gave a history, saying that the Nursing Home had some improvements that came before the Board in 2017 where they were approved for the expansion of the facility and parking PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 16 lot to the east and south. They submitted a survey map that showed property lines and they came back in 2019 with modifications and they are back tonight for the sign. Ms. Balestra said the approval did show an expansion of the parking lot closer to Mr. Roger's property line but not over the property line. There was a survey map provided and Planning did do an inspection at the end of the project and they are in compliance with their approvals. Ms. Balestra said she isn't sure if Mr. Rogers is asserting that they went over the property line or not but... Mr. Rogers said the snow is into his property and every spring and every fall he walks his property and he has to pick up bags of trash from the shared property line. Ms. Balestra responded that he is not the only neighbor to complain about trash from the use. Mr. Rogers said he has a problem because the letter said to the east, not the south, so he didn't pay much attention, but after construction he walked the property and he thought the asphalt is 6" feet on the west... Ms. Meier Swain asked Mr. Rogers to clarify what he would like to see done. Mr. Rogers said he thinks there are errors in the letter firstly, and he didn't think the Board was doing enough to protect residential property in a residential zone. They are invaders. There are two residences and we are being squeezed and I don't want to be squeezed anymore. He said he had thought about building an accessory dwelling there, but now he doesn't think about it because the parking lot is right there. Ms. Ritter added that she apologizes if there was an error and he didn't think it would affect him. Mr. Rogers said he is going to try and negotiate with them for a snow fence. Ms. Balestra said there is an aerial that shows Mr. Roger's property in the packet and the parking lot is in the very back of his property. Mr. Rogers asked what the setbacks were. Mr. Mosely read from Code Chapter 270-227: "Unless authorized by the Planning Board during Site Plan Review process or by the Board of Zoning Appeals as a variance, no parking is permitted in any required front, side or rear yard." During the process, the Planning Board approved parking in the side yard in this instance. Mr. Rogers asked for measurements. Mr. Mosely responded that the Planning Board bypassed the typical setbacks, which they are allowed to do. They gave an approval in accordance with our Code. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 17 Mr. Rogers asked what the setback would have been. Ms. Brock said a fence can be on the property line. Mr. Mosely stated that the front yard setback for Medium Density Residential is no greater than 50', no less than 25% rear yard is no less than 30' feet in depth and side yards are not less than 15' in width. Ms. Brock then said the setback would have been 15' feet. Mr. Rogers said he would have been here at every meeting if he knew they were expanding towards him. He said he wanted to go on record to say that "you don't look out for residential people and that should be one of your priorities." He was very disappointed in everyone. Ms. Balestra stated that the 2017 didn't say parking expansion to the east and that is where the expansion was. She asked him to come in and see her. Mr. Rogers said if they would put up a fence, that would satisfy him, even though he doesn't like fences. He thanked the Board for their time. Ms. Balestra said he is misunderstanding this, and she will clear it up for him. ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2420 — Pulled ITEM 5: Other Business There are no applications or business for the March Yd meeting, the meeting was canceled upon motion and a second; unanimous. Meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. " '• PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 18