HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Special Approval 10/10/1990TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING -BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1990
7:00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, Octo>>er 10, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East
Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y.,
COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters.
APPEAL of Judith B. MacIntire, Appellant, Ralph W. Nash, Esq., Agent,
requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the operation of a "Bed and
Breakfast" facility for up to a maximum of four boarders and/or lodgers,
proposed to be located in an existing single-family residence at 217
Eastern Heights Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-8.126,
Residence District R-15. Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a
single-family home.
APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Joseph M. Lalley, Agent, requesting a
modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on July 30, 1985, for the Cornell University Maintenance and
Service Operations Garage. The requested modification is the
installation of above -ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the
Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS Rte. 366 on
Cornell University's Palm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-64-1-21
Residence District R-30. The modification of the Special Approval is
requested under Article V, Section 18, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Appellant, Trowbridge Associates, Agent, requesting
the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article IV, Section
11, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed relocation
of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the
construction of a new automobile parking lot. Ithaca College is located
at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2, Residence
District R-15.
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Appellant, HOLT Architects, Agent, requesting the
Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article IV, Section 11,
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of
a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College
Campus north of Williams Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2,
Residence District R-15. In addition, a variance from the requirements
of Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 10, of said Ordinance is requested,
to permit a building height of 60 feet, as measured from the lowest point
at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line, 30 feet being
the permitted height.
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, under Article XIV, Section 77, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of
Article VII, Section 35, of said Ordinance to determine if any uses
permitted in Business Districts "A", "B", and "C" may be permitted in a
Business District "D".
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said
place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto.
Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca
273-1747
Dated: October 2, 1990
Publish: October 5, 1990
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
MOTION
By Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward King:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
modify_ and hereby does modify the Special Approval for the
installation of above -ground fuel storage tanks within the
area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage
located off NYS 366 on Cornell University's Palm Road, with
the following findings and condition.
1. That
there
be approval
of the final site construction
plan
details
by the Town
Engineer.
2. That the proposal is in compliance with Section 77.7,
subdivisions a -f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
3. No one appeared before the Board in opposition to the
proposal.
The voting on the motion was as follows.
Ayes - Reuning, King, Austen, Hines.
Nays - None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The next two Appeals on the Agenda were following.
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE, APPELLANT, TROWBRIDGE.
ASSOCIATES, AGENT, REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF
THE BOARD OF APPEALS, UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED
RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ITHACA COLLEGE
MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT. ITHACA COLLEGE IS LOCATED AT
953 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-41-1-
30.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15.
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE, APPELLANT, HOLT ARCHITECTS,
AGENT, REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF
APPEALS, UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING. ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW ACADEMIC SCIENCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE
ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS NORTH OF WILLIAMS HALL, TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-41-1-30.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R-15. IN ADDITION, A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 10, OF SAID ORDINANCE
IS REQUESTED, TO PERMIT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60':FEET,
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
Leel
AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO
THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE ROOF LINE, 30 FEET BEING THE
PERMITTED HEIGHT.
Mr. Tom Salm appeared before the Board with Mr. Bob O'Brien
from HOLT Architects. They presented a model and slides to the
Board for their review. There was extensive discussion between
Mr. Salm, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Trowbridge and Board members during
the slide presentation.
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald Lifton, Chase Lane, spoke to the Board in support
of the Ithaca College projects that are before the Board.
Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing.
Acting Chairman Austen read from the adopted resolution of
the Planning Board of October 2, 1990 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit #11.
Acting Chairman Austen referred to Part II of the
Environmental Assessment Form filled out by Town Planner Susan
Beeners and attached hereto as Exhibit #12.
Mr. King read from an excerpt from the Planning Board
meeting of October 2, 1990. The excerpt is attached hereto as
Exhibit #13.
Town Engineer Walker spoke to the Board regarding the sewer
system in the area. He stated that there is an existing sanitary
sewer system that runs from several laterals on the Campus to the
main quadrangle. He stated that his primary concern is that the
Danby Road sewer that this runs into is at capacity right now.
He has had communications with the Engineering group for Ithaca
College and they have basically shown him that the peaks from
9,000 gallons additional flow that will be coming from this new
building would most likely occur at times that did not peak from
the residential facilities, which is where the Town's major
problem is now.
Town Engineer Walker stated that he has spoken with the
Ithaca College people about flow monitoring and a pre-treatment
monitoring system as part of the Town's pre-treatment program
that the Town is mandated by law to initiate. The Town has to be
able to sample any sewage flow from facilities that would have
hazardous chemicals or any waste.
Mr. King asked where that monitoring would be done.
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
0
Mr. Salm stated that in this building the pre-treatment
system will have monitoring points within the building.
Mr. Walker said that in maintaining the
Town's system we have to use whatever measures
flows as much as possible and be as economical
said that he has recommended to Mr. Salm that
monitoring station to actually monitor what the
would be appropriate for a facility this size
expressed agreement that the College and th
together, either as part of this project or the
Ithaca College.
capacity of the
we can to reduce
as possible. He
installing a
sewage flows
and Mr. Salm
Town
overall
Environmental Assessment (for road and parking lot)
MOTION
By Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward King.a
can
plan
flow
are
has
work
for
RESOLVED, that, in the matter of Ithaca College requesting
Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article IV,
Section 11, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the
proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca
College main campus road and the construction of a new
automobile parking lot at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2, Residence District R-15, the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeal make and hereby does make a
negative declaration of environmental significance.
The voting on the motion was as follows.
Ayes - Reuning, King, Hines, Austen.
Nays - None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
MOTION (for road and parking lot)
By Mr. Edward King; seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning
RESOLVED, That the Town of
adopts the recommendations
grants the Special Approval
and the construction of a
with the following findings
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
of the Town Planning Board, and
for the relocation of the road
parking lot at Ithaca College,
and condition.
1. That there is a need for the proposed use and the
existing and future character of the neighborhood will
not be adversely affected.
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
10
2. The proposed relocation of the roadway and parking lot
are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the
Town of Ithaca.
3. The proposed relocation of the roadway should have a
positive effect on reducing the traffic hazards of the
students crossing Route 96B
4. The proposed roadway and parking lot are in compliance
with Section 77.7, subdivisions a -f.
5. That before any construction starts on the relocation
of the road, the Town Engineer be presented with and
approve grading plans, sediment and erosion control
plans, and storm water management plans.
The voting on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes - King, Reuning, Hines, Austen.
Nays - None.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Discussion followed on the Fourth Appeal before the Board
which was a request for Special Approval for the proposed
construction of a new academic science building to be located at
Ithaca College and a request for a variance from the requirements
of Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 10, of the Zoning Ordinance,
regarding a building height of 60 feet.
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. No one
appeared before the Board. Acting Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Donald Lifton stated to the Board that his previous
statements to the Board stand.
Mrs. Reuning stated that she thinks that the aesthetics and
everything that was presented to the Board look nice and the
request for the height variance should not be a problem.
Acting Chairman Austen read the adopted resolution from the
Planning Board of October 2, 1990 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit #14.
Acting Chairman Austen read from the. Environmental
Assessment Form, Part II, which was completed by Town Planner
Susan Beeners and is attached hereto as Exhibit #15.
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
11
Mr. King noted that there will be an impact on. air quality
but it has been satisfactorily explained that it will be dealt
with by use of the exhaust system for this new building.
Environmental Assessment
MOTION.
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning.
RESOLVED, that, in the matter of Ithaca College requesting
the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article
IV, Section 11, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for
the proposed construction of a new academic science building
to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams
Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2, Residence
bistrict R-15, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environ-
mental significance.
The voting on the motion was as follows.
Ayes - King, Reuning, Austen, Hines.
Nays - None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Height Variance
MOTION.
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements
of Article IV, Section 11, paragraph 10, of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit a building height of 60 feet for the
proposed academic science building, as measured from the
lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the
roof line, to be located on the Ithaca College Campus, with
the following findings and condition.
