Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-04-19 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date 4 g Clerk jj 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 19 , 1989 PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva Hoffmann , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , ALSO PRESENT . Shirley Raffensperger , William P . Paleen , Paul Griffen , Chuck Jankey , Tom Santoro , Cindy Fuller , Mary Margaret Carmichael , Mrs . Lennart Krook , Jan A . Sokolnicki . Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearing - had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANTS , TIMOTHY MARTIN AND ALBERT WRIGHT , AGENTS , REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON AUGUST 10 , 1988 , FOR THE GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT , LOCATED AT THE FORMER CORNELL QUARTERS SITE BETWEEN MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 3 , - 10 . 2 AND - 14 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 , WITH SUCH RECONSIDERATION BEING BASED UPON THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION DATED MARCH 17 , 1989 , INDICATING THAT AUTOMATIC FIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE NOT REQUIRED IN SAID BUILDINGS . Chairman Aron stated that the Board has an environmental assessment form and he declared the Board the lead agency in this matter . Tom Santoro , Cornell University Counsel , addressed the Board . He stated that at this point in time , the University thinks it is appropriate to focus upon just how safe and reasonably constructed these buildings will be . He said that it may be that the focus of prior proceedings has been quite different and it may be that there is required a review of the safety and the considerations that have gone into the selection of this type of building . He will ask Mr . Sokolnicki from • Cardinal Industries to explain what the nature of this construction is and why it exceeds the reasonable standards which have been set by others more expert in this field than any of us . He said by that , he means that the standards of the State of New 2 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of .Appeals April 19 , 1989 York Codes which apply to construction of this sort are at a certain level . The construction of these buildings exceeds those Codes and the precise ways will be explained by others . He referred to a letter that was sent to Town Planner Beeners , dated April 12 , 1989 and presented the Board with a handout entitled " Fire Protection/ Life Safety in Excess of Requirements " ( attached as Exhibits # 1 and # 2 . ) Chairman Aron stated to Atty . Santoro that he thinks the Board would like to be more informed as to what ' excess ' means . He asked what the standards are for the State of New York and what does it mean to having a higher standard than the State of New York allows . Atty . Santoro stated that he means that this construction will be safer than 99 and 44 / 100 % of the construction existing in the Ithaca now . What the precise details of that construction is and why he is able to make that statement will be addressed by _ Mr . Sokolnicki , Chairman Aron stated to the Board that the matter being discussed is a Special Approval to supersede the approval given I n August 1988 , Mr . Sokolnicki , representing Cardinal Industries , addressed the Board . He referred to the handout that Mr . Santoro had passed out to Board members and explained the list . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sokolnicki to explain why he feels this is a better construction . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that primarily he is interested in focusing on the elements of the building itself rather than outside the buildings . He said that Mr . Wright has had discussions with Deputy Fire Chief Wilbur and as far as they understand , there is not an access nor a fire lane issue at this particular point , so he would like to clarify some of the specifications that have to do with the buildings . Mr . Sokolnicki presented diagrams of the construction of the apartments for the Board to consider . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that in regard to fire resistance between dwelling units , the State of New York requires 3 / 4 of an hour fire resistance . The way that they achieve a decision on what requirement would be relative to fire resistance is they assume a certain amount of response to a fire and the amount of time that they assume is relatively safe for getting a person out of a building , warning and responding to the fire and so forth . • 3 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Fire resistance , for their sake , in Cardinal ' s experience has proven to be their greatest asset . Mr . Sokolnicki also presented a model of the " Cardinal Difference " , showing the double wall between units . Mr . Sokolnicki referred to a fire test that they conducted . Chairman Aron asked him if he meant his corporation or did he mean the Fire Underwriters . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that they have to be conducted by a laboratory . Chairman Aron asked if he had any proof of that from the laboratory for the Board . Mr . Sokolnicki said that he did not bring the fire test with him , but it is on file with the State of New York . He referred again to the diagram that had been presented to the Board . He said that Cardinal loads each wall independent , instead of placing a unit load on the walls jointly . In order to pass the fire test , they have to be able to withstand the load , the hose stream test , and the fire penetration test . He stated that those tests were conducted without the insulation in it and if you add the insulation and you assume that you understand the value that • might be placed on loading this as a unit , you can start accumulating values that are greater than 1 hour . He referred to Codes that are allowed in other states and in Canada . Chairman Aron stated that the regulations in Canada are completely different from New York State . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that they are calling this a one - hour fire resistant assembly . Chairman Aron asked if New York State accepts this as a one -hour rating . Mr . Sokolnicki replied yes , it is on file with them . He said that there is a value in recognizing that you are maintaining a certain amount of protection between tenant spaces . This is the same assembly that is used within the dwelling unit itself , also between bedroom to living space with the exception that the insulation would not occur and in certain cases , where there is an attic space , one of the layers of gypsum will be gone but in that case when that layer of gypsum is gone within that dwelling unit , you have to understand also that this layer of 5 / 8 " gypsum on the ceiling , if you are looking toward trying to understand the impact , if you want to , you can still assume that you have 5 layers of gypsum between those two spaces . Chairman . Aron asked if that 5/ 8 of gypsum in the ceiling is fire retarded gypsum or is it regular gypsum . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that it is regular 5/ 8 gypsum , with a 30 minute rating , but his company doesn ' t use that . • Mr . Sokolnicki stated that there are some buildings with four buildings on the site that have party walls . Chairman Aron asked him to explain the meaning of party walls . Mr . Sokolnicki referred to a drawing of the site plan and pointed out where • 4 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 there will be a unit of 4 2 - family dwellings . He explained that in this particular case , what they have . done according to the requirements of the New York State Building Code , is to insert a party wall in order to achieve that kind of condition . He said that the Building Code , if you have a single story building , allows you to do so with a 1 hour assembly . This assembly will exist between any two of these units , in effect , right at the juncture of where that party wall is . Mr . King asked how many party walls there are in those 8 units . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that in those 8 units there are 3 party walls . The party walls will be constructed out of masonry construction . Effectively what they are providing , are two hour assembly with those masonry units between those two walls . The masonry construction is masonry blocks . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that they are required to do 1 hour fire resistance between those walls in one story construction . • There is one hour here ( pointed to diagram ) but on top of that they are building two assemblies between these units . If one were to accumulate all that together , you can feel somewhat comfortable with the fact that you have a 3 hour assembly there . He said that he is not saying specifically that it is a 3 hour assembly , but the accumulated value would be of about 3 hours fire resistance . He said that only occurs in 4 buildings ; those 4 buildings that were in question relative to access because of the distance . Mr . Frost stated that he thinks it is important to keep in mind that the party wall is being installed there as a means of dealing with the fact that those buildings are exceeding the 100 foot distance to access ; to a driveway , so the party wall is dealing with the issue of that , and the building is located further than 100 feet from where a fire engine might pull up in the driveway . He said that effectively it is giving them greater fire separation in the building but the party wall is protection because they don ' t have access . The alternative was the bike path and that didn ' t prove to be a reasonable method of solving the problem , and the other alternative was to run fire lanes down between the buildings , and that really didn ' t seem to be the most appropriate solution either . This was an appropriate solution and it worked out best for everyone . Mr . Sokolnicki said that it is his opinion though , in the sense of extra protection , that , you may perceive , in addition to what is provided for protection , is doubled with the fact that these buildings are further apart . 5 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . Frost said they are also further from access , so in a sense there is a higher risk involved there . If you associate the risk with the party wall , you are not necessarily gaining anything in regard to fire safety because in fact they are at higher risk . Mr . Sokolnicki said they would have to provide a party wall . What more they would have to provide to meet the requirements would be a one hour assembly that meets the criteria of the party wall . Mr . Frost stated that unless he is missing something in the Code , party walls are required to be 2 hours , based on table 704 . Minimum fire resistance requirements for structural element , multiple dwellings , fire walls are required to be 2 hours as well , not 1 hour as mentioned on the list that was presented to the Board . The other thing he would like to mention is that in talking about 3 / 4 hour minimum separation between tenant spaces and fire separation , which by construction is different from the fire wall , which is also different from a party wall . Mr . Sokolnicki said that he didn ' t intend to suggest that this was a fire wall when he was describing the assembly between the dwelling units . Mr . Frost stated that there is a difference . You may.