Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-06-24 FILED TOWN Of ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD date 8 Clark JUNE 24, 1986 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 24 , 1986 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Carolyn Grigorov, Barbara Schultz, Virginia Langhans, David Klein, James Baker, Attorney John C. Barney, Town Engineer Larry Fabbroni, and Town Planner Susan Beeners. ALSO PRESENT: Stewart Knowlton, James Gormley, WTKO News, Debbie Munch, Lillie Wilson, WHCU, Claudia Weisburd, Jerold Weisburd , Fred Yahn, Sanford Reuning, Joan Reuning, Larry Phillips, Bill Petrillose, John Majeroni , Bonnie VanAmburg , James W. Mayer , Elizabeth B. Mayer, Tom Niederkorn, Helen Murison, Attorney James V. Buyoucos, Dooley Kiefer. Chairman May declared the meeting opened at 7:10 p.m. He asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 1 , 1985. Barbara Schultz made a motion that the minutes be accepted, Virginia Langhans seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. Chairman May stated that all posting and publication of public hearings had been completed. At this time Chairman May called for consideration of the following: SIGN REVIEW BOARD: Consideration of the request for Sign Permit for the phased installation of two-single sided signs projecting approximately 5 feet above eave-line, Phase I being one 96-square-foot eave-mounted sign, and Phase II being one 96- square-foot eave-mounted sign, for proposed Best Western University Inn, East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 62-2-13.2. Cornell University, Owner; Southern Tier Management, Inc. , Applicant; Stewart D. Knowlton, Agent. Stewart Knowlton presented his sketches and addressed the Board. Reference was made to the sketches and to the 96 square foot sign over the portico. Mr. Knowlton stated that they would place one of these signs on the parking lot side of the portico and then when Summerhill went on through to Route 366 a similar sign would then be placed on the other side of the portico. On the present specifications for the Town of Ithaca one square foot of sign for every one lineal foot of frontage is allowed. In this particular case there are 468 lineal feet of frontage which would then allow in wall signage a total of 468 feet. The sign in z question is a specified franchise sign with a black background with a gold crest and white letters, a very low key type of sign. It would keep the whole project in better taste to have this sign over the portico which identifies the entry area. It would also be more visible to traffic mounted this way. Before a motion was made it was asked by Mr. Barney if this would be the total signage. Mr. Knowlton responded that this would be the total signage with a like sign on the other side when Summerhill goes through, and several small signs showing the lobby direction, etc. Mr. Barney recommended that it might be fair to impose a condition on the granting of a variance that the total signage for this project should not exceed 350 square feet. Mr. Knowlton agreed. A motion was therefore made by Mr. May as follows: WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed a proposal for Phase I and Phase II eave-mounted signs to be installed on the portico of the Best Western University Inn at East Hill Plaza as presented at a Planning Board meeting on June 24, 1986, and considers the design of such signs to be appropriate in regard to sign visibility and aesthetics. THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in regard to the proposed Phase I and Phase II eave-mounted signs for Best Western University Inn at East Hill Plaza, that a variance of the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 6, 1980, Section 5. 01. 3, which permits 9 inches maximum for wall sign extension, be granted so that a 96 square foot eave-mounted sign identifying the motel and projecting approximately 5 feet above the east-line of the motel portico may be installed on the west side of the motel portico in Phase I of the motel construction, and so that the identical type and size of sign may be installed on the east side of the motel portico in Phase II, such Phase II being defined as that time at which increased use of the Summerhill Lane entrance to the motel would, in the determination of the developer , warrant such an installation , with the condition that all signage for the facility is not to exceed a total of 350 square feet. The motion was seconded by James Baker and unanimously carried. Mr. May then stated the next item of business as follows: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (from June 3 and June 17, 1986)-- Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of a 14. 5 acre 3 parcel , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-1 -32 . 2 , located between 1503 Slaterville Road and 1513 Slaterville Road, into two parcels of 7 . 1 and 7 . 