1. That this would be a minimal impact because of the
slope of the land.
2. That the proposed building being contained wholly
within the Campus, it does not appear that it would
have any adverse effect on anyone other than the
applicant.
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10, 1990
12
3. That it would create practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardship to limit the height of this
building because at least half the additional height is
functional and related to eliminating the fumes from
the science building.
4. That the general 45 -foot height of the building itself,
the main part of the building, is consistent with other
buildings nearby.
5. That the height of the building rise no more than five
feet plus or minus of the requested sixty feet.
The voting on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes - King, Austen, Reuning, Hines.
Nays - None.
Special Approval
MOTION.
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to Ithaca
for the proposed construction of a new academic science
to be located on the Ithaca Collage Campus north of
Hall, with the following findings and conditions.
1.
2.
That the Board adopts the recommendations
Planning Board and the Town reviewers.
Appeals
College
building
Williams
That there is a need for this proposed building.
of the
3. That the construction of this proposed building will
not adversely affect the existing or probable future
character of the neighborhood.
4. That it does not offend the Comprehensive Plan of the
Town.
5. That it is in compliance with Section 77.7,
subdivisions a -f of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
6. That the proposed location is subject to approval by
the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of the
building permit, of the design and adequacy of a) the
water and sewer facilities serving the building,
including any required sewage pre-treatment facilities
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1990
7:00 P.M.
By
direction of the
Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Appeals NOTICE IS
HEREBY
GIVEN that Public
Hearings will be held by
the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca on
Seneca Street, (FIRST
COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.,
Wednesday, Octo))er 10, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East
Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y.,
on the following matters.
APPEAL of Judith B. MacIntire, Appellant, Ralph W. Nash, Esq., Agent,
requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the operation of a "Bed and
Breakfast" facility for up to a maximum 'of four boarders and/or lodgers,
proposed to be located in an existing single-family residence at 217
Eastern Heights Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-8.126,
Residence District R-15. Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a
single-family home.
APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Joseph M. Lalley, Agent, requesting a
modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on July 30, 1985, for the Cornell University Maintenance and
Service Operations Garage. The requested modification is the
installation of above -ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the
Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS Rte. 366 on
Cornell University's Palm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-64-1-2,
Residence District R-30. The modification of the Special Approval is
requested under Article V, Section 18, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Appellant, Trowbridge Associates, Agent, requesting
the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article IV, Section
11, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed relocation
of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the
construction of a new automobile parking lot. Ithaca College is located
at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2, Residence
District R-15.
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Appellant, HOLT Architects, Agent, requesting the
Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, under Article IV, Section 11,
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of
a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College
Campus north of Williams Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2,
Residence District R-15. In addition, a variance from the requirements
of Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 10, of said Ordinance is requested,
to permit a building height of 60 feet, as measured from the lowest point
at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line, 30 feet being
the permitted height.
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, under Article XIV, Section 77, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Or nance, for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of
Article VII, Section 35, of said Ordinance to determine if any uses
permitted in Business Districts "A", "B", and "C" may be permitted in a
Business District "D".
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time,. 7.&00 p.m., and said
place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto.
Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca
273-1747
Dated: October 2, 1990
Publish: October 5, 1990
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
-Date:
Attendance
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME Address or Affiliate
CAth1 1�A��= t l N� 110 /+sI -El 4 h7 -S
ok
sq , Ae 'S1`'l,
C040 V;C/x
IRs r �' f,( -r' P19c11 Tr� r -T5
71DM S L LTlcAc%� CO LL Gf
cc e.
Appendix A SEOR
State Environmental 0dallty Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no- formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be -aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assistf a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may.occur from a project or action. it.provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If, any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 0 Part 2 OPart 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
fO A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not ,
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
r
O B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
• K Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
I
j
New Science Facility Special Arwroyal quest I
Name of Action
Zoning Board of Appeals
Name of Lead Agency
Henry Aron
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals:
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsibi .: Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
1 Science Building
PART I- PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project•Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
acres 0
acres
New Science Facility
Special Approval Reguest
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Addroaa. Munletpallty and Counts
acres 0
Ithaca College Campus,
Town of Ithacar Tompkins County, New
York
NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR
acres
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
HOLT Architects as
agent for Ithaca College
(607 207 -
acres
acres
3.9
ADDRESS
acres
217 North Aurora Street
acres 2.6
.acres
CITY/PO
STATE
ZIP CODE
II Ithaca
14R Sn
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Ithaca College
I (607► 774-17RS
ADDRESS
i
Danbv Road
CITYIPO
STATE
ZIP CODE
NY
14850
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
I
Construction of new
academic science building, renovation of
Williams Hall,
and associated site
work.
Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: OUrban Olndustrial OCommercial OResidential (suburban) ORural (non-farm)
OForest OAgriculture T30ther Institutional
2. Total acreage of project area: 6.2 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or .Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) Landscape/Lawn
PRESENTLY
0 acres
AFTER COMPLETION
0 acres
n.
acres 0
acres
0
acres 0
acres
n
acres 0.
acres
0
acres • n
acres
0
acres
acres
3.9
acres 3.6
acres
2.3
acres 2.6
.acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Compact silt, fine sand and clay (made land)
a. Soil drainage: OWell drained % of site [' Moderately well drained 75 % of site
EPoorly drained 25 % of site According to borings.
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System? 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? OYes 9No
a. What is depth to bedrock? 11 ± (in feet) According to borings.
2
Science Building
S. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes
®0-10% - 4 % 0510-1 S% 3°•6
®15% or greater , 3 %
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? OYes nNo
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? OYes Z1No
8. What is .the depth of the water table? 17 + (in feet)According to borings.
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes ®No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? OYes ®No
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
OYes BNo According :to area under cultivation as lawn or used as paved park n.
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
Oyes CINo Describe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or.neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
OYes I3No If yes, explain
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
(&Yes ONo to Cayuga Lake
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None
.a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name None b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes DNo
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONo
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? OYes CNo
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA,
Section 303 and 304? CYes ®No
19. Is
the
site located
in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of
the
ECL,
and
6
NYCRR
617?
RJNo
OYes
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ("Yes 29No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 539 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: 6a2 acres initially; 6.2 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres.
A. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 207 proposed 18 -Those lost relocated as part
Maximum vehicular trips generated per hourRefer to f ca�►pus loop rd. relocatione
g p g p (u pon completion of project).
h. If residents,%;: Number and type of housing un,s:ffic study
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially N/A
Ultimately N/A
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 60' height; 225' width: 300' length.
j Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A ft.
N
Science Building
�• ••�•• 11•x„11 I106,VI46I 111041,06I401 to c.. .v..., LYIN., �;�`.� v1ru1 uc 1c1uu�CV IIU111 tilt:>tllC! &I%dA. c.
w11JNwu64. varus
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ®Yes ONo ONIA'-
a. If yes, -for what intend.. purpose is the site being reclaimed? Lawn, Paved parking, paved
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ElYes ONo Pedestrian Plaza
C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? MYes ONo
4. How many acres of ve etati0n (tre shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? Few trees
Trees in existing parking "Yo • acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project?
OYes ®No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction _. N/A _ months, (including demolition).
7. If multi -phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated 2(number). .
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 March month 1991 year, (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase Au—�_ month 1993 year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Eyes ONo
8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes L]No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50-60 after project is complete 12-15 Faculty/staff
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 9IYes ONo If Yes, explain Replace
classroom currently leased from NCR. Relocate parking
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ®No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? CYes K]No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? OYes L3No
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? OYes [3No
16. Will the project generate solid waste? ®Yes ONo
a. If yes, what is the amount per month 21 tons during academic year; 1 ton during summer
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? IOYes ONo
c. If yes, give name County Landfill location Yet to be determined
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 13Yes ONo
e. If Yes, explain Chemical and biological waste will be removed by independent contractor
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OYes MNo
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? El Yes ONo in greenhouse by certified personnel.