+ very well be providing a one hour separation by the but ' is a fire separation , not a fire wall . Mr . Sokolnicki said he did not mean to say fire wall . Mr . Frost said that it also talked about that in the handout that was presented ( exhibit # 2 ) , in regard to tenant separation . He said that the bottom line is that they are providing a higher level of fire protection through the one hour wall than the minimum requirement of 3 / 4 hour . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he is telling the Board that the demonstration given by Mr . Sokolnicki , representing Cardinal Industries , Inc . has a lesser risk factor than New York State Code allows . Mr . Frost responded that what he is saying is that the Code , as a minimum for multiple dwelling2would require 3 / 4 hour fire separation , which in fact based on the chart that Mr . Sokolnicki held up , is not an official book recognized by the State or the Underwriters Lab . The Fire Resistance Director ywould show • 6 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 similar assemblies , though typically they don ' t show fiber glass insulation as providing part of that test to the walls as they test the walls , be they 3 / 4 hour or 1 hour or etc . The bottom line again is based on the assemblies they have ; they are assemblies that provide a 1 hour protection and a 3 / 4 hour minimum ; with or without the insulation , they are higher than typically would be found . Atty . Santoro stated , for clarification , that their position is that essentially every wall in these units , as opposed to merely the walls between the units themselves , have this additional protection . That is between the bedroom and the living room , between the unit and the unit next door , etc . Mr . Frost said that each unit is delivered as a modular , three units put together makes one dwelling unit . Between each module , they have those fire separations , so not only as Atty . Santoro is saying , the dwelling units are separated as required but each unit is divided by two walls within the unit with fire separations . Chairman Aron asked if that would be satisfactory . Mr . Frost replied except that you have doorways in there , and unless you had a fire rated doorway in a fire wall , it is not truly a fire separation . He stated , not to mislead the Board , any doorway between those modules , unless it is a fire rated doorway with some closing mechanism , you really do not have a fire separation because they will open . Mr . Sokolnicki stated , for clarification , that he is not trying to mislead the Board either . Mr . Austen asked if each party wall will be self supporting . Mr . Sokolnicki replied yes . Each wall will be structurally independent of the modules themselves . Further discussion followed on where the party walls will be located . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that there is a requirement for this type of construction for a Class C type roofing and his company uses Class A , which is the best in regard to resistance to severe fire . He explained the difference between an A rating and a C . • Mr . Sokolnicki explained the smoke detectors that are required by the Building Code . The ones that his company is Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 specifying are single station type . He explained that a single station smoke detector is not interconnected to a system and it is intended to be a single warning device that senses smoke and provides an alarm to the residents in that particular dwelling . Wherever there are bedrooms on two sides of a dwelling unit , they have chosen to place a detector on each wall immediately outside the bedrooms and then they are locally interconnected within the dwelling unit itself . The detectors that they are specifying are hard wired , meaning that they are wired right into the electrical system so that the removal of a battery will not invalidate their function . Chairman Aron asked if there is battery back- up . Mr . Sokolnicki replied no . Chairman Aron asked what happens if there is a fire within the wall and the electrical system shortens out , but there is no smoke , will there be an alarm . Mr . Sokolnicki replied no . Mr . Austen asked if they are using photo electric or ionization detectors . Mr . Sokolnicki said they are using photo electric . There was discussion between the difference of using photo electric or ionization detectors . Mr . Frost stated that the Ithaca Fire Department feels that photo electric detectors generate more false alarms than the ionization detectors , due to insects , etc . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that in the ones that will be installed , there will be an insect screen . Mr . Aron again referred to his question of what happens if there is a fire where the electrical system is shorted out . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that there is no back up . Mr . Austen asked if both alarms are wired on the same circuit . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that he has to install these according to the UL listing and in order for the listing to be valid , both smoke detectors have to be on the same circuit . Mr . King asked Mr . Sokolnicki if he meant that the smoke alarm will be wired into a dedicated circuit . He replied no , that it will be wired into a lighting circuit . Mr . Barney asked what happens if a fuse is blown on that circuit . Mr . Sokolnicki said there is not much he can do about that , but if the power goes down in the apartment , the person should be alerted that the power went down . He would assume , by the virtue of the expert S . -; that came up with these standards , they must have taken into consideration the risks and it is a lot safer and a lot better protection than when they were relying on the batteries . • 8 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . Frost stated that the State requires that they be direct wired . Mr . Sokolnicki said that the hard wired system is the most reliable right now . Mr . Sokolnicki referred to travel distances and stated that the NYS Code allows 2 elements of 50 foot travel distances before you get to the outside of a building . He stated that all their units are 30 feet direct to the outside . Atty . Santoro emphasized that these units are all one story and there is no room in any unit that does not have direct access to the outside , except the bathroom . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that by New York State Code , they would be allowed to build two story construction , which obviously provides a different kind of condition . The orientation of the buildings would have to be significantly different ; they would be limited as to what they could do on the second story relative to what the Code required . They would be able to build a second story , but they don ' t . He stated that there is an inherent value to having a single story design . Added to that , by virtue of the fact that these single story buildings are not high pitched roofs , when you accumulate all the wood that goes into the structures , you don ' t have a significant fire load . The fact that the wood is protected by the gypsum and the fact that the buildings are low to the ground reduces the impact of the fire load on the fire department also . He stated that he thinks that is a significant factor . His company has never had a fire communicate from one unit to another . Mr . Sokolnicki said that some of that might have to do with the fact that there are 4 layers of gypsum between the units , it might have to do with the fact that thereare.:n ' t any penetrations through the attic spaces . He cannot tell the Board exactly why it works but it does . Mr . Frost agreed with what Mr . Sokolnicki said about the fire separations for each module of each unit going to the underside of the roof deck as compared to standard type construction where the fire gets up in the attic and communicates with the whole unit . That is a significant factor , that there are two separations in the attic within each unit . Mr . Frost referred to the letter from Mr . Wright ( exhibit # 2 ) , dated April 12 , 1989 , and read the following : " While the NYSUFP and BC requires a 1 hour separation only between every eighth dwelling unit , this means of construction provides a 1 hour fire separation between every dwelling unit . " He stated for clarification , that what would be required between every eight is a 2 hour wall , not a 1 hour wall . He stated also that within • 9 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 this project , there is no building with more than eight dwelling units , and he asked Mr . Sokolnicki if that is correct . Mr . Sokolnicki responded no , that this project is so well designed that if they coincided a . . . . . . unit with 8 dwelling units , 0000000 Atty . Santoro said that he would like the Board to hear from Associate Vice - President Paul Griffen , who is the individual in charge , among other things , of making critical decisions in respect to this project . He thinks it is important that the Board understand that a great deal of consideration has been given to what kind of a project this is . He is sure that the Board also understands from its own experience , the considerations that go into the design and construction of every project involve many choices , many decisions , and many considerations before you come up with what you finally determine that you would like to build . He thinks that it is particularly important at this juncture , that the Board appreciate that the best ability of those who are charged with making these decisions . No decision has been made which they believe negatively impacts life safety consideration . They think that the nature of the units and the cumulative effect of their design are things which were appropriately considered . Mr . Griffen stated that he wished to convey a strong message from the University and from the Trustees that this housing is extremely important to the University due to the lack of affordable housing on the campus . He said that it has been a commitment of the Trustees that it be safe and attractive also . A great deal of study went into the choice of these units , and Cardinal proved to the University that they had the best unit and would provide the best thing for buck , so to speak . Mr . Griffen stated that the University is very concerned about personal safety , and safety of the young people who come to the University is very important to them . He remarked that he has been a volunteer fireman for 21 years , and he personally believes that they have a unit that is safe and that is the best thing that the University can provide in an affordable nature for the students . Mr . Griffen said that he would be happy to answer questions about the construction and the review process that the University went through . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mary Margaret Carmichael , 122 Pine Tree Road , stated to the Board that she is grateful to the Board for their concern for the safety of the students that will be living in this housing . She • 10 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 remarked that as she read the advertisements on these units , she understands that a unit such as the 4 bedroom one in the upper left corner , would rent to 4 separate students ; they advertise as renting them individually ; not as a unit . Each bedroom is advertised as a separate unit , rented not as 4 people but as one person renting that unit . The rent that is advertised is $ 365 . 