4 acres, AND FURTHER Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of a ten-unit Clustered Subdivision of the 7.1 acre parcel. Janice Womble, Owner; House Craft Builders, Inc. , Developer. Mr . Jerold Weisburd of House Craft Builders, Inc. briefly summarized what he had presented to the Planning Board on J un e 3rd. He stated that first they were proposing a subdivision of a parcel of land on Slaterville Road involving no construction or site improvement but would simply be a legal subdivision and result in a separation of tax parcels. Secondly would be the development of Edgewood with residential homes containing two- family dwelling units with the primary residence on the main floor and the secondary residence in the basement. Development of the houses would be completely within the existing R15 zone using the R30 only as open space . A cluster subdivision is proposed along the highest part of the hill closer to Slaterville Road using the existing infrastructure in terms of roads, water and sewer, electric, etc. The view would be such that all of the houses would have a southern view that is unobstructed out over the hillside. The houses would conform in all ways with the exception that they would have a zero lot line which would mean that every two of them would touch along one wall which would be a masonry fire wall. Two new issues have been brought up since the last session. First is the issue of future development and the other is the issue of Inlet Valley. Mr. Weisburd stated that he thought the preliminary review should be completed before these issues were discussed. Mr. May requested comments from the public. Bill P etrillos a of 29 Penny Lane stated that he was also speaking for Tony Ingraham of 33 Penny Lane. They had several concerns as follows: 1 . Mr. Ingraham is involved with Environmental Conservation and is concerned with the watershed area. His main concern was having a buffer zone for the watershed. 2. Approving the site plan as is is going to leave the lower half landlocked in the sense that the only way to gain access is to go to Penny Lane and therefore future construction might be considered. What type of restrictions would be on the lower portion? 3. Traffic congestion and dangers at the intersections. There being no other comments from the public, the hearing was closed. 4 Mr. May asked Mr. Weisburd about the traffic problem. Mr. Weisburd stated that with regard to Grandview there is a misalignment problem with Grandview and if the Board wanted to address that there might be some condemnation involved. He further stated that obviously any development was going to increase traffic and the amount of traffic is really proportional to what is permissible on the land. The situation is not all that prevalent along Slaterville Road where you can very easily turn your car around before entering. One of the things that is most dangerous about Slaterville Road is that you pull in and have to back out on the highway to get back out. He stated that they are providing a turnaround and also that the visibility was not bad. Virginia Langhans wanted to know if it was going to be a level entrance onto Slaterville Road or would there be an incline. Carolyn Grigorov said that there should not be so many new driveway entrances on Slaterville Road across from Pine Tree Road, and suggested a single access plan should be designed. Mr. Weisburd answered that they would be putting a fair amount of fill in. Parking areas are going to be built up with a depression in between them so that there would be very little slope from Slaterville Road onto the parking spaces. Cars can get out better. Virginia Langhans asked if there would be any garages. He answered that he was not planning them at this point. He has to do more market research. Mr . Barney wanted to know what the ownership of buildings would be. Mr . Weisburd stated the only difference with this and any house would be a party wall agreement for the concrete block wall separating two houses and the easement for the open space. Mr. Barney asked if there would be some sort of requirement that the spaces behind the houses be left open. Mr. Weisburd stated that yes it would be. Mr. Barney asked about the driveway easement. Mr. Weisburd answered that he could make the driveway wide enough so you could split it down the middle with each owner owning half or they could take a central zone and make an easement on the central zone. 5 After further discussion a motion was called for on the proposed Edgewood Subdivision, SEQR. It was moved by David Klein as follows: WHEREAS: 1 . This project is a subdivision of lands zoned R15 and R30 on the south side of Slaterville Road ( N. Y . S . Route 79 ) , and includes a proposed clustered development of ten two-family dwellings. 2. This is an Unlisted action for which Short Environmental Assessment Forms relating to the project have been completed and reviewed at Public Hearings on June 3, 1986 and on June 24, 1986 as adjourned from June 17, 1986. The Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for this project. The New York State Department of Transportation and the Tompkins County Health Department are involved agencies who are to be notified as to this determination. 3. A recommendation of a conditional negative determination has been made by the Town Planner, based on the following conditions: a. That a landscape plan be submitted with the other materials required for Final Subdivision Approval, and that such plan include the addition of evergreens at the corners of building clusters and the addition of plant material which would suitably buffer the proposed buildings from adjoining properties. b. That a 60 foot right of way be shown on the final subdivision map from Slaterville Road to the southern parcel. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED 1. That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project. 2. That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a conditional negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made, based on the following conditions: a. That a landscape plan be submitted with the other materials required for Final Subdivision Approval, and that such plan include the addition of evergreens at the corners of building clusters and the addition of plant material which would suitably buffer the proposed buildings from adjoining properties. b. That a 60 foot right of way be shown on the final subdivision map from Slaterville Road to the southern parcel. 