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes ®No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes $)No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Mes ONo
If yes , indicate type(s) Electricity, gas
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 9,000 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes. MNo
If Yes, c :p.ain
ri
Science Building
25. Approvals Required: Submittal
Type Date
City, Town, Village Board OYes ONO
City, Town, Village Planning Board IBYes ONO Review 9/4/90
City, Town Zoning Board ®Yes ONO ,Special Approval 9/4/90
City, County Health Department OYes ONO
Other Local Agencies OYes ONo
Other Regional Agencies OYes ONO
State Agencies Oyes ONO
Federal Agencies OYes ONo
C. Zoning and Planning- Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ONO
If Y@s, indicate decision required:
. Ozoning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit Osubdivision Osite plan
Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Uother Heigh variance rSpecial
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site?
R 15 Residential District Approval
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as'permitted by the present zoning?
N/A
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Same as existing
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONO
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/. mile radius of proposed action?
Town of Ithaca: Residential Districts -R9, R30, MR; Industrial Districts -II, I
City of Tthanar RPsidPntial T)ictrintc_R-9a R -;h
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/. mile? ®Yes ONO
9. If• the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or.water districts? OYes InNo
11. Will the .proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education,; police,
fire protection)? Mes ONO Fire Protection
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? UYes ONO
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes i]No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Oyes ONO
D. -Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification
Revised 10/5/90
1 certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Revised 9/12/90
Applicant/Spo se Nagne ALT Architects as agent for I haca CcllPgP Date 8/16/90
—rte
Signature �vvL/ Title Vice President
If the actionin the C astal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment form before proceeding
with this asses ent.
5 Science Building
,
,
51g h� t�y� 2D 1°
Part 2- PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully) ZP7
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: H
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental a
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not n
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further. =X'.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specificproject or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question,
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A. No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO fIrYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slog of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ®' Yes ❑No
foot of length), or where the -general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
3 feet. l (b6,r-T'-A,an Eigv, Aw, I$
•
Construction of paled pparkiine�Lngg.,p�rea for , �°� more vehicles. U 11 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Const�iion on�and where b; M is expervJosor generally within ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ®^ WYes ❑No
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No
• Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
2. Will there be an effect t!....iy unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)®NO OYES
• Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
6
CWL� ^ Gpre� E �\J
wLTrt • &0A A6ewpr4 ID1oj�tb
C'>2✓ ASD t71P 1�]7 tZeS -15 z (Q D
4 i�J�K
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body,
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream,
; - • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body,
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
• Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non -protected existing or new body
of water? ONO ®YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10% increase or decrease in the surfaceare of any body of waer
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. �� - ro4 d Vre' .(oG .
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
• Other impacts:
4s
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
... quality or quantity? ONO ®YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
1vp
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity,
•
•
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water .
supply system.
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 .gallons per
day. — fJ O $tl? r2r •Iv "r., e►rnS� -P$
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or cher discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious isual,
contrast to natural conditions. C ,te►�r Fagot. rL4 Al l i Lr ai
• Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons,
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
• Other impacts:
6, Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff? ONO I NYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑Yes ❑No
_❑
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
im
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
13 Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑Yes ❑No
<*
❑
❑Yes ❑No
. .0
❑
❑Yes ❑No
10)7AZ)
®
❑
❑Yes [3 No
,Y�►n Cbv1
❑
[]Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
[]Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ED No
1 2 3 . �—
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ . ❑Yes ❑No
• Other impacts: (k Oya-rC4� &Lrk-tA 0 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO JOYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of la d committed
to industrial use. 7440%��L� se, .c.,wd5klay---4•,(w%a
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the densi of .industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ##NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
• .Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts:
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or
non -endangered species? *0 OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
Examples that would apply to column 2 %NO OYES
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
D
❑ I ❑ 1 ❑Yes ❑No
❑ 1 ❑ I ❑Yes ❑No
❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑Yes C1 No
'®
❑
13Yes ❑No
C
4wbl�
❑
Dyes []No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes []No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes ❑No
❑
❑
❑Yes [No
❑
❑
Oyes ❑No
❑
❑
C3 Yes ❑No
1 2 3
Small to Potentlal Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mltlgated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
agricultural land.
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District+ more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent Installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? IRNO OYES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [3 No
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
�aztiGt ze�,x Iyl0 lSL4� i KA_p ac9t;oow 4►�,�HS— c°"'`M'
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12, Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre '
historic or paleontological importances' 11KN0 OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
a Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ [3 Yes ❑No
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No
project site.
• • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.,
• Other impacts: hi•qgt� &W s rs4ffo1 id, ❑ ❑ Oyes [No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ®NO OYES
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yea ❑No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
t 9
4
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
ONO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
• Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems,
• Other impacts: 4 �J*r - �' "C" ; vTn&nr
1�tt►� l�`s� . i --
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the communitys sources of fuel or
energy supply? ONO I#YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. .
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ONO AYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
• Other impacts•'"'
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
ONO 4&YES
U
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste. C" Z� A
• Other impacts: � t
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ; ❑No
❑ ❑Yes [:]No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
❑ ❑ C3 Yes 0 N
40 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
0NO AYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
• Proposed action II co�r flict,.with officially adopted plans or goals.
• Proposed action woocause arc ang`e in the density of land use.
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
• Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
• Other impacts:
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
❑
❑
❑Yes ONO
❑
❑
❑Yes ONO
❑
❑Yes ONO
❑
0
Noyes QNo
❑
❑
❑Yes ONO
❑
❑
❑Yes ONO
❑
IR
MYes 0 N
❑
❑Yes 0 N
❑
❑
❑Yes ONO
19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? ®NO OYES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3 EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT
Responsibility of lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(?) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable.to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
• The probability of the impact occurring
• The duration of the impact
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
is]
EXCERPT/PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1990
Comments from Town Planner Susan Beeners
Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts
Ithaca College Road Relocation - EAF Pa t III
Ithaca College Science Building awn EAF art III
i
At this point, Ms. Beeners, referring to Impacts on Land for the
Ithaca College Road Relocation EAF Part II, Page 6, noted that any
construction on slopes of 15% or greater is a Potential Large Impact
because there are embankments that are going to have slopes at 15% or
more. Proposed building will be sited on slopes of 80. Construction
of paved parking area for 100 or more vehicles is also a Potential
Large Impact, adding, the net increase proposed by Ithaca College is
101 vehicles. Construction that will continue for more than one year
or involve more than one phase or stage is also a Potential Large
Impact. Ms. Beeners remarked that the above is the extent of
potential large impacts on land. Ms. Beeners noted that it is
checked yes as to Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change,
commenting, yes, of course, it could be mitigated by forgetting about
the project entirely, and by reducing the project in size. With
respect to the SEAR Part III probability of impacts to land, duration
of impacts, irreversibility, control, regional consequences,
potential divergence from local needs and goals, and known
objections to the project, with all of those considerations, Ms.
Beeners would say that the benefits of the project are recommended to
outweigh any of the potential localized negative impacts. Ms.
Beeners also said that there has been discussion with the applicants
with respect to erosion and sedimentation control.
As to Impacts on water, Ms. Beeners mentioned the lower pond that
is on the site plan is going to be increased from .3 to .4 of an acre
so that is going to be over a 10% increase in a surface area of water
body. Mr. Trowbridge stated that there is a small retention pond
that currently exists below the parking lot, and that is being
enlarged to accommodate additional run-off. Ms. Beeners stated that
the additional run-off accommodation is a real beneficial impact,
because of the fact that it is adding to some control of storm
drainage down the hill. Ms. Beeners stated that the above is the
only Potential Large Impact under water. Ms. Beeners stated that all
the issues that are supposed to be addressed under Part III have been
duly considered and that, again, beneficial impacts outweigh
potential adverse impacts.