00 per month , per unit , so the total is about $ 1470 . 00 for that . She asked if each bedroom is rented as a unit , is the university saying that the protection around the entire bedroom wall is the same as what is required for around an entire apartment since it is rented as a unit . She asked if the windows open as a means of fire exit . She stated that when one looks at the unit from the outside , there looks to be much that is plastic and she asked what the toxic burning of that is and if it is safe for the students . Cindy Fuller , Secretary of the Graduate Housing Council , stated that her constituents would be the students that will be living in these units . She asked Mr . Sokolnicki where the smoke detectors will be situated in the 2 -bedroom units where there would presumably be children . She also asked if the tenants in the units will know that there is no battery back-up to the smoke detectors . She stated that she visited the plan and there is only one door in each unit and that may be fine for people who are able bodied but for a young child who is very scared in the case of a fire or a person who is handicapped , climbing out the window may not be an option . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , asked if the smoke detectors will be wired into the Cornell alarm system or will they be isolated on Maple Avenue . Nancy Krook , ' 113 Pine Tree Road , asked where will the fire trucks go to be able to handle fires in these units since there does not seem to be a road on the site plan where a fire truck could even go . She stated that she knows that bike trail very well and she appreciates it very much as she walks it every day and it cannot handle the weight of a fire truck . Chairman Aron stated that they have heard a number of questions and he requested that the Cornell representatives and Mr . Sokolnicki respond to the questions . • 11 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Atty . Santoro responded that every window opens . He stated that the outer wall which would join another unit would be a double construction , the inner wall which joins another unit is also double construction , but a wall which faces the outdoors would not be . Ms . Carmichael stated that they are rented as two units for $ 365 . 00 each but there is no fire protection between those two separate units . Mr . Paleen , Director of Residence . Life at Cornell University , responded to Ms . Carmichael ' s concern . He stated that these are 4 student apartments . They are rented to individual students but if 4 people come together , they certainly would be eligible as long as all 4 of them are students . He said that the reason for that is very simply that most students come singly seeking a place to live . It is not any different than other apartments or suites or units where the University has multi - occupancy . Mr . Paleen further stated with respect to the • issue that Ms . Carmichael is raising , the units are designed as and envisioned that these are bedrooms , whereas the kitchen area is in the middle . So there is going to be a kitchen , for example , in the bedroom units . Mr . King stated that there will be doors in those walls , it is all an integrated set up there , the four bedrooms have four separate unrelated students renting it but there is an interconnection between the walls and you can ' t have fire stoppage anymore than you would in a family unit . Chairman Aron stated that he would like the record to show that what is being discussed is graduate students only . He asked if that is correct . Atty . Santoro responded that that is the plan . Mr . Paleen stated that he thinks the qualification to live there is that people be currently enrolled students . Chairman Aron remarked that that is not what the application says ; the application says graduate student housing . Mr . Paleen responded that the plan for this project is to accommodate single graduate students and student families but the qualification to live in any University housing is that people be enrolled in the University . Chairman Aron stated that they are talking about this project which is before the Board . Mr . Paleen replied that it is designed for single graduate students and student families . • 12 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Town Atty . Barney asked if he means graduate student families or student families . Mr . Paleen replied student families . Atty . Barney asked if that means that there could then be undergraduate student families . Mr . Paleen responded that any family housing does not distinguish between those who happen to be graduates or undergraduates . Ms . Reuning said that it is stated graduate housing in the appeal . Mr . Paleen said that in fact 90 % of the families that Cornell accommodates are graduate or professional students . Ms . Krook asked if the graduate students decide that they don ' t like to lives this , will Cornell be allowed under the current zoning to rent this to undergraduate students who are not married with families . Chairman Aron responded that we have to determine first , is what we are talking about a dormitory or are we talking about multiple housing . • Mr . Paleen stated that he thinks , if he understands the essence of Chairman Aron ' s question , we are talking about apartments for single students and apartments for families . Chairman Aron stated that then it is not dormitories . Mr . Paleen replied that that is not the definition of a dormitory as he would construe it . The intent is that this is a project for single graduate students and student families . Ms . Hoffmann wished to point out that in a letter from Cornell University Architectural Services it says " graduate student housing project description " and it reads " Cornell University proposes to develop 170 units of graduate student housing using factory manufactured modular construction , etc . . . . " Mr . Paleen wished to ask the Board how that impacts the review process here . He stated he would like that clarified . Chairman Aron responded that if it is dormitory it is different . He said that the way housing is clustered has a different impact . Mr . Paleen said that his question , more specifically would say , how does it impact the review process whether students are undergraduate or graduate families , because the University could have older , or of equal age students who are yet in undergraduate , if they have families , he would assume that they are not 16 , 17 , or 18 years old . He would presume they are older • so if it's a concern about young people in there with families , he 0s beginning to feel a little confused by the question . • 13 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Chairman Aron replied that the question simply was that Cornell ' s application was , as Ms . Hoffmann pointed out , for the consideration of graduate student housing and not undergraduate student housing . Mr . Griffen replied that he supposes that if Cornell could constrain that , they would have that kind of a problem throughout the University . Chairman Aron said that we are not talking about the rest of the University ; we are talking about this project and nothing else . Atty . Barney stated that he thinks that part of the problem is that the University came in with the understanding , that the application is very specific , about graduate housing . He thinks that one ' s review process , erroneously or not , is tempered a little bit to whether you are dealing with undergraduates or graduate students . He said that maybe the reputation that under - graduate students have for the care of their facilities and so • forth is not as strong as the graduate student might be , so that in looking at a program like this with a - fairly congested site plan , you react one way and if it is the understanding that it is going to be family types or that it is going to be basically graduate students who are presumably somewhat older than the average undergraduate , then you would react that that entire area was going to be inundated by people . . . . . undergraduate students . Mr . Griffen said that they then have stated that it is single graduate or family , so even though there may be some semantics problems here , they still have satisfied what Atty . Barney has just said ; they have satisfied the case that the University is not inundating it with undergraduate single students . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she must say again that when it says 170 units of graduate student housing , that seems to her to include all the units and what bothers her in this , just as it bothered her about the sprinklers , is that the Board goes ahead thinking that what they read in these papers is how it is going to be and then they hear at a meeting like this that we are really talking about a different thing or that the University is talking about a different thing . It makes her wonder what else is there in these papers that is not going to be the way it is represented in the papers . • Atty . Santoro stated that he thinks about the only thing he can do to clarify it is to state that that is the intention . Ms . Krook asked to speak to give the Board and Mr . Griffen some 14 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 background on this . She stated that at the time that this project was proposed , the people in the City and the Neighborhood Association were very disturbed about the impact of this on the neighborhood because the houses are in the Belle Sherman School area , which is a neighborhood of young families . The neighbors felt that it was an embarrassment besides that for aesthetic reasons , they feel they are glorified tool sheds . Not only that , it is the fact that they feel that if this becomes an undergraduate housing area they will have the problem of fast driving , automobiles , and noise after hours along quiet City streets . That is the reason the neighbors in the City were very upset . They legally could not do anything about this because it was in the Town of Ithaca . She stated that it is also a profoundly embarrassing use of the land because the land has been cleared of all the large trees and this is so close to the University it could have been done in such an aesthetic way . That is the reason for the concern , because if the University came to the Town of Ithaca and said they were going to have a graduate student housing development and they can ' t fill it with graduate students , what happens then , then . we have an illegal land use . Mr . Griffen replied that he guesses that they can make this graduate students . He sees this is a misnomer and we can correct it right here , we will make it all graduate students . Chairman Aron stated that as to the remark regarding aesthetic , this Board has no jurisdiction as to aesthetics anymore . Ms . Krook said that she realizes that . It is past time for that and it is a shame that it happened this way . Mr . King remarked to Chairman Aron that when the Board makes a review , one of the criteria in Section 77 is : " have we assessed the general affect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole " , and this is what these people are addressing . He asked Mr . Paleen what the percentage of undergraduates married with children might be in the general University student population . Mr . Paleen responded that the University operates family housing and family housing had been on this site . Roughly 90 % of the families that they accommodate are graduate or professional students . Mr . King