6 The motion was seconded by Barbara Schultz and unanimously carried. The Board then moved on the Edgewood Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Virginia Langhans moved as follows: WHEREAS: 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public Hearing on June 3, 1986 and at an Adjourned Public Hearing on June 24, 1986 as adjourned from June 17th. 2. The Planning Board has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Forms for this proposed subdivision and made a determination of negative environmental significance on June 24, 1986. 3. This action is the subdivision of a 14.5 acre parcel, located on the south side of Slaterville Road between 1503 Slaterville Road and 1513 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 58-1 -32. 2, into a 7. 4 +/- acre parcel to be retained by the current owner, Janice Womble, and a 7. 1 +/- acre parcel to be further subdivided by Housecraft Builders, Inc. into a clustered subdivision of ten lots , each lot containing a two-family dwelling with the primary residence on the main floor and the secondary residence in the basement, and such lots containing an open space easement totalling 4. 1 +/- acres. 4 . The materials presented to the Planning Board for consideration on June 3 and June 17 , 1986 ( adjourned to June 24th ) have included the following maps drawn by Jerold M. Weisburd, Housecraft Builders , Inc. , and dated May 16 , 1986 : "Edgewood - Clustered Site Plan", "Edgewood - Conventional Site Plan", "Edgewood - Front Elevation", "Edgewood - Rear Elevation". In addition, the materials presented have included "Edgewood Subdivision Map E-5" dated May 22, 1986, "Edgewood Subdivision Proposal" dated May 20, 1986, the Short Environmental Assessment Forms describing the proposed subdivision, and "Draft of Proposed Covenants and Deed Restrictions - Edgewood." 5. The project as proposed is consistent with pertinent zoning and subdivision regulations and with the residential and open space character of the surrounding neighborhood. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-1 -32.2, into a clustered 7 subdivision of ten lots , each lot containing a two-family dwelling with the primary residence on the main floor and the secondary residence in the basement, and such lots containing an open space easement which totals 4. 1 +/- acres, and as shown and described in the aforementioned material , such Preliminary Subdivision Approval to be based on the following conditions: 1. That a landscape plan be submitted with the other materials required for Final Subdivision Approval, and that such plan include the addition of evergreens at the corners of building clusters and the addition of plant material which would suitably buffer the proposed buildings from adjoining properties. 2. That a 60 foot right of way be shown on the subdivision map from Slaterville Road to the southern portion. 3. That covenants and deed restrictions be approved by the Town Board and Town Attorney. The motion was seconded by James Baker. All were in favor except Carolyn Grigorov who opposed. Next on the agenda was the following for determination: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( from May 22 , 1986 ) - - Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the proposed designation of certain lands of Tompkins County, also known as the Biggs Complex, presently zoned Residence District R30, as a Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) , located at 1283 and 1287 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3-2.2. Tompkins County, Owner; Frank R. Liguori, P.E. , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, Agent. AND ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( from May 22 , 1986 ) - - Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of the proposed subdivision of certain lands of Tompkins County, located at 1283 and 1287 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3- 2. 2. Tompkins County, Owner; Frank R. Liguori, P.E. , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, Agent. Mr. Liguori then addressed the Board. He stated that there are three buildings involved in Biggs Center, Building "A", the building where the Health Department is next to what was formerly the old hospital, and K house which is a single family free- standing house. The objective of the County is to get a rezoning of the lands that are needed to protect those buildings so that if there is excess space in a building it may be rented to the private sector without having to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on each one of them. He stated that the County had withdrawn from the proposal other vacant 8 lands and reduced the size from 47 acres to 22. 2 acres. Th e County is now asking for rezoning of only that portion which are the parcels for the three buildings plus extra parcels for future parking for the old hospital. The rest of the land will remain as R34 which is the existing zoning and the County may at some time in the future come to the Board with a proposal for sale and development for some of these parcels and at that time would submit a complete plan proposal with a possible request for rezoning for mixed use. The parcels to be considered now include Parcel 6, Parcel 3, Parcel 4, 7a, 8a, and Parcel 9. He went on that at the last meeting it was requested that it be submitted to the Board the project information for an unlisted short form SEQR assessment. That has been done. Also submitted to the Board were twelve copies of the revised subdivision plan showing the reduced size and twelve copies of revised Phase I of the original application which shows the reduction in the size of the proposal. Mr. Liguori stated that at this time the County continued to ask that the portions above mentioned be given