At this time, Ms. Beeners proceeded to Page it of the EAF, under
No. 18, "Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use". Ms. Beeners said that, yes, it does have a Potential Large
Impact, and also checked that the impact could be mitigated by
project change. Ms. Beeners stated that there is also a Potential
Large Impact in that the proposed action will set an important
precedent for future projects, and also checked yes that the impact
could be mitigated by project change. Ms. Beeners stated that, at
this time, the impacts related to the road relocation, with respect
to Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood are not really
considered at this time to be adverse impacts. Ms. Beeners said that
I.C. is going through a Master Plan process accompanied by a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, and if there is anything as far as
potential development of new buildings along the road, then such
't 1A44rof 16643
would be subject
to further environmental review
by the Town.
Ms.
Beeners said that
aspects such as
the net increase
in parking by
101
spaces, moving away
from NCR and
putting the parking
on the Campus
is
a very good idea.
Ms. Beeners said
that in the
long -run, one will
have to look at
it, very carefully,
to make
sure that the traffic
using the existing.service
road,
which goes down
behind Rogan's
is
continued to be
monitored.
Ms. Beeners said
that it is
her
understanding that
tickets are issued
if there is
abuse in the use
of
the service road.
Tom Salm,
V.P. for Business
Affairs at Ithaca
College, responded
that the service
road is restricted
all the time,
it is intended
for Physical
Plant, safety,
and Security use,
but
students obviously
use it to walk
down off the
Campus. Mr. Salm
stated that the road is posted as restricted access.
At this time, Town Planner Susan Beeners reviewed the Ithaca
College Science Building EAF Part II. There will be some
construction involving slopes of 15% or greater, and as Mr.
Trowbridge pointed out the building itself is going to be sited
pretty mm.ch on slopes of about 8%. The slopes with the steeper
degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as
one would normally approach that. Again, that was checked as
Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold, and
in the example, yes, indeed, the impact could be changed. Ms.
Beeners said that there will be some construction involving slopes of
15% or greater. Ms. Beeners noted that, as Mr. Trowbridge pointed
out, the building itself is going to be sited pretty much on slopes
of about 80. The slopes with the steeper degree of s-ope to them
will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally
approach that. Ms. Beeners stated that the above was checked as
Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold, and
in the example, yes, indeed, the impact could be mitigated by project
change, but that would only really be If there was a drastic
modification to the project itself, which Ms. Beeners did not think
was appropriate. Other Potential Large Impacts would then also
relate to construction continuing for more than one year or involve
more than one phase, adding, the impact could be mitigated by project
change, yes, but not really that great of an idea. Ms. Beeners said
that all the other impacts she went through she decided that they
were pretty negligible impacts; small to moderate, except when she
g®t to Page 11, Growth and Character of the neighborhood. Ms.
Beeners said that here is an example where it gets really hard in
figuring out which one to check - Small to Moderate or Potential
Large. "Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals." Ms. Beeners recommendation is that there would be a Small
to Moderate Impact related to the fact that the building would not
comply with the 30' maximum height in the R-15 zone. As it was
discussed in the presentation related to the height and the context
on the site, the height of 45' or 60' to the top of the fan gallery
overall height of 601. The granting of a variance by the ZBA would
not be of significant impact, given that its interior of the Campus
seems to be designed quite well, and fits in with the other buildings
there on Campus. "Proposed action will cause a change in the density
of land use." There is Potential Large Impact with respect to that
as it is a trend as far as locating and expanding the core of the
I.C. Campus. Also, there is the fact related to that trend that an
important precedent would be set for future projects, e.g., more
buildings in the general vicinity of the central core, and possibly
more buildings with heights of over 301, those impacts are
controllable and
are not
terribly important.
Ms. Beeners, commenting
on Part 3 as far
as probability,
duration, irreversibility,
and the
other aspects related
to
answering a question
of importance, she sees
no significant
adverse
impacts that would
warrant recommending
anything other
than a
Negative Determination
of Environmental
Significance.
Dan Walker pointed out that there were indeed issues related to
both sewer and water which need further review, and that these issues
need to also be identified within the SEQR review.
(NOTES TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS)
1. The Part III SEQR Form shows October 3, 1990 modifications per
Dan Walker's comments on water usage at the October 2, 1990
Planning Board Meeting.
Staff still recommends a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance having fully considered present information, and the
issues of Part III of the SEAR Form.
2. Harry Missirian of The Tompkins County Planning Department, per a
telephone call on October 10, 1990 indicated that the County .has
no negative comment pursuant to N.Y.S. General Municipal Law
Section 239-m and authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to
proceed.
Susan Beeners
Town Planner.
mb
10/10/90
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
SPECIAL APPROVAL
to the
FEE: $100.00
RECEIVED:
CASH
CHECK
ZONING:
For Office Use Only
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
76FAWT
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been informed that authorization is required to: Cnns+.r,jr+. 4 „FTw AL ad rNm;
science building
at Ithaca College Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 41-1-30.2 as shown on the accompanying
application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authoriza-
tion is requested pursuant to:
Article(s) IV Section(s) 11
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this
request for Special Approval authorization.
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.)
Construction of a new academic building. to housp +l,P hi nl ng;f
chemistry, and physics departments of Ithaca College; renovation
to Williams Hall and associated site work.
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my applica-
tion.
Signature of Owner/Appellant:
Signature of Appellant/Agent:
Home Telephone Number:
Date:
�J Date • 5/30/9 0
Work Telephone Number a. 6a7 273 76oa
PLOT PLAN
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN.
1. Dimensions of lot.
4.
Dimensions
and location of proposed structure(s) or
2. Distance of structures from:
or additlon(s).
a. Road,
5.
Nanes of neighbors
who bound lot.
b. Both side lot lines,
6.
Setback of
neighbors.
c. Rear of lot.
7.
Street name
and number.
3. North arrow.
8.
Show existing
structures in contrasting lines.
Signature of Owner/Appellant:
Signature of Appellant/Agent:
Date.
Date:
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning Board
FROM: Susan C. Beeners s
RE: Ithaca College New Science Facility and
Road Relocation Projects
DATE: September 28, 1990
I expect to be mailing the PART II/III and
recommendation to you Saturday. My present recommendation is
that a negative determination of environmental significance be
made, by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Lead Agency for both
Type I actions. I also recommend that the Planning Board report
to the Board of Appeals its recommendation that- the two projects
be approved, with such approvals conditioned upon approval of the
final working plans and project installation by the Town
Engineering and Planning Departments,
Ithaca College has indicated its intent to proceed with
master planning and with a G/EIS. You will hear more on this
soon.
SCB/nf
xc - Dooley Kiefer, Chair
Environmental Review Committee of the
Conservation Advisory Council
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Jean H. Swartwood, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am
the 'Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, 'Tompkins County, New York; that
the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town
Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly
published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal.
NOLice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca_`Loninq Board
of Appeals in Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York on
Wednesday, October 10 1990 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Located at front entrance of
T
Date of Posting: October 2, 199E
Date of Publication: October 5. 1990
Jean H. Swartwood, Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of October, 1990.
Notary Public
ILT Mort =1 M7 719a Ism
�)�N
;'ol
Th itR calJoumal Friday, October 5, 1990
if p ae-t 1 ' � t... 7 _
t h3 t
pellant,- HOLT- Architects,
Agent, requesting the Special
Approval of the. Board of Ap-
peals, under Article; IV, Sec-
tion 1l, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance for the
proposed construction of a
new academic science'build-
;fY ing to be located on the Ithaca
College Campus north of Wil-
lioms Hall, Town of Ithoca,Tax
Parcel No. 6-41-1-30.2, -Resi-
dence District R-15., In•:oddi-
# tion, a variance from the're-
h , T0WN=`,OF ITHACA ZONING Sect Section is Porag oof rph110; Iof
f � � BOARD OF APPEALS
;ZNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS toiperiOrdinance build ng heights of
�lf�>,Mb t" OCT: 10, 1990, 7P.M.
k.. 60 feet, as measured, from4the
,iA direction oi, oninf the Chairman lowest point of exterior grade
XgO it pealsecNOTiCEB�SrdHEREBof Y to the highest point on the
i, Y',, I, roof line,. 30 feet being the
t ;r it � 'GIVIthat. Public Hearings Permitted height. '
will •be[held by 'the Zoning ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING,.