stated that then only 10 % might be undergraduate . Mr . Paleen replied might be . He stated that he • thinks it is important , that the concept of how people behave or what to expect from them on a basis of their classification at the University is really not a sound basis for making a judgment about what to expect . • 15 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Atty . Barney stated that in terms of fire response , for example , he thinks that the statistics will probably bear out that you are responding more frequently with fire equipment to dormitories that have undergraduates than you are responding to Hasbrouck Heights or someplace like that where there are families . The responsibility seems to be a little bit greater when you reach the graduate level or the family level . Mr . Paleen responded that the response is very simply that they have much more sophisticated systems in typical residence halls than they have in family units . They are much more prompt to give an unnecessary alarm so it is not at all supportable in fact that age is a key issue in the comparison . Chairman Aron read a letter into the record , addressed to Mr . Andrew Frost , dated April 14 , 1989 from Linda Caughey ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . ) • Ms . Raffensperger said that she was still waiting for an answer to her question of whether or not the alarm systems will be wired into the Barton Hall system . Atty . Santoro replied that they will not . Ms . Raffensperger stated that it was her understanding that at one time Cornell had assumed that they would do that and she asked for the reason that that plan was abandoned . Mr . Santoro replied that among 'Ot Ings , it was felt that with respect to the issue of life safety , a system that merely audits and does not provide any major life safety issue was not something that would be appropriate to add to this particular set of . . . . . . . . . Ms . Raffensperger asked as a follow up to her question , why are some units wired into Barton Hall if there is no life safety advantage to that . Atty . Santoro replied that as Mr . Paleen has just explained , systems in other areas are more sophisticated . He is not sure if he can answer that question . Mr . Griffen interjected that that is more of an asset protection than it is life safety . Chairman Aron asked asset as to what . Mr . Griffen replied that he means it protects the assets of the University rather than the life safety issue . Ms . Reuning asked if there were any units considered that did have sprinklering systems that were available other than the modulars that the University is considering now . Mr . Griffen stated that he presumes there are , these could be too , if sprinklers were necessary . Ms . Reuning stated that she was just • 16 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 wondering if when the University went through the review process , how they picked this particular company to buy from , if in fact , there would be a company that had had sprinkler . . . . . Mr . Griffen replied that this is an add - on . In any case , it would be an owner ' s option - add - on , like buying a car . Atty . Santoro stated that he is not sure if any modular units are constructed with sprinklers in them . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that everyone that builds any kind of construction throughout the country can do just about anything , given someone paying a high dollar on a specification sheet . He said that his company has worked over the years with what they consider to be a fire history that justifies their design . They have used that in contact with all kinds of agencies ; model code agencies , the federal government and everybody else . Their history sustains that position . He remarked that no other manufacturer that he knows of make it standard course to put sprinklers in everything they do . There is going to be some kinds of construction types • and uses that are going to require suppression sprinklers to protect certain kinds of elements because the hazards are greater . Mr . Sokolnicki commented that if he didn ' t at least give the Board some kind of sense of the level of protection that is afforded by these kinds of specifications , then he has done a pretty lousy job . Ms . Reuning said that it is mainly that the last time Mr . Sokolnicki was before the Board , he stated that it would be so expensive , so difficult to add sprinklers . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that he wants the Board to understand that it is not impossible to add the sprinklers ; it can be done but they would be giving something else up for this . What they did was try to develop a data base that was sufficient to answer the question of life safety questions and they have fire oriented kind of individuals , fire department folks and so forth , that will sustain what they are saying ; that the fires don ' t communicate , that they provided the level of protection . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he happens to be on the ad -hoc committee for fire protection for the BOCA Code and he knows where they are going , and they are pretty much excluding certain types of uses because the hazards are less for certain kinds of conditions , travel distances and so forth . He stated that if they had a three story building where you have provided exits remote , you might have a condition where it is required to have sprinklers . But • what the University did was choose a construction type in building and specifications that provided other life safety elements that perhaps other buildings did not have . The University is going to have to pay for 4 layers of gypsum also . • 17 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . Austen asked Atty . Santoro if there is a Blue Light system spotted throughout this project for reporting back to Life Safety . Mr . Santoro responded that yes , there are plans , he believes , for three Blue Light stations from one end to the other , located at the central road area and these are connected straight to Life Safety . Town Planner Beeners asked if that Blue Light system isn ' t an addition to what was being proposed before . Her understanding was that they were not proposing that before . Mr . Austen replied that he believes that was added after the original proposal was submitted . Mr . Griffen stated that it was brought to their attention that they needed to add them . They would have put them in anyway . They do put Blue Lights everywhere . He stated that they have added them and they are in and there are three of them . • Chairman Aron stated to Mr . Griffen in regard to Ms . Raffensperger ' s question about protecting the University ' s assets , that the University has a tremendous amount of assets right there where they are building and if he understands correctly , we are talking about $ 11 million worth of assets . He asked Mr . Griffen if he doesn ' t think those assets should be protected as well . Mr . Griffen responded that the question was why do they tie in some and not others and he thinks it is a choice of a trade - off , of whether or not they feel jeopardized by a fire . In this case , in talking with Cardinal Industries ,. and the fact that they have not lost more than the burning unit , the University felt very confident that they didn ' t have a major asset loss hazard there and they decided not to tie them in . Ms . Fuller stated that Mr . Austen ' s question brings up the fact that life safety is just more than fire prevention . The walk from main campus to Maplewood Park is very dark . There are Blue Light stations along the way but graduate students tend to work into the wee hours of the morning . She would like to know what conditions are going to be for the lighting of the routes to Maplewood Park and also if there are any plans for the Blue Light Bus Service being extended to Maplewood Park and how late those will run . Mr . Paleen responded that he thinks the Blue Light Bus Service runs currently until midnight . As far as other arrangements , there is a commitment to improve the pedestrian way • 18 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 from the project to the campus . That improvement , if it requires additional lighting , will be part of the design because it is essentially a safety undertaking . Mr . King asked if the road to Maplewood Park is primarily over city streets and is Mr . Griffen saying that the University is going to address the lighting on those city streets . Mr . Griffen replied that he does not know that . Mr . King asked what kind of improvements is Mr . Griffen speaking of that are being considered . Mr . Griffen responded that he was speaking of a better designed walkway through the University ' s property that lies between the Maplewood Park development and the center of campus . Mr . Frost said that he would like to correct a statement that he made earlier in terms of party walls where he said that two hours would be required and not one hour . There is a note in the Code that says the fire resistance ratings of party walls • between one story multiple dwellings without a basement shall be a least one hour , so if they are providing two hour with a concrete block wall that will exceed the Code . Mr . King said there was a question from the public about the location of the smoke detectors . Mr . Sokolnicki said there are a number of questions he should respond to . In regard to the question of toxicity , he stated that there are no plastics on the outside . It is a T1 - 11 type siding with a stained cedar trim , and on the inside there are plastic products like formica , carpeting , etc . , but they all have to meet Federal and State of New York regulations and those include toxicity requirements . He said that there is a series of five tests that most kinds of materials have to comply with and he has to provide that information by specification to the State of New York and that has been checked . In his company ' s case , because they provide most of the furniture , they have to provide the information on toxicity on that also . Mr . King asked what the result of the tests were for the furnishings that will be provided . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that it meets the criteria that is established by the State of New York . Atty . Barney asked if Cardinal Industries checks them . Mr . Sokolnicki replied no , they can ' t . The government sets up the standards and then the State of New York will either say that • is the standard that they want to use or there is going to be another standard . Atty . Barney asked who assures that -the product meets those standards and who does the testing . Mr . Sokolnicki said that a testing laboratory would have to be used ; 19 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 he would not be able to conduct the test . There are a series of laboratories that are approved for certain kinds of tests . Chairman Aron called for a 5 minute recess at 8 : 35 . The meeting reconvened at 8 : 45 . Atty . Santoro responded to the question of where the roadway is . He stated that the roadway runs right through the center of the development . In response to the question of will the tenants know about the smoke detectors not having batteries , he stated that there is nothing that he has seen that addresses that particular issue but all smoke detectors that they are aware of are hard wired . He thinks that the answer is that no one has really considered that question perhaps until just now . As to the question of where the smoke detectors are , he explained that they are within 3 feet of the ceiling . Atty . Santoro and Mr . Sokolnicki showed the Board and at Chairman Aron ' s request marked on the diagram where the smoke detectors will be located . • Chairman Aron asked that the map be left with the Board after the meeting . Mr . King asked if each apartment is going to have two smoke detectors in it . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that there will be one , the detectors that they have are listed to cover a 30 foot space . Discussion followed on the floor on the slope of the ceilings and Mr . Sokolnicki again referred to the map that was before the Board . Mr . King asked if the detectors will be located at the high point of the slope of the ceiling . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that they will be installed within the proximity to the high point according to the way the detector itself has been tested . He said that it will be roughly within 3 feet of the peak and about 10 " down from the ceiling junction . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sokolnicki and Atty . Santoro to go through the 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units on the diagram and mark the location of the smoke detectors . Chairman Aron stated in regard to the handicapped bedrooms , that there are certain types of handicaps ; one is , for instance , if the person is totally deaf . He asked what arrangements have been made for those types of persons . Mr . Sokolnicki said that they have in their parts list a visual oriented smoke detector that will respond to the sound and send off a strobe . That is what they provide in their motels . Chairman Aron asked if that will be provided in this project . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he would assume it would be up to Cornell , based on whether there was a request for one or not . Chairman Aron said that he is 20 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 talking about all handicaps ; not only physically handicapped but people who have heart problems , sight problems , hearing problems , those are all handicaps and his question is what provisions are being made for those people . Mr . Sokolnicki responded that those with hearing impairments will know themselves what kinds of detectors they need ; whether it is an increased db level detector or whether it is one that has a light that flashes . He stated that they have one available and if there is someone with a hearing impairment , it will be installed ; it is not a standard feature but it will be installed . Mr . Frost interjected that it is required by State Code that they don ' t necessarily have to be in the unit but they have to be available . Chairman Aron asked ifCornell is aware of this . Atty . Santoro stated that yes they are and in fact they do accommodate specific handicaps . Further discussion followed on the floor on the location of the smoke detectors . • Ms . Fuller referred to the handicapped unit and she questioned that if there were a paraplegic in that unit and there is only one door , how would that person get out in case of fire . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that he guesses by virtue of the fact that you have to hope that the person is aware of what their situation is and he guesses that it is the same kind of condition as if they are stuck in the bathroom and a fire occurs or the kitchen or anything else . There really are not provisions that are made to provide two exit doors out of the unit for the handicapped . He said that he thinks that nationally that is probably a problem ; they only have to provide one exit out of the building . In this particular case , if you were to put another door in there , you would be eliminating the use of that room anyway . The best that he can say is that you provide by means of doors that are properly sized so that at least you assume they can get through the spaces that are there . Mr . Paleen stated that any mobility impaired person that is housed in University housing is on a record that Public Safety and the Ithaca Fire Department has so if an alarm came in for a unit where such an individual was staying they would get special attention . He said that does not entirely respond to the issue but it helps . Mr . Frost stated that that has always been one of the biggest criticisms about handicapped access ; you can get them into the building but what do you do when you have to get them out of the building , when the elevators shut down , etc . He said there is no simple solution to that . • 21 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Town Planner Beeners referred to the Residence Hall Policy and Safety Procedures and the residence hall contract and she asked Mr . Paleen to explain what the typical orientation of students coming into the project would be , and how frequent the inspections to make sure there were no violations made . Mr . Paleen responded that all students , based on the only other similar situation that they have where single students share apartments , students are oriented by a brochure that tells them about basic life safety issues and services and programs on the campus , and also an orientation to the . . . . . . in the individual apartment . The inspections are done at each recess , which really falls twice a year , a semester recess and a Spring break . In addition to that Life Safety conducts inspections annually in all residence units , which is a much more detailed and thorough inspection . He stated that between occupancies , they likewise go in and do an inspection . • Ms . Beeners stated that it appears that within the residence rooms , coffee pots , popcorn poppers , toasters , microwave ovens , etc . are allowed according to the 1987 - 88 Contract , and Policy and Safety Procedures . She asked if this is something that Cardinal has considered as far as over loading circuits , especially in the single student units . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that there has been a lot of changes in the Electrical Code over the past ten or fifteen years and he thinks that the requirements today would satisfy the concern . There are two small appliance circuits specifically dedicated just for small appliances in the kitchen , that is required . The 20 amp circuit is not what you generally would assume to find in a and then any other kinds of special equipment , such as a disposal is wired separately , and then the other convenience receptacles are wired on a lighting or convenience receptacle circuit and it is more convenient for them to place each module on an individual circuit . They could place all three of the modules on the same convenience lighting receptacle but they don ' t . Ms . Beeners stated that she assumed that that type of behavior , of being able to have popcorn poppers in a students room has been something that the Town Zoning Officer as well as the Fire Chief has been informed about in reviewing the material . • Mr . Frost stated that that may be University policy but in terms of student behavior , it is not within the Building Code . Mr . Paleen stated that the policy really reflects the • 22 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 conventional residence halls where students have a room . He said that the motivation for having those kinds of appliances in one ' s room really have been obviated with a shared kitchen in an apartment for 4 people . Atty . Santoro said that he thinks that the procedures as written with the exception of the appliances that Ms . Beeners named , would apply here , that is anything else prohibited in rooms . He thinks that the application of policy would be expected to be the same . Ms . Beeners referred to the name of the project being Maplewood . She has some problems with there being a Maplewood next to a Maple Hill , both located on Maple Avenue . She said the Planning Board ' s policy lately has been to try to eliminate any possibility for confusion during a fire call . Ms . Beeners asked if the bikeway issue could be clarified to her , she noticed in the February minutes that there was the denial of Cornell ' s application for a waiver of the sprinkler requirement but then afterwards there was a rescinding or withdrawal of the conditions • which she thinks were related to the Town assuming that the bikeway would be used for emergency access . Atty . Santoro responded that it is his understanding that it is not going to be used ; the reason being that the issue of the party walls has resolved that question . Ms . Beeners asked if in the absence of the sprinklers as is currently being proposed , is that still satisfactory ? Mr . Santoro replied that he believes that is correct . Mr . Frost said that the issue of the bikeway came into play because it was a potential means of access to those buildings that were greater than 100 ' from the access driveways . The discussions then evolved over the use of the bikeway w hijh included not being able to carry the weight of the fire truckAwere mitigated through the installation of the party walls which then changed the 100 ' requirement for those buildings . Ms . Beeners stated that it should be noted that the removal of that bikeway use requirement was still done under the assumption that sprinklers were going to be installed . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he thinks that language was removed , if he remembers correctly . He thinks that Mr . Frost had made it clear that the requirement for access to those buildings was based on the requirement of the New York Code and had nothing to do with • the sprinkler issue and that is why he brought it up ; because it was a separate issue . He remembers in the discussion Chairman Aron pointed out that it became moot and it was important to him because he did understand the distinction . 