consideration for mixed zoning use. Mr. May then asked Ms. Beeners if it were true that she felt that considerable information would be needed before the Board could pass this proposal on to the Town Board. She answered that the comments that she made as far as additional information for the Board to consider stems from public input that she had as well as from staff review of the project. She stated that in the process of rezoning a general plan is what is required under Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that she would like the Board 's judgment on what level of detail it felt was required at this stage. Mr . May felt that the Town Board would not consider the proposal without a long-form EAF. Mr. Liguori responded they had completed the long-form EAF and it was submitted as part of the original submission. Mr. May stated that it was not correct in corresponding to the current proposal and Mr. Liguori responded that the County would update the form. When questioned about parking, Mr. Liguori responded that the County had a verbal agreement with the Hospital Corporation to provide adequate parking to meet the joint needs of the hospital corporation and the County without any assigning of spaces. There would be ample parking for everyone. 352 spaces would be enough for the needs of all within the next couple of years. 9 Mr. May then asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. Ms . Dooley Kiefer had some concerns about the SEQR requirements, environmental, social, and economic and all of the impacts together, not just immediate and identifiable ones but also the long-term ones that might be reasonably induced by the action under consideration. She reiterated that in this regard the EAF that was submitted in March was not adequate and that it should be updated. Mr. Liguori commented that the action that is being considered by the Town Board and by the Planning Board is whether or not this land should be rezoned for mixed use. The only thing the County could not do now that would be permitted by such action would be that it would permit the County to rent space to the private sector. He stated that as a County they had the authority under the present R30 zoning to use the buildings for their own uses without any change in the zoning ordinance or without any permit requirements from the Town Board or the Town Planning Board. He repeated that the question was whether this area should be rezoned for mixed use which would entitle the County to rent space that is no longer needed for County uses to other compatible uses including office space, and other uses that are permitted in mixed use zones which are very limited. He felt that on that basis there was no need for the Town Planning Board or the Town Board to get into all of the social implications that Ms. Kiefer has indicated. The decision that the Board was being asked to make is whether the County should be allowed to use unused space in these buildings for rental to the private sector without the necessity of coming to the Board of Zoning Appeals at each time and getting a zoning variance to allow this. He agreed that there might be some revisions required, but that they had never agreed to replace the roof. They had stated what the parking conditions would be. They had removed the asbestos which was done under the Fire Prevention and Building Code which is not a responsibility of the Town of Ithaca but a responsibility of the Enforcement Officer of the County of Tompkins on its own buildings. He felt that the DSS issue was being brought into this matter, and suggested that the action that the Planning Board was being asked to make was very limited in allowing the County to rent the spaces the County did not need to the private sector. There being no other persons from the public interested, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Barney was asked to comment. He stated that under the Zoning Ordinance the review at this point was a general review similar to a preliminary site plan consideration. He stated, however, that he appreciated what Ms. Kiefer had said and that perhaps the SEQR matter did require a little more intensive 10 review at this stage. He felt that in view of Mr. Liguori ' s comments and Ms. Kiefer' s comments , the staff should make a recommendation at the next meeting after more review. Mr. May then asked Mr. Liguori if timing was critical at the present time. He answered that they have a request for a Daycare Center which must relocate by September, and that this Daycare Center would not be unlike Montessori School or Challenge Industries, both of which have functioned there in the past in the same building. There is also under consideration a request by an individual who would like to run an environmental laboratory to test water, air, soils and wastes. They also had a request for the possibility of a school. These are also private sector uses, not County uses. There is some urgency. When Mr. May asked if they could be delayed one month or two at the most, Mr. Liguori responded that two months would be critical because work had to be started if the Daycare Center is going to move in. Mr. Liguori said that he could get any information requested to Ms. Beeners. The question of asbestos surfaced and Mr. Barney stated that the Town is required under SEQR to respond to a series of questions and concerns as to the environmental impact and that it was a legitimate concern for the Board. Mr. Liguori responded that the impact is not related to the mixed use. The impact is related to the County use and asked what exactly was needed to know about the asbestos. He stated that it was a matter of public record and that anything the Board needed to know about the