4. of:Appeals of the Town under Article XIV, Section 77,
ti }of•IthacaYon. Vlednesdoy, Oc- of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
ix,tober )0;;1990, in'Town Hall, Ordinance, for on'inter reto-
�%126 Ea`st.Seneca Street, (FIRST tion by the Board of Appeals
�I'f.-,MENCING,
f�Floor; ti REAR' Entrance, WEST of Article VII, Section 35, of
--tSide),"Ithocor� N.Y., COM- said Ordinance to determine if
AT7:00 P. M., on . any uses permitted in Business
the folloing' matters. Districts A", "B", and r'C"
4 i APPEAL of: Judith B. Moclntire, may be ' permitted in a Busi-
(;,.:Appellant,; Ralph W. Nash, ness District "D".
t`tEsq., Alpert (requesting vari- Said Zoning Board of Appeals
I ,t M q
f„:ance o l4thellre uirements of g
will at said time, 7:00 .m.,
1 s-ArticlemIV;t Section ll,.of the p
I.and said place, hear all per-
; ^» t,Town.of Ithaca Zoning Ordi-
sons in support of such matters
14NI ltponce do ermit the operation
It.'
'of o 'Bed and Breakfast" fa- or objections thereto; Persons
dl114.1..1 for u too maximum of Pay appear by agent or in
f ;four bobri ers and/or lodgers, person. Andrew S. Frost
l',',oroposed.,,iotbe,.located in an Building Inspector/Zoning
r; ..i I f l:existin'g,.,,singl'e-family resi- Enforcement Officer
-5 dence at 217,.E6stern,Heights Town of Ithaca
-'.:•r,�fl .:, Dnve Town'�of Ithaca Tax Par- 273-1747
^m t ?4e1' No !t&57 1-8.126, Resi- October -5, 1990
s dence District R=15, Said Ordi-
;,� li , nonce permits. :only ' one
t�(�Aioorder,4Jr a 'single-family
t.
i'ome 1'
jIQ .APPEAIxof:'Cori ill
ttvA I ellont;�Joseph,:M ..Lalley,
C,-,,I,;f?`A'genf,".requeshng:a•modifica
I�F� tion of,�th'ellSpecial'Approvol
i >.grantdd°byy 1he,Zoning Board
fel of Appeo)C06A!� July •30, 1985
f for'�1,,S,1,fh�e&'Cornell,'', University
{Maintenance and Service_ Op-
-^`+,� erahons'Gbroge The request
satedmodificdtion'is'the installa-
*-n4 hf�tion';lof,`3labove=ground fuel
f' ,'°sforage,tonk3 within the area
' of thoWdIntenance'pnd Serv-
ter., 4 ice`` OperSfioris 'Garage lo-
Itated off NYS Rte. 366 on
Car -ft I Belli niversity s,.:Palm -Road,
- Town of ithoca Toz,Parcel No.
1 2#Residence'District R-
x K30JrThe,modificotion of the
}f 7 tSpecI I Approval is requested
fit�� ;under Art icle,V,)Section 18, of
�s� ''the Town ofAthoco'Zoning Or-
`))dinancp ,iy,
/{RPEALIofflthacdj ollege, Ap-
't
^' ° Ipellant;lTrowliridge . Asso-
K, dotes, 'Agent requesting the
� S'p 'do 'Approval.of'the Board
ppeals, under Article IV,
�Section,,,11, ,ofTthe,.Town of
- ' 7 Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for-
rr Mahe proposed relocation of a
,L I�r yportion of; the existing Ithaca
Gkollegge' main scampus road
ll and'ihe construction of a new
;automobile parking foll.1thoco
a ,College is located ai 953 Dan-
f'Road, '.Town"of Ithaca Tax
:Parcel No.6 41-1-30.2, Resi-
I"dence`Distnct'R-15.'.
APPEAL of lthoco College, Ap-
�r
\ r \ 1 02
tY1r
��y ��sY 0. ; � % E �� �r ��s 6 tri '^ ! � f"• F
0 �t .+� � .`r..+. s:. +yam•'.. �:
F
` aI.,1
i - Y
461
z
-
Y.
v>f=
�f`
1
\ r \ 1 02
tY1r
��y ��sY 0. ; � % E �� �r ��s 6 tri '^ ! � f"• F
0 �t .+� � .`r..+. s:. +yam•'.. �:
F
` aI.,1
i - Y
461
z
-
Y.
�f`
1
Vz
.\
l,-
f-. .;,s. Al ka - 'y b . Y ✓ o- Ik y, v i , 0
f i• to t` t t1 i 7 f. f �i r u> � s
.,.t4
:
z
i
z
µ Y
f-. .;,s. Al ka - 'y b . Y ✓ o- Ik y, v i , 0
f i• to t` t t1 i 7 f. f �i r u> � s
...............................................
Special Approval
New Science Facilities
Ithaca College
Ithaca New York
School of Humanities and Sciences
Hoffman O'Brien Look & Taube, P.C.
Architects, Planners and Interior Designers
' 217 North Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 607 273 7600
Trowbridge Associates
Landscape Architects
t 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 607 277 1400
T.G Miller Associates, P.C.
Civil Engineers
' 203 North Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 607 272 6477
Ryan -Biggs Associates, PC
Structural Engineers
' 291 River Street, Troy, New York 12180 518 272 6266
Robson & Woese, Inc.
Mechanical/Electrical Engineers
' 5895 Enterprise Parkway, East Syracuse, New York 13057 315 445 2650
Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc.
' Acoustical Consultants
6 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 212 213 2811
Project No, 90017
20 September 1990
C
Contents
Introduction
Project Description
Overview
Project Summary
Site Utilities
Waste Management
Air Quality
Traffic Impact Analysis
Phasing
Long Environmental Assessment Form
Drawings
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Site Utility Plan
Floor Plans
Elevations
Section
' Appendix
Special Approval Appeal Form
Report of Meeting with Fire Department
Graphic Time Line
'In troduction
The material contained herein is submitted concurrently to the Planning Board and the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca pursuant to Article IV Section 11 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The submittal is a request to the Board of Appeals for the following:
•
Special Approval
p
' • Variance for building height
' It is understood that the ZBA can grant Special Approval only after the Planning Board has
reviewed the application and submitted its report.
11
11
n
0
Project Description
I
u
1
Overview
The new Science Facilities project is a response to two major issues facing Ithaca College,
1. The College currently leases space for 13 classrooms in the NCR building across Rte
96B. The lease is scheduled to expire in 1992, at which time replacement space on
campus will be needed.
2. The current science facilities in Williams Hall are programs,
inade uate for today's
q Y
Additional space and more sophisticated technologies are needed the enhance the
quality of both teaching and research in the sciences.
1 No increase in the student population is anticipated as a result of this project.
wConcurrently with the development of plans for the new building and road relocation, the College
will undertake a master plan for the entire campus, identifying and providing for any anticipated
growth. As part of this effort, the College will work closely with the Town in the development of
a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. A graphic time line for these projects and the Master
Plan is in the Appendix.
u
1
I I
I
E
Project Summary 1 1 1 1 100...0 .
The project consists of a new Science building, renovation of Williams Hall, and development
of a landscaped quadrangle to the east of both buildings. The new building will be constructed
on a site immediately north of Williams Hall and west of the Roy H. Park School of
Communications. The existing campus road, which bisects the site, will be relocated as a
separate project.