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Town Atty . Barney stated that Mr . Frost ' s position is not the ZBA , who grants the approval , and he distinctly recalls Ms . Hoffmann asking if the sprinklers would still be required and he thinks he responded that they would be , at least in so far as the law was applicable . . . . . . . . identical at the time that that vote was taken to rescind those requirements , it was all done more or less concurrently . He thinks that the ZBA at that time in waiving those requirements were under the very clear impression that sprinklers were still legally required and it wasn ' t until after the decision by the Supreme Court that that legal determination was changed . Mr . Sokolnicki stated that he thought he had made it clear though in his discussion that that was a separate . issue and we were discussing the access portion of it and that was his intention because as Chairman Aron pointed out , it would have become moot based on the sprinkler issue ; however , by virtue of the fact that it was an access issue , having nothing to do with the sprinklers . Chairman Aron read from page 23 of the February 27 , 1989 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . King stated that was part of a general motion that . . . . . sprinklers and the Board removed those conditions . He said that you can say that access and sprinklers are separate but they are both addressing the safety issue which is what the Board was concerned about . Mr . King further stated that in regard to the bikeway , this is the first time he has heard that that bikeway would not support a fire truck . He asked if that is a fact . Mr . Frost replied that he thinks we are going back to the first meeting when he raised the issue of access . The Building Code requires that multiple dwellings be within 100 ' feet distance of fire fighting access , driveways , roads , whatever the case may be . The code that would permit them not to follow that 100 foot requirement . The Code reads " A building containing not more than two dwelling units within the walls conforming to the requirements of Section 738 , ( which is party wall construction ) but this Code shall be regulated as one and two family dwellings . " He stated that what the Code is saying is that if you have a multiple dwelling and you put party wall construction between units where there is no more than two units between those • party walls , then that building can be regulated as a one and two family dwelling , one and two family dwelling does not require the 100 foot access . • 24 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron read a letter , dated April 13 , 1989 , into the record from Deputy Fire Chief Wilbur . ( Attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . ) Chairman Aron stated that Deputy Chief Wilbur has brought up several concerns in his letter . Discussion followed on the floor regarding the letter . Chairman Aron asked if Cornell is going to have a contract with the City Fire Department . Mr . Griffen responded that the contract that Deputy Chief Wilbur is referring to is the documents that they would issue for landscaping ; that they would be detailed placement of landscaping . The landscaper would sign a contract with Cornell , therefore , they would be supplying contract documents . Chairman Aron referred to Item # 2 in the letter and asked if appropriate signage has been talked about . Atty . Santoro replied that he is not aware that it has . He thinks that the expectation is that that would be done in plenty of time . Mr . Sokolnicki interjected that he has talked with Mr . Wright and he has also spoken with • Deputy Chief Wilbur and it was the fire department ' s intention that Deputy Chief Wilbur would reserve his right to validate what has been done as the building progresses and that is what he is intending to do . Deputy Chief Wilbur doesn ' t just want to review the documents , he actually wants to see it . Mr . Sokolnicki said that their agreement on signs was that Deputy Chief Wilbur was going to say this is where you are going to put a sign , etc . Chairman Aron asked if Cornell is going to do it . Mr . Sokolnicki responded yes , that the intention was that Deputy Chief Wilbur would provide a list and he will hand out validating as the project progresses . Mr . King asked what kind of signage is contemplated there . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that it is a fire lane sign ; no parking . Chairman Aron referred to Item # 4 of the letter . Mr Sokolnicki said that again Deputy Chief Wilbur is reserving his right . Chairman Aron referred to Item # 5 , hydrant locations . Atty . Santoro said that he thinks that is also part of the same process . Chairman Aron referred to Item # 6 . Mr . Sokolnicki said that Deputy Chief Wilbur has a cross section of the road and when they • put the sub -base in , before they top it , he wants to be able to take a look to make sure that that sub -base is at 18 inches . 25 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Chairman Aron said at this point the Deputy Fire Chief will certify all of these items to the Fire Department ' s satisfaction and he asked if that is correct . Mr . Sokolnicki replied that is correct . Ms . Hoffmann again referred to the issue of the furniture that will be in this project . She asked Mr . Sokolnicki to clarify this issue for her . He replied that the criteria is not up to them ; it has to be established by the State . Whether his company chooses the furniture or whether Cornell does , the criteria is the same and they have to meet the criteria . Further discussion followed regarding the furniture . Mr . King asked how married Cornell is to the name of Maplewood for this project . Mr . Paleen stated that it was named simply to give it an identity ; perpetuating the Cornell Quarters identity was something that they wanted to avoid . He thinks they are into it for this year only because the publications have been • prepared and certainly if there is a real problem , Cornell would look at renaming it another year . Mr . King said that he would advise that Cornell go back to the name of Cornell Quarters . Mr . Paleen said that they would rename it something better than both the previous and the present name , probably . Mr . King asked what could be better than a name that is recognized immediately . Atty . Santoro stated that he is certain that something could be done to avoid the problem that Ms . Beeners has raised . Mr . King stated that he was wondering about the University policy as far as a student deciding that he is going to install a certain type of smoke detector in his quarters , especially in this project . He asked if Cornell ' s rules permit a student to get any detector he wants and install it in addition to the detector that is provided . Mr . Paleen responded yes , that there isn ' t anything that prohibits that other than if it creates some damage to the interior which the student is accountable for . Mr . King asked if the University has any policy of suggesting additional fire protection equipment if the student wants it . Mr . Paleen replied no , that their assumption is that they are providing what is appropriate and necessary . Mr . King stated that we know that there are certain holes here in the matter of the hearing impaired , for example . Mr . Paleen said that if any student comes with a physical disability that needs • to be addressed with different appliances , for example a sightless person or hearing impaired person , the University will put in the appropriate adaptation to the alarm system for that individual ' s need . That is a requirement under Federal Law . • 26 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Atty . Santoro stated that there is a system for self identification which is in place for a number of services for students . Mr . King stated that he was looking more for a kind of activist role on the part of the University to say if you want more smoke detectors in these units you are entitled to put them in , just beware of the damages and maybe the University could even go so far as to say ' here they are , $ 7 . 95 , and if you want them , buy them . ' Atty . Santoro stated that he is sure that it would be appropriate to consult with the Fire Department as to whether or not they might have a recommendation for what individuals might do on their own behalf to further address these questions . Town Atty . Barney said in recognizing the concerns that the Board has had with respect to the fire safety for this project , • and assuming for the moment that it is not appropriate to compel sprinklers , which he thinks the judge has suggested might be the case , it may or may not be appropriate to compel other . . . . upon life safety aspects , therefore he asked Atty . Santoro if Cornell would consider voluntarily doing something to wire those alarms into Barton Hall . Atty Santoro responded that he thinks he can accurately say that the issue has been looked at and thus far it does not appear that it is something that is thought to be appropriate or feasible for this project . Mr . King asked Atty . Santoro if he had any idea of what would be entailed to do that ; would the Blue Light system that is being installed in this tract be what would be wired into Barton Hall . Atty . Santoro replied that it is not that simple . For what would be involved and for what it would provide , it is felt that it is not . . . . within the constraints of this project at this time . Chairman Aron asserted that in listening to the discussions i to the Board members it seemed to him that the and in listening , University is taking the responsibility for the safety and lives of the students that will be housed there . He stated that assuming that the Zoning Board of Appeals does grant a Special • Approval for this project , he would like to caution the University , as well as the Board , not to hold the Town of Ithaca liable if anything should happen there and there were a fatality due to fire . He feels that since the University is taking over • 27 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 the full responsibility the liability should be 100 % in their court . Atty . Santoro stated that he understands that and he thinks the University does accept that responsibility . He said that he does not want the Board to think that this has not been seriously considered by the University . He remarked that Mr . Griffen has had to remove bodies from a residence after a University fire and he is sure that Mr . Griffen and other University officials are mindful of the possibilities that exist and the danger that fire presents . He is sure they have done their level best to make the judgement that is appropriate in this case ; that is not to suggest that others don ' t have legitimate concerns that are very real and worth considering but he thinks it is important that the Board understand that the decisions that have been made were not made lightly and not without some regard for potential problems . Mr . Griffen and others who have made these judgments have done so believing honestly that this project is a safe project as well as • a good and needed one . Chairman Aron stated that he believes what Atty . Santoro is saying ; however , he cannot comprehend that the University is spending so much money on this project and it cannot afford , it seems to him , to have that detector system wired directly into Barton Hall . He asked if someone can explain to him the actuality as to what the difficulty of doing that is . Atty . Santoro stated that as it has been explained to him , such a system does no more than audit . The major cause of death and injury in fires is smoke inhalation and the major contributing factors to avoiding those circumstances are early warning to the occupant and easy egress from the premises . He further stated that the auditing system that goes to Barton doesn ' t do anything to advance those concerns and for that major reason it is not considered to be a significant asset of life safety . Mr . King asked if there will be fire alarm boxes within this project and . where they are located . Atty . Santoro said that the Blue Light system installation are the fire alarms . They will be located at either end and at the middle of the development . Mr . Griffen said that they will be placed so that they are visually available to the maximum number of units . • • 28 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . King asked if they will all be along that central roadway . Mr . Griffen said that the exact location has not been drawn up but they always place the Blue Lights to the best locations for maximum sight of them . Mr . King referred to the site plan and said that it seems to integrate the bikeway within the entire project , showing walkways , etc . He asked if it is intended that automobiles will be permitted on that bikeway . Atty . Santoro replied that it is rated for automobile traffic . Mr . King referred to the motion that was made at the August meeting and said that the motion was that that bikeway be kept open for access of emergency vehicles with proper