asbestos problem he could provide. Mr. Liguori also asked the following questions: Is there a public controversy over the mixed land use? If so, then it is something that should be looked into. Is there a public controversy over whether the County uses the land and buildings for its own purposes? If so, it is not related to the mixed land use. Mr . May stated that it would be appropriate to indicate there is public controversy over the County offices and that this statement might be sufficient. Mr . Liguori stated that the Zoning Ordinance talks about light industry. The Zoning Ordinance has not caught up to high technology such as computer activities, computer software design, etc. There is no language in the Zoning Ordinance to cover that and therefore it was referred to as research and development 11 activity. He asked how else to include something like that in the Zoning Ordinance as the County would like to be able to put such activities in those buildings. However, he felt that if it was not possible the Board should say that now and the County would stop looking for that type of industry to go in there. At this time there are none who are applying although Odyssey Research might be classified as a high-technology activity that does not fit into the light industrial classification. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if what the County is proposing does not fit into the Zoning Ordinance it might have to be addressed by variance somehow or the Town Board might come to the conclusion that it needs to update the ordinance. Mr. Liguori felt that this was not relevant now as this type of applicant was not now applying and that it could be dealt with later if it did come up. He said they would withdraw that from the application if it would help resolve the present request. He reiterated that if the Board would tell him exactly what they wanted it would be supplied. Mr. May suggested that perhaps these industries be classified as light industry and Mr. Fabbroni responded that they are not considered within the mixed usage concept and that this was Ms. Beeners ' concern. Mr . Fabbroni asked if there were any objections from the Board to Mr. Liguori ' s proceeding to the Town Board , if only informally at this point, to present his concept so that when the Board acts later on and it goes formally to the Town Board in August, they can deal knowledgeably with the matter. Mr. May concurred with this on behalf of the Board. A motion was then made by Virginia Langhans adjourning these matters to July 15, 1986 at 7:45 p.m. Montgomery May seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. Next on the agenda was the following: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to request for Special Approval of a School Use pursuant to Article V , Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the operation of The Mayer School in the former Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. Cornell University, Owner; Elizabeth B. Mayer, Applicant. At this point, Mr. Barney, Town Attorney, interjected that his firm, Buyoucos, Barney, Grossman & Roth, represented Mr. and Mrs. Mayer and have represented them for a number of years. Mr. James Mayer addressed the Board as follows: 12 He stated that he was representing his wife , Elizabeth Mayer, head mistress of the proposed school . Mr. Mayer made reference to two packets of information he had submitted to the Board, one containing the logo of the Mayer School, dated June 4, 1986, and the second from Downing Associates dated June 13, 1986. Basically, Mr. and Mrs . Mayer are requesting a special permit to operate the school. He stated that they did have a deadline in that they must operate on July 1 , 1986 as the Ithaca School District has not permitted an extension of their lease in the old West Hill School. He remarked how the building would be perfect for a school. They have gone over the safety conditions of the building, have had inspections of the building, and can meet all the Code requirements of New York State. The State Education Department people were enthusiastic and have inspected the Grand Lodge and find that it meets with their requirements. The Grand Lodge is off-site, is well-built and meets the Codes. The school would operate from 7: 45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. There would be three phases of operation. Phase I would commence on July , 1986 with no modification in the building unless there were some things required in the Code. In Phase I they would use the basement and first floor as it is and add only some moveable partitions if needed . When they were able to y purchase the building from Cornell they would then start on Phase II on the second floor which removes some of the interior walls and provides more classrooms on the second floor. Each class would have about 15 students, which would not be excessive usage. Phase III is to have a residence on the third floor for a Superintendent or Caretaker for security reasons. Mr. May asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment on the above. There being no person interested, the public meeting was closed. Mr. May asked for comments or questions. Mr. Barney asked for clarification that the request of Mr. and Mrs. Mayer at this time was merely for permission to operate the school. Mr. Mayer responded that this was the case but that a side yard variance was also in question. Mr. Barney asked if it was correct that whether or not the subdivision was granted and regardless of how long the process might take Cornell was prepared to lease the building and joined in the request that the school be permitted to operate. Mr. Mayer responded that this was correct. As to the proposed Mayer School