The new building will house the departments of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, along with four
general classrooms and a small lecture hall, in approximately 100,000 gross square feet. Upon
completion of the new building in August 1992, Williams Hall will be vacated and renovated for
the Department of Psychology and general classrooms and office space. These classrooms,
together with those in the science building, will replace space rented in the NCR building, thereby
eliminating the student pedestrian traffic across Danby Road.
The new building will be three stories in height, with the first floor entered at the same elevation
as the south (second level) entrance to the Park School. The second level will have entrances
on both the east and west sides, accessed via terraces built above classroom and mechanical
space on the first floor. Due to the utility demands of a science building, the floor -to -floor height
will be 15 feet, making a grade -to -roof height of about 45 feet at the north end. Topping the roof
plane is a fan gallery which rises an additional 15 feet, making the total height, 60 feet, about the
same as Williams Hall.
The building will be of poured -in-place concrete, Type I construction. Exterior materials will be
brick, concrete, and limestone, with aluminum curtain wall, to integrate visually with the Park
School and Williams Hall.
1
ii
1
Site Utilities
GENERAL
Construction of the Science Building will make it necessary to relocate and replace water,
sanitary sewer, and storm sewer mains in addition to electric, natural gas, and telephone service
currently in the road corridor. It is proposed to route certain utilities, such as water and sewer
mains, along the west, north, and east sides of the Science Building and reserve the corridor
between Williams Hall for electric, natural gas, and telephone service.
WATER
Preliminary peak domestic demand and hydrant fire flow figures for the Science Building are 75
gallons per minute (gpm) and 1,500 gpm, respectively. In addition to the hydrant fire flow
requirement, the system should be capable of providing a residual pressure of 65 psi at the
highest sprinkler head under a flow of 750 gpm. At present, the area of the Science Building is
served by a branch 6 inch main which is connected to an 8 inch loop in front of dormitory D-6.
To determine the actual capacity of this main a flow test was conducted with Ithaca College and
Bolton Point Staff. A flow of approximately 860 gpm was established at hydrant #27 in front of
Muller Chapel and a residual pressure of 95 psi was measured at hydrant #5 located 850 feet
to the east and off the southeast corner of the Communications Building. The field results were
incorporated into a computerizes hydraulic model of the campus distribution system.
While the, 6 inch main will deliver the estimated peak domestic demand, it is not capable of
providing the 1,500 gpm fire flow and would not satisfactorily sustain the 65 psi residual pressure
at the highest sprinkler head. To overcome this deficiency, the project will extend the existing
8 inch main in front of Dillingham Center to the main at Muller Chapel. This 500 foot extension
combined with 800 feet of new 8 inch main rerouted around the Science Building will complete
a loop by eliminating the 6 inch branch, improve the fire flow to the Science Building, and
strengthen the reliability of this portion of the campus system.
Total estimated domestic consumption of 9,000 gallons per day (gpd) for the Science Building
will be provided by the existing system storage.
t
11
u
Site Utilities
...................................................0
SANITARY SEWER
The length of sewer main to be relocated is approximately 850 feet. The majority of main to be
relocated (700 feet) is the trunk collection main sewering the entire portion of campus south and
west of Williams Hall. The new main will be a minimum 8 inch diameter. A short length of main
to be constructed between the Science and Communications buildings will relocate the trunk
collection main sewering Phillips Hall and the adjacent dormitory area. A new connection for the
Williams Hall building sewer will be made to the new main routed along the west side of the
Science Building. The total length of existing 8 and 10 inch sewer main to be abandoned and
removed is 525 feet.
The new Science Building will be sewered by the existing 8" diameter sanitary trunk main which
extends northwesterly to the Town of Ithaca 10 inch main located on the west side of Danby
Road. The present average daily flow through the trunk main is estimated from present water
consumption figures to be approximately 541,000 gpd and the present peak flow is estimated
to be 1,130 gpm using a peak factor of 3.0. The estimated 9,000 gpd average daily flow from
the new Science Building would increase the average daily flow in the trunk main to
approximately 550,000 gpd. The peak flow is estimated to increase to approximately 1,145 gpm,
an increase of approximately 1.7% above the present flow. These flow rates assume infiltration
from surface and ground water is compensated by non -sewer flow generating water uses such
as irrigation, pools, and cooling towers.
The capacity of the existing sewer trunk main is estimated to be approximately 1,220 gpm.
Although the estimated peak flow rates are approaching this estimated system capacity, it is
unlikely that the addition of the new Science Building will cause an overload of the system. The
estimated flow increase of 1.7% is very small, and the assumption that infiltration is compensated
by non -sewer flow generating water use is conservative.
Based on the estimated peak sewage flow of 75 gpm a 6 inch sewer lateral constructed at a
minimum 1 percent slope will service the Science Building.
Site Utilities
STORM SEWER
The length of storm sewer to be relocated is approximately 600 feet. The length of existing 16
' inch storm sewer main to be abandoned and removed is 300 feet. The new storm sewer route
will be along the west side of the Science Building under the proposed relocated roadway and
' will connect to an existing catch basin at the lower end of V Lot". Improvements to the storm
sewer from this catch basin north to the detention facility will be completed in the Loop Road
' projects. Relocation or new construction of stormwater structures and mains in the Phillips Plaza
will be coordinated with the landscape activities.
All permanent storm sewer mains and structures will be designed for the 10 Year Storm
Occurrence. Runoff from the Science Building roof will be routed underground to a permanent
catch basin and will drain into the proposed detention facility. (See Stormwater Management
Study submitted with this report).
- Waste Manage ment
Solid chemical and biological waste will continue to be handled as it is now, through
independent contractors in conjunction with Cornell University.
Provision will be made in the new building for storage of radioactive waste. This will
accommodate low-level isotopes used by the Biology department.
Acid waste will be accumulated in a neutralization tank, where it will be corrected to a pH of
' approximately 7.0 before being discharged into the public system.
There is no anticipated need to accommodate biohazardous waste.
0
u
0
1
Air Quality. I 1 1. 1. 1 1.. 1 1 1 ... ...
The building will contain approximately 80 fume hoods. Each is ducted to its own exhaust fan,
then through a heat recovery coil, and finally into a large dilution plenum where the hood air is
mixed with massive quantities of outside air before being discharged at high dispersion velocity.
The laboratory exhaust system will meet all applicable EPA and DEC regulations.
1
1
L
n
Traffic Impact Analysis
Excerpted from the Ithaca College NCR Parking Lot Closure Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by
Neal Denno, Transportation Consultant. September 15, 1990,
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to examine the traffic impacts of the proposed closure of the NCR
parking lot by Ithaca College. The impacts examined are: the additional traffic expected to use
the Coddington Road/Hudson Street corridor to access the college's rear entrance; the traffic
service impacts of the additional traffic in the Coddington/Hudson corridor; the traffic service
impacts. of the closure at the State Route 96B main entrance to the campus; and the traffic
service impacts on State Route 96B of potential reuse of the- NCR parking lot by an unidentified
occupant.
IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
All traffic projections in this report are for 1990 morning and evening peak hours for the
conditions specified. The Coddington/Hudson projections are based on traffic counts taken in
September 1990 when Ithaca College was in session. Because Hudson Street was undergoing
extensive reconstruction during the counting period, observed counts are adjusted (or factored
up) to be consistent with machine counts taken on Hudson Street by the City of Ithaca before
Hudson Street reconstruction commenced.
The adjustment assumes that traffic diverted from Hudson Street by the reconstruction is, to the
maximum extent possible, Ithaca College traffic. This clearly overstates the impact of the
reconstruction diversion on Ithaca College traffic and understates the diversion of other traffic.
However, it provides for a worst case projection scenario for the traffic increase on the
Coddington/Hudson corridor due to the proposed NCR lot closure. The projected traffic is then
compared with current traffic (assuming Hudson Street functioning normally) for percent of
increase.
All traffic service evaluations in this report are based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual which
qualitatively evaluates traffic service conditions on a graded scale from A to F, where level of
service (LOS) A represents excellent traffic service with minimal restrictions and' LOS F
represents an oversaturated or jammed condition.
Traffic Impact Anal sis
NCR PARKING LOT CLOSURE CONDITION
Under this condition both the 302 vehicle parking lot and the classroom space currently located
on NCR property west of SR 96B would be relocated across SR 96B to the main campus of
' Ithaca College. This would eliminate major pedestrian volumes currently crossing SR 96B and
the fourth leg of the intersection of SR 96B at the campus main entrance. It will increase the
' number of vehicles parking on the main campus and increase flow in and out of the main
campus at both entrances. This increased flow is assumed to distribute itself between the two
entrances similarly to the existing traffic.
Table 5 shows existing peak hour traffic on Hudson Street as measured by City of Ithaca
machine counts prior to Hudson Street reconstruction. The traffic additions due to NCR lot
closure are also shown (from Figure 5). A comparison of the values reveals a 4 percent traffic
' increase projected for Hudson Street.
Level of Service at the intersection of Hudson Street and Coddington Road for the NCR lot
closure condition will remain well above the LOS C threshold of 960 vehicles per hour. Total
vehicle approaches of 537 and 659 are projected for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively.
' Table 5
Existing Peak Hour Traffic
and Projected Additions
' Under the NCR Lot Closure Condition
' Existing Projected Percent
Count Addition Increase
a.m. 393 16 4
p.m. 504 21 4
' Level of service on SR 96B as measured at the intersection of the main campus entrance
improves under the NCR lot closure condition. The improvements are principally due to
' elimination of pedestrian crossings and the consequent ability to shorten the signal cycle length.
u
1
Traffic Impact Analysis
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed closure and relocation of the NCR parking lot and classrooms onto the main part
of the Ithaca College campus will result in a 4 percent increase of traffic on Hudson Street under
a worst case scenario. Such an increase would almost certainly not be apparent to the casual
observer. Level of service in the Coddington/Hudson corridor will not fall below the LOS C
threshold. Level of service at the college's main entrance intersection with State Route 96B will
improve even if the NCR parking lot is ultimately reused because of the elimination of large
volumes of pedestrians crossing the highway and the consequential ability to shorten signal
cycle length.
Two phases of construction are planned. Phase 1, construction of the new building, will begin
tin the spring of 1991 and be completed for the fall semester of 1992. The northern half of the
quadrangle development will be constructed in this Phase. Phase Il, the renovation of Williams
' Hall, will begin in the summer of 1992 and be completed for the fall semester of 1993. The
remainder of the quadrangle will be constructed in this Phase.
The building is located partially on an existing parking lot, and the quadrangle development will
remove parking from the space between Phillips Hall and the Park School. The net loss of
parking during the course of the Project will be as follows:
' Existing Proposed Net
# Parking Spaces # Parking Spaces Change
Phase I: 1992 207 42 .165
Phase II: 1993 42 18 - 24
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_----------------------------------------------
TOTAL LOSS: - 189 Spaces
This loss will be offset by the creation of 290 new spaces under the Road Relocation project, for
a net gain of 101 spaces on campus.
11
Long Environmental Assessment :Form
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
61711 S EQ R
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be -aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially -
large impact. The form also identifies.whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: O Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.'
❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
' A' Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
New Science Facility Special Approval Rocruest
Name of Action
Zoning Board of Appeals
Name of Lead Agency
Henry Aron Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsib Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
1
Science Building
1
11
t
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
New Science Facility Special Approval Request.
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR
HOLT Architects as agent for Ithaca College
ADDRESS
217 North Aurora Street
CITYIPO
Ithaca
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
Ithaca College
ADDRESS
CITY/PO
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Construction of new academic
and associated site work.
Y
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
(An7 ) 27 3-76n
STATE j ZIP CODE
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
(Fn7 ) ?7A—'I?R
STATE
NY
science building, renovation of Williams Hall,
ZIP CODE
14850
Please Complete Each Question— Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: OUrban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial OR'esidential (suburban) ORural (non-farm)
ED Forest OAgriculture `PJOther Institutional
2. Total acreage of project area: 6e2 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 0 acres 0 acres
Forested n. acres 0 acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 0 acres 0 acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) n acres n acres
Water Surface Area 0 acres - n acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 acres n acres -
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 3.9 acres 3.6 acres
Other (Indicate type) Landscape/Lawn 2.3 acres 2.6 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Compact silt, fine sand and clay (made land)
a. Soil drainage: OWell drained % of site L�Moderately well drained 75 % of site
®Poorly drained 25 % of site According to borings.
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System? 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes ®No
a. What is depth to bedrock? 11 ± (in feet) According to borings.
2
Science Building
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 910.10% 94 % 1310-15% 3 %
N15% or greater 3 %
t 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? OYes nNo
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? OYes FJNo
' 8. What is the depth of the water table? 17 + (in feet)According to borings.
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes ®No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? OYes ®No
11.. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
OYes C3NNo According to area under cultivation as lawn or used as paved parking
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
OYes QNo Describe
13. Is the project site presently
OYes L3No If
used by the community or neighborhood
yes, explain
as an open space or recreation area?
14. Does the present
site
include scenic
views known to be important to the community?
2PYes
ONo
to Cayuga
Lake
15. Streams within or contiguous to
project
area:
None
a. Name of Stream and
name of
River
to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name None b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONo
' a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONo
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? OYes )No
' 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA,
Section 303 and 304? OYes ®No
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes E]No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? OYes 1No
' B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
' a. Total contiguous acreage owned.or controlled by project sponsor 539 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: 6.2 acres initially; 6.2 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres.
'd. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed NSA %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 207 proposed 18—Those lost relocated as part
of Maximum vehicular trips generated per hourRefer to loop rd. relocation.
S p g p (i pon completion of project).
h. If residential': Number and type of housing un,sffic study
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially N/A
Ultimately N/A
' i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 60 height; 225'width; 300' length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? N/A ft.
3
Science Building
0 ,,,u I"tua 01 1uu%UI iai ki AC , .Vv., qui., 10 Ct�.J W,u uc IGUVVCV IIV111 ►IIC )I►C! None ►Vll)IlUUlL yards
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ®Yes ONo ON/A
a. if yes, -for what intend_,. purpose is the site being reclaimed? Lawn, paved parking, paved
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes ONo Pedestrian Plaza
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? INYes ONo
4. How many acres of vegetation, (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? Few trees acres.
Trees in existing parking iot.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally=important vegetation be removed by this project?
Oyes ®No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition).
7. If multi -phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated %. 2 (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 March month 1991 year, (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase August month 1993 year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? MYes ONo
8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes 1INo
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50-60 after project is complete 12-15 Faculty/staff
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ®Yes ❑No If yes, explain Replace
' classroom currently leased from NCR. Relocate parking
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Oyes ®No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ONo Type Sanitary Sewage
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes [3No
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Dyes [tNo
16. Will the project generate solid waste? ®Yes ONo
a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Z]Yes ONo
® c. If yes, give name County Landfill ; location Yet to be determined
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 25Yes ONo
e. If Yes, explain Chemical and biological waste will be removed by independent contractor
Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? _
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
OYes ®No
tons/month.
years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ElYes ❑No in greenhouse by certified personnel.
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes [NNo
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes EINo
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Mes ONo
If yes indicate type(s) Electricity, gas
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
23- Total anticipated water usage per day 91000 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding?
If Yes, C. pain
M
Oyes ®No
Science Building
J
25. Approvals Required*
PPSubmittal
Type Date
City, Town, Village Board OYes []No
City, Town, Village Planning Board 12Yes ONo Reyiew 9/4/90
City, Town Zoning Board ®Yes ONo Sgecial Approval 9/4/90
City, County Health Department OYes ONo
Other Local Agencies Oyes ONo
Other Regional Agencies OYes 0No
State Agencies OYes ONo
Federal Agencies Dyes ONo
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ONo
If Yes, indicate decision required:
❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ❑subdivision Osite plan
Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan L3other Height variance
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? R 15 Residential District
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
N/A
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Same as existing
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local. land use plans? ®Yes ❑No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action?
Town of Ithaca: Residential Districts -R9, R30, MR; Industrial Districts -II, I
City of Tthaca: RPsidantial Diatricts-R-?ay R-'Ih
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? ®Yes ONo
9. If• the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Oyes L;NO
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? 13Yes ONoFire Protection
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? )OYes ONo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes )ONo
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes ONo
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sp
Signature _
If the action
with this asst
Na
in the C
vent.,/
Title Vice President
Revised 9/12/90
Date 8/16/90
I Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment form before proceeding
A
Science Building
Drawins :.......................
r
I
t
n
0
SiteLocation Ma ...................................................
1{.
gyp-/ . r%wuau aau. �7
4.
�;.NoR9 I
x 7-.
I:
L
*go`, r wool �= R1500
�'so
�/
� THAI tvrt.LF.Gt:
R9 r ` L. ,
1Go 9
'��••\yi — J 1 °e/ 2\
• 1 O ' Rest LLL wal
Area IL
Vol
c ``
wofflo A
Wool 6
s -
t� K.ng,R9 -�
�\• , �� . cPm I MfZ 1
-_Ni nn ac1ll. os.
�� �•• • 1
Ole
Q / \ : L
�R15 t
Rm
C7
—aggoo, AeR15
MR�•Lgo
ogO
MRS
5
r
H
R15
SJGSIation
KtNO ROAD
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
First Floor Plan .......................................................
�JL
o�
67
0
0
p
0
�JL
o�
67
0
0
Second Floor Plan ....................................................
11
L
N
IThird Floor Plan ......................................................
�I
I i
1
1
1
Lpendix
1
1
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
t ,
WWRO VAR
to the
•r
CASH
CHECK
ZONING:
For Office Use Only
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been informed that authorization is required to: Consi-.r,:r-t a nPw n.r�adRmir
science building
at ,Ithaca College , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 41-1-30.2 , as shown on the accompanying
application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authoriza-
tion is requested pursuant to:
Articles) T , Section(s) ii
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this
' request for Special Approval authorization.
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.)
Construction of a new academic building to hnuc;P t•_rP hi n1 ngr
' chemistry, and physics departments of Ithaca College; renovation
to Williams Hall and associated site work.
By filing this application, I grant peraission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my applica-
tion.
Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date:
Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: 8�30��10
Home Telephone Number: Work Telephone Number: 6a7 2 7 3 76 ORD
11
Hoffman O'Brien Look & Taube, P.C. Lawrence Hoffman, AIA
Roben J. O'Brien, AIA
Architects, Planners, and Interior Designers Douglas G. Look, AIA
David H. Taube. AIA
217 North Aurora Street, Rhaca, New York 14850 607 273 7600
Allan M. Chambliss, AIA
Grace N. Chiang, AIA
Graham L. Gillespie, AIA
' 2 August 1990
iMEETING REPORT
' Project: New Science Facilities
Ithaca College
Project No. 90017/18
Date: 1 August 1990 @ 9:00 a.m.
HOLT Conference Room
' Purpose: Fire Department Review Meeting
Present: Brian Wilbur Deputy Chief, Ithaca Fire Department
Peter Trowbridge Trowbridge Associates
Robert O'Brien HOLT Architects
Graham Gillespie HOLT Architects
The following report was prepared by the Architect and will be assumed correct unless written
' exceptions are received within two weeks of publication date.
I
Discussion:
1. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the projects to Brian Wilbur, and to obtain
' feedback on Fire Department requirements for building access. Peter Trowbridge began
with a description of the scope of the Master Plan, including the sequence of work
through 1993.
2, Phillips Plaza will be maintained as emergency vehicle access space to Landon Hall,
Health Center, Phillips/Egbert, Williams Hall as well as the new science building during
' and after construction.
3. The loop road is being relocated to the campus perimeter to avoid vehicular conflicts with
the main pedestrian traffic paths. The ultimate goal is to complete the circuit around the
1 main campus, although this is not part of the Master Plan at this time. It is envisioned
that the loop road will be strictly for traffic, with no utility support. Utilities will remain
primarily on the central campus. This will include fire hydrants, except at buildings
adjacent to the road.
u
' 1 August 1990.
Fire Department Review Meeting
' Page 2
4. A Master Plan design goal is to maintain or better the relationship of roads to buildings.
' 5. Brian Wilbur suggested making Fire Department access requirements a part of the Master
Plan to facilitate future planning. It was agreed that Peter Trowbridge will furnish a 1" =
100' scale plan of the entire campus so that Brian Wilbur can mark it up for incorporation
' into the Master Plan document.
6. The schedule calls for the projects to be brought before the Town for review in early
September. A goal of this meeting is to reach a preliminary agreement or understanding
of the larger issues regarding Fire Department access requirements. The Master Plan
can be modified to take these into account prior to the Town's review.
7. During the science building construction, access will be constantly maintained to Phillips
Plaza.
' 8. Some part of Phillips Plaza will be dedicated to construction staging, and will be isolated
by fencing.
' 9. The science building will be a 3 story cast in place concrete (1b, fire -resistive) building.
It is classified C5.5 educational occupancy. It will be fully sprinklered per Town
ordinance. The Chemistry, Biology, and Physics departments will be housed in the
' building.
10. Access to the building will be through two main entries at the second level, one main
' entry out the first level, and the loading dock. There are four fire exit stairs at
approximately the four corners of the building.
' 11. Vehicular access to the building from roads or fire lanes will be on two full sides, and
partially on the remaining two sides.
12. It was agreed that the designated primary fire -fighting access will be at the second -level
southeast main entrance, off the northwest corner of Phillips Plaza. The annunciator
panel will be located at this entrance, with the siamese connection located nearby on an
' adjacent exterior wall. A fire hydrant should also be located on this side of the Plaza.
13. The loading dock area will be the aerial apparatus access side. A fire hydrant should
also be located in this area.
I I
' 1 August 1990
Fire Department Review Meeting
' Page 3
14. HOLT will use NFPA 45 as the guide for designing the laboratory spaces. Brian Wilbur
will be primarily concerned with fume hood and shaft construction, and exiting. Fume
hoods will be individually vented. There is no program requirement to date for hydrogen
or perchloric acid.
' 15. Brian Wilbur noted that Ithaca College does not have an in-house capability for handling
hazardous spill emergencies. The Fire Department has only a limited capability. Brian
Wilbur requested that the design try to achieve containment of any incident as much as
' possible through isolation and ventilation. The primary goal should be to get people out,
and secondarily to effect clean-up without shutting down the entire building.
16. Williams Hall will also be renovated as part of the project. The occupancy will be
' predominantly office/classroom, with the Psychology department on the first level and
basement.
' 17. Brian Wilbur noted that as a consequence of the existing road relocation, the Fire
Department siamese connection for the Park School of Communications will have to be
relocated from the south to the north side of the building.
18. As the designs are refined, Brian Wilbur will be brought up to date. He stated that
overall, the Master Plan appears to simplify Fire Department access to the campus.
Prepared by,
' HOFFMAN O'BRIEN LOOK & TAUBE, P.C.
Graham Gillespie, AIA
' Associate
GG/dd/90017
xc: All attendees
Thomas Salm
Thomas Brown
' Margaret Sereno
Paul Keenan
William Patchen
1 Staff