signage and that it be designated a fire safety lane which would require certain priority and snow removal and keeping it clear , and making sure that it remains unobstructed , etc . Atty . Barney said that he believes that was rescinded at the last meeting . • Environmental Assessment Ms . Beeners stated that as the review was done back in July 1988 , it was based on the assumption that there would be sprinklers and it is mentioned in that review , that those sprinklers would help to mitigate the impact related to increased demand for fire protection , with a site that would have a density that would be going from about 6 1/ 2 units to 10 units an acre , population increase in the area of Maple Avenue , Mitchell Street , the city line and Judd Falls Road of . } going from 360 people to about 690 people . She stated that ifA had been known that there would not be sprinklers , she cannot predict but it may have been a different site plan review or some additional site plan requirements may have been imposed or recommended by the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners further stated that over the past few weeks the Town Planning Department has asked for 4 proposals of what additional measures they might be taking or might be suggesting that would be an alternative mitigation to the sprinklers . They had a response from Mr . Santoro that upon their review it appeared that there was no need to propose additional mitigation measures . Ms . Beeners said that the only new thing she knows of is the • Blue Light system . She was not aware of this until this meeting . She referred to the August minutes of the Board and stated that at that meeting Mr . Wright had said that there was no intention to put in the Blue Light system so she would have to consider 29 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 that . She said that the idea of having all the units wired to Barton Hall would really be best , but she thinks that she would have to recognize that the Blue Light system is an additional mitigation measure from when she did her previous review . Ms . Beeners also stated that it should be noted that there was not a lot of public controversy at the time of hearings by the ZBA and the Planning Board , however , there had been a series of neighborhood meetings conducted by Cornell with the groups in the city related to the project which might have been one of the reasons why there was nobody really attending the Town hearings . She said the Board should note though , from what we have heard tonight that there is public controversy about the potential impacts related to fire safety . Ms . Beeners remarked that there are several means by which one could , if we were starting from scratch , go back and possibly see some ways to mitigate fire safety impacts and that would be such as ' could the density be reduced ' , ' are there other • improvements that could be made on the site ' , ' could there be further enhancement of services related to providing fire safety to the site ' , but she is not sure that any of those really fit in at this time except what has normally been provided , such as the letter from Brian Wilbur . She stated that all in all , when you consider the entire action and assuming that there will be adequate compliance with the Code and enforcement and fire safety officials related to these things that she would recommend a negative determination of environmental significance . Chairman Aron asked if anyone had any questions of Ms . Beeners . Ms . Hoffmann said that she has a question about the statement in general , the Long Environmental Assessment Form is not filled out completely . She referred to # 16D , # 17 and # 25 . Ms . Beeners said that in regard to # 17 , she noted that it was an oversight in the August review . She said that it should be marked " no " . Atty . Santoro stated that # 16D should also be marked " no " . Under # 25 , those 4 questions under that item should all be " no " according to Mr . Griffen . Ms . Hoffmann asked if Mr . Griffen is taking responsibility of completing this form for the Board right now . Mr . Griffen responded that yes , he will take the responsibility . Discussion followed on the items of the LEAF . • Mr . Frost wished to clarify what he perceives as his position in terms of dealing with some of the fire safety issues as they effect the SEQR determination . He said that the regulations are based on most often minimum standards , there is • 30 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 always something better that could be done . He stated that he perceives his responsibility as to enforce the rules and regulations that are contained within the Codes that are applicable to the project . He said that when there is an issue such as the Blue Lights , it is not necessarily mentioned in the Building Code as a prerogative of the Board to determine whether they feel something such as the Blue Lights is significant . It is not required by Code , several of the issues that have been discussed , even again as they relate to the SEAR , are over and above the minimum standards as contained in the book . He does not feel he can give input on some of those issues . Mr . King commented to Ms . Beeners that the environmental review which was done in July and considered by the Board in August recommended a negative determination of environmental significance subject to notations on drainage design be obtained , and he asked if that has been submitted to her satisfaction . Mr . Frost replied that according to the Town Engineer who dealt with that , he felt everything was proper . Mr . King referred to point 2 , which was submission of further information on site adequacy at the proposed intersections of Maple Avenue . He asked if that has been resolved . Ms . Beeners responded yes , that actually that review was amended through the record of what was submitted at the ZBA meeting , where Mr . Vitter ' s traffic analysis was presented . That condition for concern was reasonably satisfied by their report . Mr . King referred to the third point which was provision of additional landscaping adequate to screen buildings along the bikeway and Mitchell Street . Ms . Beeners stated that there was a landscape plan submitted , and based upon Deputy Fire Chief Wilbur ' s comments as far as fire access and landscaping , that the Town Planning , Town Engineering and Town Zoning staff should be involved in looking at a revised plan with modifications as requested by Mr . Wilbur . She thinks it should also include her being able to look at the overall landscape plan for aesthetic purposes . • Chairman Aron read a letter sent to Supervisor Noel Desch , dated February 7 , 1989 from James T . Kazda , P . E . ( attached hereto . as Exhibit # 5 . ) regarding drainage along Mitchell Street . • 31 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . King referred to the fourth point which was the contribution by Cornell for a fair share of the cost of constructing a sidewalk between the project site and East Hill Plaza . Ms . Beeners said that an agreement was reached . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions he would entertain a motion for a negative declaration as presented to the Board . Environmental Assessment MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting a reconsideration of the Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on August 10 , 1988 , for the Graduate Student Housing Project , located at • the former Cornell Quarters site between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 21 - 31 10 . 2 , and - 14 , Residence District R- 9 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A Roll Call Vote resulted as follows : Austen - Aye Hoffmann - Aye King - Aye Reuning - Nay Aron - Aye The MOTION was carried . Further discussion followed regarding alarm systems . Ms . Beeners stated that she is assuming that any possible use of the housing for undergraduates would be something that might need reconsideration of a Special Approval . Chairman Aron replied that the Board was given the understanding that the project was for graduate students and their families . Atty . Santoro stated that it was also for • undergraduate students and their families . Mr . King said that Mr . Griffen , if he understood correctly , has stated that it could be restricted to graduate students and families without any problem to the University . • 32 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 Mr . Griffen responded that the University can accept that as a condition and they will have to work it out some way with their internal policies ; that they have a situation which makes this place different than everything else on campus , so it seems strange but they will take it as a condition . Special Approval MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting a reconsideration of the Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on August 10 , 1988 , for the Graduate Student Housing Project , located at the former Cornell Quarters site between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 21 - 31 10 . 2 and - 14 , Residence District R- 9 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning • Board of Appeals find and hereby does find as follows . i . That said Board of Appeals desired to see the units sprinklered as a safety measure because of the relative density in the population there , however , the Board has been overruled on that point by decision of the New York State Supreme Court . lie That Cornell University has stated that they will address the six issues indicated in the City of Ithaca ' s Deputy Fire Chief ' s letter of April 13 , 1989 , concerning the fire access , landscaping , hydrants , roadway construction and design . iii . That Cornell University has agreed to have the Town Planner review with them the appropriateness of final landscaping design for safety access and for aesthetic satisfaction . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that , in accordance with Article XIV , Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , said Board of Appeals determine and hereby does determine as follows : a . That there is a need for the proposed project for the accommodation of Cornell University Graduate Students and • their families . b . That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and , that it will fulfill a community need . 33 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 c . That the design of these structures is sufficiently consistent with the character of the neighborhood so as to not be significantly detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood . d . That the proposed access and egress for the structures has been , or will be on the conditions imposed , sufficiently addressed . e . That the general effect of the proposed use on the community as a whole will not be detrimental to thehealth , safety , and general welfare of the community , having observed that the Board desired to see the units sprinklered as a safety measure because of the relative density in population , but having been overruled on that point by decision of the New York State Supreme Court . • AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that , under Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the Cornell University Graduate Student Housing Project , upon the following conditions , as permitted under Article XIV , Section 77 , Paragraph 8 , of said Ordinance . 1 . That Cornell University comply with the six points addressed by the Deputy Fire Chief for the City of Ithaca in his letter of April 13 , 1989 . 2 . That Cornell University put in place within the project the Blue Light Alarm System , with at least three Blue Light stations , properly located . 3 . That Cornell University review with the Town Planner the appropriateness of landscaping design for safety access and for aesthetic satisfaction , with the final landscaping design subject to the Town Planner ' s approval . 4 . That this project be restricted to housing for graduate students and their families . 5 . That Cornell University make every effort to advise every tenant in and potential tenant for the project that they are entitled to install additional fire protection equipment in • these units , and that the University encourage their considering such installation , by whatever means are suitable . 34 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 19 , 1989 6 . That no motorized vehicles be permitted on the bikeway . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals recommend and hereby does recommend that the name of this project be changed from Maplewood Park as expeditiously as possible in order that there be no confusion between the adjoining Maple Hill Apartments and the Cornell University Graduate Housing Project . A Roll Call Vote resulted as follows . Austen - Aye Hoffmann - Aye King - Aye Reuning - Aye Aron - Aye The MOTION was carried unanimously . • The meeting was adjournedoat 10 : 03 p . m . Respectfully Submitted , Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Exhibits 1 attached APPROV Henry Aron , Chairman • FIRE PROTECTION / LIFE SAFETY IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS Element NYSUFPBC Provided by Requirements This Design Roof covering ( shingles ) Class C requirement Class A provided light resistance to resistance to fire severe fire Smoke detector One required in Two detectors multiple bedroom provided inter - units connected ( not required Fire Resistive Assembly 3 / 4 Hour Minimum 1 Hour * ( Tenant Separation ) Attic spaces do not communicate above tenant spaces . • * In fact , the addition of insulation provided with this design provides an additional fifteen minutes fire resistance per wall . By the fire resistance calculation method , this equals one and one - half to one and three - quarters hours fire resistance for the total assembly . • M Cornell University Architectural .Services 607 . 255 . 7105 Telex WUI6713054 • c �ti,a Humphreys Service Building • Ithaca , New York 14853 .3501 Telefax 607. 254.4567 12 April 1989 Llb Ms. Susan Beeners Town Planner Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING Dear Susan : I'm writing to transmit to you and Andy, Deputy Chief Wilbur's letter of his Site Plan review of • the Graduate Student Housing project for the former Cornell Quarters site. I also would like to detail for you several of the construction features of the factory manufactured housing we are using for this community that mitigate the demand for fire protection services. You will recall that these features have been testified to in the past by officials of Cardinal Industries , the manufacturer, at previous BZA hearings. . NYSUFP & BC Provided by Description Requirements This Desien Fire resistive assembly 3 /4 hour minimum 1 hour ( Tenant separation ) Partvwall 1 hour minimum ? hours (buildings 4 ,7,94: 12 ) Building levels 2 stories allowed 1 story Travel distances 100' allowed less than 30' from each unit 7 • • Additionally Every dwelling unit has an individual exit direct to the exterior and every bedroom has a large window that can be used as an emergency exit. Every dwelling unit is completely separated from floor to underside of roof sheathing by four layers of 1 / 2" gypsum board. While the NYSUFP &BC requires a 1 hour fire separation only between every eighth dwelling unit, this. means of construction provides a 1 hour fire separation between every dwelling unit! I hope this information is helpful in your EAF review. Call if you have questions or if we can be of further help . • Ve truly yours, 41" ert L. Wright ' Architect/ Project Manager xc: Peter Dietrich - City of Ithaca Timothv Martin Patricia McClary Tom Santoro Mark Smith - Cardinal Industries Jan Sokolnicki - Cardinal Industries l • April 1401989 Andrew Frost Building Inspector & Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca - Town Hall 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr . Frost : It has come to my attention that Cornell University is appealing the Town of Ithaca's decision to require a sprinkler system in the new graduate student housing between Mitchell Street and Maple Ave, previously known as Cornell Quarters . As a neighbor close to the site, and having been in the "display" unit, I • strongly believe that the new housing (called Maplewood Park ) should have sprinkler systems because : many of those new units will have various unrelated students using the kitchens, trying to cook & prepare individual meals in a "catch as catch can " fashion which can lead to mishaps; I believe the units are of very poor quality, and would burn quite easily; and it appears that with the high number of units, should catastrophe should strike, problems could spread rapidly. Cornell University (or the Town of Ithaca) owes the students renting these units, and to the neighborhood which surrounds it, to put safety first ! Ver rChey s, in 125 earl Stree Ithaca. NY 14850 cc : Al Vright & Timothy Martin j63 7 u R�ai�o CITY OF ITHACA 310 WEST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272- 1234 FIRE CHIEF CODE 607 13 APR 8g Mr . Albert Wright - Project Manager Architectural Services 102 Humphries Service Building Cornell University Ithaca , New York 14853 RE : Cornell Quarters Dear Mr . Wright : I have reviewed the 12 / 5 / 88 dated site plans for the Graduate Student Housing Project , aka Cornell Quarters , and have the following comments : • 1 ) The project , as presented meets the access requirements . contained within the Ithaca Fire Department Access Standard . 2 ) Details concerning placement of landscaping as it regards fire department access are not addressed and must be reviewed when appropriate contract documents are available , 3 ) Appropriate signage for maintaining fire access routes must be agreed upon . 4 ) Hydrant locations , relative to parking spaces , must be reviewed to insure that at least 15 feet of clearance from parked vehicles is maintained . 5 ) Hydrant locations , relative to street curbs , must be reviewed to insure that a hydrant is no more than three feet from the curb . 6 ) An assumption of adequate design has been made at this point with regard to pavement design loads . This will need to be verified . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project . Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns with the information herein . • Sincerely yoursi d urian H . Wilbur HIGHWAYS . / % ; ` � : � 1 BUILDINGS PUBLIC WORKS 1Q •,.�A 4 • if .1 y' ''Bostw` ick Road Ithaca, NY.14850 AIRPORT FACILITIES Telephone ( 607) 273-4262 SOLID WASTES \0,1712 73 71 410 ;b February 7 , 1989 � K FEB 10,39 ', M �r ±RCH11cC� C 3 Mr . Noel Desch , Supervisor , �_ Prciecr UN.4L QERViE, Town of Ithaca �� fi. ;; -- 126 East Seneca Street `. =f, Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Graduate Student Housing _ Cornell University Mitchell Street Drainage Dear Mr . Desch : An agreement has been reached concerning drainage along Mitchell Street . Town approval of the site plan was contingent upon approval of the Mitchell Street drainage by the Tompkins County Highway Department . Approval of the revised drainage as shown on Revision 1 to Drawing C3 - 3 dated 01 - 23 - 89 is hereby granted . Very truly yours , James T . Kai . P Sr . Civil Enain r JTK / ssh 8 xc : John Hollywood , Sasaki Associates , Inc . Mask Smith , Cardinal Industries , Inc . :Jk1°bertr,a4wri ,ght-;imrGor.nell�;eUn vers--i-ty �� {V.- . + 1 ''. 'TZ?' .r -"LY^ . �,.,. y�tl r •, _•^�.Lry,:,. t'K:'rC°N.l` "vl i+ '_S' '?i'd. � - .[ --p'`1 >� n t t -a1• i �. w +}ice. - t•: !,� MAI / t4"�.l_t=': ,. I yc rr! Tl<:lm,T'?_,.•,'1L�•i. , 4'T ,= n r l cT Ir^'+$I TF'e•l: Vin!?% m-' ° � •rrvy F. ° ✓i� FFt•`Ly `SLv.. A,�f iC.�• V!( . •17'y T•�_.,.. will - SeY'•�62'r^' .•n.. • es •IL La''C. ' ILr ) `1'r111 ] •'iY.Me . :s vp3i.N M Iij'F W t 'e....r r trm 'l� yY'm�e'Ma.,x. r } ., t , . � .- 1 . •Y . t `aR1-¢ - � •vf^' ii- 1{r ya�r- - yf1� lxy. --y;: :r.:t l!i+ • ¢`• _ ! " •r _ 3 F't }' ,- mt iR I 7 r�` eiN-c�, p,ya A r . y I ••�' A.. ►.4 t { } , . Y r a .p sv t .� , �S� �• . lr P , f ,iLf r {•N i L —,•x• r D'Alk " „`'.f YE'"" ✓ ��T111 r .� �15 lIJ,' at -Yr'. - .t + v PPP M 1• ,two •MY'S A 'C ,, l '•f { R Y . �-x.a at A \� . . .... : lY :. . . .,._. _ .. r ..'._ .•: d x ! t bL�XS I • . . " : .._,. L __ .JCIiaVf► �. ] .. a .:,- .+ _ ...•-e .,._ .. ..•t •r w'a aA, .».� Vii!', 1 t ll ml ww: .1111. — w. vr _ . Nano LI F al: . . ii 1 _ _ . ! S .. L 10011- lw. 1 a. .. RM =• V', SII . an. ,. . . . � Y . . ,•...a= •..._ ..; . . •i _lit :, .• �... ,':. . . . .CS - ._: � ( Y Par- �' u': u ` 1. Dc1IIa C� SI1: rtp ,: (it!�QSCS ' - c " = TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING { ' BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE ' Y _ . f . " �' '. OF PUBLIC HEARING, WED. , L'TG fE�Tt .lit �!' 181Gr4 III' 1 : CT; �Allil� i :l .�a. i'.1t�` ii7cl � LDd . L 19, 1989 7 P. M. - ` .; : - ¢ APRIL rPRlirection of the Chairman a i of he Zonin Board of Ap- g B k1 .� � s peals NOTICE IS HERE Y -•--- -- -. ._ - 1. 1'.�. . ? a►? td4 { : tr . . . ;,'.. < ; . , . . . N that a Public Hearing ' GIVEN _ will be held b the Zoning r. ]a -•.. Te by Board of Appeals of the Town tR` T` zsc� �L7.� I► fl'c3bC !�r►TpB� priated tDd publ�t�ed of Ithaca onWednesdoy, April qtr `^s19, 1989, in Town Hall, 126 - + • v ti T^ u T _ .A.�x� > East Seneca Street, (FIRST Ve . '3� .'� 8t O� R aJt2^ � tIInZ2CLZ � �� ft& . ; REAR% Entrance, WEST _ �_ a f ^� MENCINGhAT 7:00 P. M. .COM q► •jiJT.:f�1 37 1> ¢ .` ,r ithe following matter.' z - ( APPEAL of Cornell University, ` : : _:. IAppellants, Timothy Martin - and e Alb rt Wright, Agents, re- ' : _�: _. -.. . .. . __ . ._.. _ ._. .. a ue Gsting a reconsideration of the Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals * on August - -- - - - - - 10, 1988, for the Graduate Stu- dent Ho t -de using Project, located . • I7— V%J% 1 �c �t1rJ vt h �• t 1 at e former Cornell Quarters � OD t" £ "" ' "-""' site between Maple Avenue `•- _. _. ,.. . and Mitchell Street, Town .: Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-63-2- 1 , -2, -3, - 10. 2 and . 14, Resi- dente District R-9, with such ; ^ ` reconsideration being based i . . . . . ... . ...... upon the New York State Su- j pre ,(Jfi` ' 0. . ision doled t1�- �, r..�' y� .2: r,�• .. .�`,. }'�"_: �." .T.. �'. �cii_ / ( ��iL` �.. thatnauto7 attic B e Court fire indicatingup - _ . sion sprinkler systems are not .. d ' reqwired in said buildings, 9 Said Zoning Board of Appeals — - -- - - - - - . . . . . . . . - - A. - - - --• f - will at said time, 7:00 m. , and s ! place. hear aler- ••_ _ _. . , . , . sons nuosor of such matter objections thereto. Perons h person. ar Y agent or m 'Q'►QT'it r tLDLsC may Y = AN FORD Andrew S. Frost . , 71 . - eBuilding Inspector/ w. -"- " �}OtHf`/ PUbIiCr .S.t� FP Of .J; - %J YOrk Zoning Enforcement Offier r Town of Ithaca N o . 4 t.J .5 -i- w ; t� 273- 17e7 county April 14, 1989 Qualified in Tompsc � .' - Cour, t w , ::,Commis -- icr# expire 1r • , 3 19 I . lzw � . . .w _ _ . ^ Illr - M — _: IT . . . .. . . .. _ -