Relocation into the former Odd Fellows Grand Lodge , Carolyn Grigorov made a motion as follows: 13 WHEREAS: 1 . This action is a request for Special Approval of a School Use pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the operation of the Mayer School in the former Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. at 1251 Trumansburg Road. 2. This project is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency. 3. The following material has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on June 24, 1986 in regard to this project: a. "Application to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals", June 4, 1986, including a SEQR Long Environmental Assessment Form. b. "Proposed Mayer School Relocation into the Former Grand Lodge", June 13, 1986, by William Downing Associates, including an architectural report and plans of the former Grand Lodge. 4. A Conditional Negative Declaration - Determination of Non- significance has been recommended by the Town Planner based on the following conditions: a. That access onto Route 96 from the school be evaluated in relation to traffic safety improvements currently under consideration for other parts of Route 96. b. That any future proposal for the use of the former Infirmary be subject to review by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine the compatibility of such use with the school use of the Grand Lodge. Such review should include evaluation of the compatibility of future Infirmary use with the activities of the school , the consideration of site access, building access and the potential joint use of the enclosed passageway which connects the former Grand Lodge and the former Infirmary. 5 . The Planning Board finds that there is a need for the proposed use in this location on the grounds that: a. The Mayer School is an established private school that fulfills a community educational need, and that requires a permanent location with adequate room for its operation. b. Such a school use will complement existing residential and institutional uses on West Hill. 6. The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable 14 future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on the grounds that: a. The former Grand Lodge was originally constructed for institutional use. The Mayer School does not plan to change the exterior of the building. b. There is adequate room on the site for separate parking and playground areas. A considerable amount of open space will be retained between the building and Trumansburg Road, and will assist in preserving the existing campus-like setting. 7. The Planning Board finds that the proposed school use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on the grounds that: a. Existing institutional uses related to research and health care are located in the general vicinity and are considered compatible with the proposed school use. b. The adaptive institutional reuse of a building which was originally constructed for institutional use is considered desirable. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a conditional Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance be made, and that the application for Special Approval and for future-phase residential use of the third floor of the building be granted, with the following condition: That any future proposal for the use of the former Infirmary be subject to review by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine the compatibility of such use with the school use of the Grand Lodge. Such review shall include evaluation of the compatibility of future Infirmary use with the activities of the School , the consideration of site access , building access and the potential joint use of the enclosed passageway which connects the former Grand Lodge and the former Infirmary. Virginia Langhans seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. The last item on the agenda was the following: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of lands located at 1251 and 1253 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3- 3. 2, and Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of 15 Appeals for variance of the side yard requirements as set forth in Article V, Section 21 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, such variance necessary to the requested subdivision of the former Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. , from the former Infirmary thereof, as proposed. Cornell University , Owner; Thomas Niederkorn , Landscape Architect. Mr. Niederkorn addressed the Board: He stated that he was before the Board several weeks previously ( May 6, 1986)and there had been a few changes that were of significance. In May 1986 Cornell had an auction on this land and was able to find buyers for all of the parcels except the main parcel. They could not sell the Grand Lodge and the Infirmary as one parcel. They have had a number of opportunities subsequent to that to sell if the building could be subdivided. They will still have five parcels. Parcel 4 at the present time consists of the large acreage just behind the Oddfellows and the parcel down along the lake . Those two parcels are combined. Parcel 1 is being split with the line going between the buildings. Parcel 2 and 3 are as they were before. There is a proposed future right of way 60 feet wide back between Parcel 1 and 2 giving access to the backland and the possibility of some future subdivision on that land. The difference in the map that was sent to the Board in the reduced version is that Cornell has found as Mr. Mayer told you that a part of the operation of the former Lodge building, mainly access to the ground floor, has to take place in the corridor between the two buildings . Rather than put the subdivision line along the north wall of the old lodge thereby putting the vestibule into Parcel No. S it has been shifted slightly to the north line about 13-1 /2 feet so that the subdivision line then goes to the south building line of the old Infirmary and the vestibule would go with the former lodge. Aside from that change, the subdivision proposed here is exactly as the Board has it on the small sketch that was sent out. What had been done then is to have no side yards for either one of the buildings which is technically a violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Niederkorn stated that what was needed tonight from the Planning Board was preliminary approval of the site plan conditional upon Cornell being able to get the area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night. If the Zoning Board of Appeals is positive tomorrow night Cornell will be able to come back to the Planning Board with the final site plan in July or as soon as possible. If the BZA does not grant approval tomorrow night then the conditional approval that the Board gives Cornell tonight would not be a valid one and therefore the matter would have to go on from there. Mr. May asked for comments from the public. There being none the public hearing was closed. 16 Discussion followed . Mr . John Majeroni spoke of the property lines, the elevator, emergency doors , ingress and egress, and several other items. He stated that the old building had a total of three exits, and in the new building there will be three fire exits as well. After further discussion Mr. May called for a motion on the SEQR Cornell University Preliminary Subdivision Consideration , former Odd Fellows property. It was moved by Carolyn Grigorov as follows: WHEREAS: 1 . This action is the proposed 5-lot subdivision of lands zoned R-30 and R-15 located at 1251 -1 253 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-3.2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review, and for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on June 24, 1985. An accompanying request for variance of sideyard requirements as set forth in Article V, Section 21 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is a Type II action for which environmental review is not required. 2. A recommendation of a negative determination based on certain mitigating conditions has been made by the Town Planner. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED 1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of this project. 2. That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a conditional declaration of negative environmental significance shall be and hereby is made for the preliminary subdivision proposal , based on the following mitigating circumstances: That the use arrangement of the enclosed passageway which connects the former Grand Lodge on Parcel 1 and the former Infirmary on Parcel 5 be clarified, and that a variance be obtained in regard to the sideyard deficiency. David Klein seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. It was moved by Virginia Langhans as follows: WHEREAS; 17 1. This action is the proposed 5-lot subdivision of lands zoned R-30 and R-15 located at 1251 -1253 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-3.2, and a request for a variance of the side yard requirements as set forth in Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, such variance necessary to the subdivision of the former Grand Lodge located on proposed Parcel 1 from the former Infirmary located on proposed Parcel 5. The Planning Board has reviewed this action at a Public Hearing on June 24, 1986. 2. The following maps and documents have been presented in regard to this proposal: a . "Preliminary Plat, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Cornell University, N.Y. State Route 96, Town of Ithaca , N. Y. , June 17, 1986" by Planning/Environmental Research Consultants. b. "Real Estate Agreement of Sale, May 14, 1986" c. Appeal form requesting a variance of the above-mentioned sideyard requirements. 3 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a conditional determination of negative environmental significance on June 24, 1986 based on the following conditions: That the use arrangement of the enclosed passageway which connects the former Grand Lodge on Parcel 1 and the former Infirmary on Parcel 5 be clarified, and that a variance be obtained in regard to the sideyard deficiency. 4. The proposed subdivision line between the former Grand Lodge and the Former Infirmary would create a situation of non- conformity for which the granting of a variance of the side yard requirements of Article V, Section 21 , of the Zoning Ordinance would be required. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED 1. That the Planning Board provisionally deny and hereby does provisionally deny Preliminary Subdivision Approval for this proposed subdivision, with further consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval to be based on the following conditions: a. That the use arrangement of the enclosed passageway which connects the former Grand Lodge on Parcel 1 and the former Infirmary on Parcel 5 be accomplished in accordance with New York State Building Code requirements, and that a variance be obtained in regard to the sideyard deficiency. b. That prior to final subdivision approval, if such 18 approval is sought, appropriate cross easements for the use of the passageways and exits between the former Grand Lodge and former Infirmary be approved by the Town attorney. The motion was seconded by Barbara Schultz and unanimously carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted eatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary