HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2018-10-16
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday,October 16, 2018
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY14850
Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon
Bosak
Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter; Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Marty Mosely, Code Enforcement Officer;
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk
Call to Order
Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell
University Central Energy Plant Security Improvements project located at 651 Dryden Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s63.-1-8.1, 63.-1-11 and 63.-1-5, Light Industrial and Low Density Residential
Zones. The proposal involves installing a security fence (chain link with barbed wire) around the
Central Heating Plant complex, including gates at several locations. Cornell University, Own-
er/Applicant; Alex Chevallard, Project Manager.
Mr. Wilcox asked why there is no SEQR.
Ms. Balestra responded that this is a Type 2 action because it involves a routine activity of an
educational institution.
Andrew Germain, representing the applicant, said the Cornell police department issued a crime
prevention environmental design evaluation for the Central Energy Plant and recommended that
they install the fence.
Mr. Bosak said putting the fence fronting on Dryden Road will be very ugly, but he doesn’t think
there’s a choice.
Mr. Wilcox noted that certain elements have chain link fencing, but not the whole site.
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:10; hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mosely pointed out that the double swing gate shown on sheet C301 is noted as being a mini-
mum of 12 feet, whereas fire code requires20 feet for emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Germain agreed that 12 feet is too small; it will be addressedto allow emergency vehicles. They
will provide a revised sheet with the new dimensions.
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 2 of 8
PB Resolution No. 2018-035:Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, CU CEP Physical
Security Improvements Project, Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-1-8.1, 63.-1-11, 63.-1-5, 651 Dryden Road
Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Jon Bosak
WHEREAS:
1.This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Central Energy Plant Security Improvements project located at 651 Dryden
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-1-8.1, 63.-1-11 and 63.-1-5, Light Industrial and Low
Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves installing a security fence (chain link with
barbed wire) around the Central Heating Plant complex, including gates at several locations.
Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Alex Chevallard, Project Manager;
2.This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(8) of the regulations of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi-
ronmental Quality Review Act, because the action constitutes “routine activities of educational
institutions, including expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor
area...” Thus, approval of the site plan is notsubject to review under SEQR; and
3.The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 16, 2018, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a narrative and drawings titled “Cornell University CEP Physical Security Improve-
ments,” including sheets C-101, C-102 and C-301, prepared by Cornell University Facilities Engi-
neering, dated August 31, 2018, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of
neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board; and
2.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
for the proposed Cornell University Central Energy Plant Security Improvement Project located
at 651 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-1-8.1, 63.-1-11 and 63.-1-5 , as described
in the set of site plan drawings noted in Whereas # 3 above, subject to the following conditions:
a.Receipt of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
b.Before issuance of a building permit, revision of note 6 on Sheet C-301 (Chain Link Fence
Detail) to correctly state the height of the proposed fence (6 feet tall, not 7 feet tall) and sub-
mission to the Planning Department of one set of the final site plan drawings, as revised,
signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect
who prepared the drawings.
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 3 of 8
Vote
Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak
AGENDA ITEM
Continue discussion of the proposed Cornell University North Campus Residential Expansion
project. Cornell University proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and
the other for freshmen) located on North Campus between Triphammer Road, Jessup Road, Pleasant
Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive. The sophomore village will have four residential buildings with
800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 1,200 seat, 66,300 SF dining
facility. Buildings for the sophomore village will be located entirely in the city, while a small portion
of the site work is proposed for the Village of Cayuga Heights. The freshman village will have three
new residential buildings, each spanning the City and Town of Ithaca municipal line, with a total of
401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 SF of which is in the city
and 177,800 SF of which is in the town. The building heights will be between two and six stories.
The project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the city; Low Density Residential
zone in the town; and the Multiple Housing District within the village. The project also includes
various outdoor amenities, including a plaza, amphitheater, open lawns, landscaped spaces, and
walkways. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels
Landscape Architects LLP, Agent.
Ms. Michaels said they sent a letter answering the questions from the last meeting and prepared a
short presentation about those questions.
Arvind Tikku, Ikon.5 Architects, gave a presentation on community context and how that has
influenced the design. The distance to the nearest non-Cornell-owned property is 495 feet, and from
that location, you can’t see any of the new residences. At the intersection of Cradit Farm Drive and
Pleasant Grove Road, the new residences are 150 feet away, but because of the topography, the road is
20 feet higher than the ground floor of the new residences, so from that location you would only see
about 13 feet of the new residences. Working your way south along Pleasant Grove Road, the
residences are starting to be over 350 feet away and from that location you’ll see 23 feet of the new
residences, which is less than a two-story house. Town building code allows a maximum height of 35
feet; this is reflected in the scale of the nearest structures, including the Hasbrouck apartments, which
are two-and-a-half stories, and the low-rise dorms, which are three stories. The new buildings are three
stories. The architectural character of the residences on North Campus and in its proximity is simple
in its geometric form with minimal ornamentation. They have standard red brick facades, the
entrances are minimized and are not embellished in any way, and they’re of no distinct architectural
style. So from a contextual conformance, it’s about colors and scale. The new residences along
Pleasant Grove Road were long, uninterrupted bars, which created a wall façade with limited interest.
In order to promote vistas and views, they introduced fractures in the building to break up the bars.
The fractures create residential bars. In order to break the scale down further, the fractures incorpo-
rate glazing so you can see the differences between the opaque surfaces and the transparent surfaces.
As you get closer to the first-year buildings, a number of site strategies and architectural details were
added to enliven the facades. They incorporated staggered window openings and staggered vertical
accents. The window proportions are designed to emphasize verticality to break up the long, horizon-
tal bar. This also breaks down the institutional appearance of the building and makes it look more
like a residence. Native tree plantings provide a filtered view of the building from Pleasant Grove
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 4 of 8
Road. Theresidentialquadrangles are programmed for residential eventsand ground floors have
connectivity to the exterior spaces. The warm materials, hard and soft landscapes, and residential
scale will provide a great living environment. They chose terra cotta because the North Campus has
masonry and stone as building blocks and also because it’s kind of modern. If you build in a certain
time period, you should reflect that time period.
Ms. Michaels addressed stormwater. The project is designed to comply with all DEC regulations. The
North Campus project has five different watersheds, three of which outfall directly to city stormwater
systems and the other two outfall into Beebe lake, which is a fifth order stream. The project ties
completely into the existing network of stormwater systems and there are no new points of discharge
being installed. The three watersheds that convey to the city have minimal increase in impervious
surfaces, mostly because the area is almost entirely pavement and buildings. The two watersheds that
have outfalls to a fifth order stream do not have to have quantity controls – they don’t have to hold
water – because of their relationship to Fall Creek. It’s desirable to discharge the runoff quickly before
the peak falls from upstream reach this location in the creek. This will minimize impacts to the creek
bed, its ecosystem, and existing adjacent infrastructure downstream of the project site. To improve
quality of the water discharging off the site, all the roofs will drain directly into green infrastructure.
Site grading is organized such that surface water is directed to the bioretention practices. For example,
in the north section of the interior quadrangle, there’s a bioretention practice: water is collected from
the roof and conveyed to a depressed landscape area, which has soil replacement in it and is filled
with plants; site grading will direct runoff from the ground into the same area. Water in a bioreten-
tion area has the potential to infiltrate the ground or be taken up by the plants within the area. If any
excess water is present, it will enter an overflow and be conveyed to the outfall to Beebe Lake to be
taken away before the peak times happen upstream.
To contextualize the energy use discussion from the last meeting, Ms. Michaels said to divide the
42,445 million BTUs per year for heating,hot water, and electricity by 2079 residents, whichcomes
out to 20 MMBTUs per person. The Tompkins County roadmap uses 91 MMBTUs as the amount of
energy a household uses per year, or 34 MMBTUs per resident.
Mr. Wilcox said that the board needs to come to some conclusions about what we are going to
recommend to the city regarding issues that we as a board have given lip service to over the past few
weeks: transportation, community character, stormwater management, sewerage, energy. He ad-
dressed each separately below:
Transportation. If you’re adding 2000 beds, managing transportation is important. Cornell has
proposed mitigation measures, including reconfiguration of Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm
Drive, and additional public busing opportunities. While nothing has been approved, these measures
will be discussed, possibly altered, and included in any review and potential approval. Building
permits and certificates of occupancy will be dependent on implementation of sufficient transporta-
tion mitigation measures. He therefore doesn’t see it a potential significant adverse environmental
impact.
Community character. This board worked diligently to address similar issues with the Maplewood
development along Mitchell Street. The issue here is the institutional appearance of the freshman
units facing outward onto the public road. Similar to transportation, this issue will be dealt with
during the review process.
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 5 of 8
Stormwater management.This one is cut and dry. All stormwater management structures and
facilities must conform with NYS DEC rules and regulations. He’s confident that the town engineer
will ensure that the stormwater management system will meet all applicable requirements.
Sewerage. This will have to be resolved by the elected officials of the city and the town. Maplewood
had similar issues with water. The city of Ithaca public works memo dated Oct. 12 came to our
attention tonight and provides evidence that discussion of a resolution has begun.
Energy. He sees this as two separate issues: building design and energy used. Building design entails
how tight the new residential units will be, whether they’ll achieve LEED certification ornet zero or
passive house standards. Energy usage: we know what’s going on. Cornell plans to use their existing
combined heat and power plant, which currently uses natural gas. Both of these issues have a
common theme: Cornell University can and should do better. If we believe that the project has the
potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, then the planning board can recommend
that the city planning and development board, as lead agency for environmental review, make a
positive declaration of environmental impact, therefore requiring development of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) and everything it includes: scoping, draft statement, response to questions,
final statement, findings. He suggested that determining the significance of Cornell’s plan depends on
where one falls on the “climate change spectrum.” At one end are those who see no problems with
using coal to generate heat and electricity; on the opposite pole are those who believe that all use of
fossil fuels must stop very soon, if not today. He falls somewhere in the middle. We need to continue
our transitions from coal to natural gas in some regions of this country and from natural gas to solar,
wind, and water in some other regions. We can’t just stop using natural gas, but we can continue to
minimize new and increased use and continue to invest in alternatives. Can Cornell do better with
regard to building design and energy usage with this project? Yes. Any project that’s presented to us
can always do better. But does their proposal to tie the new buildings into their current natural gas-
fired system have the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact? His opinion is no.
Some people have pointed to the project size and have compared it with Maplewood,wheredevelop-
ment of an EIS was mutually agreed to by the applicant and the town of Ithaca. He reminded the
board that every project must be considered on its own merits. For example, the potential need for an
EIS was discussed by this board when an applicant wanted to subdivide a lot into two lots and
demolish a house with historic significance. Others have expressed that a positive declaration of
environmental significance will allow for alternatives to be researched, thereby resulting in an
improved North Campus project. That’s not the question before us and it’s not the purpose of a
positive declaration. He would recommend to the city that the need to declare a positive declaration
does not exist.
Ms. Brock suggested that if a majority of the board isn’t coalescing around one opinion, you might say
how each member felt, that other members were absent, and just provide a sense of the board in the
form of a memo to the city from the planning department, instead of a formal recommendation.
Mr. Bosak said he’d been out of town and was leaving again the next morning, so he had not had
time to fully process the information. He agreed with most of what Mr. Wilcox said, and that the
issue is the energy issue. Based on the information he has so far, it looks as if combined heat and
power is the way to go if the project is built at all. One of his problems with not doing an EIS is that
this is an option that’s not being studied. Cornell’s position is that anything that’s good for Cornell is
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 6 of 8
ipso facto in the public interest. That needs to be supported properly, in a way it hasn’t been so far,
and it needs to be considered carefully by us. It’s not up to Cornell to decide whether or not this
project is going to provide a benefit to the community at large to the extent that it counterbalances
the environmental impact. The whole concept of a hard look is troubling him. For the past 20 years,
both the city and the town have found that a hard look at large residential projects includes an EIS.
It’s difficult for him to understand how we can claim to have taken a hard look at this project without
an EIS when we have required an EIS for residential projects considerably smaller than this one. In
Cornell’s response to the city, they cite sectionsof the SEQR Handbook in support of their position.
Aside from the false claim made that the handbook was written by the same people who wrote the
SEQR law, he finds this annoying for two reasons: The first is because anyone familiar with the
SEQR Handbook knows that their advice is just suggestive; the second is because of Cornell’s
assertion that since enormous residential facilities constructed on a university campus doesn’t appear
on the list of important impacts, it must therefore have a small one. Enormous residential facilities
constructed on a university campus is not listed as having a small impact, either. We do have concrete
guidance from the DEC about energy thresholds that should trigger a positive declaration: in Part 2
of the FEAF, section 14c says, “The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhours per year
of electricity.” You can’t find the figure in the project description, but he calculated it to be 3641
MWh per year. This is 1.5 times the threshold we’re given in the FEAF. And 14d says, “The proposed
action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when
completed.” From the agenda description, you come up with 767,400 square feet; i.e., almost eight
times the square footage as the FEAF says is a threshold. Section B applies also: “The proposed action
will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than
50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use.” The project is going to
require an extension of an energy supply system from the central plant, and at 2000 beds plus 66,000
square feet of dining hall, it’s going to have a greater impact than 50 single- or two-family residences.
In fact, Cornell has estimated that the project will use energy equivalent to 466 households in
Tompkins County, or more than nine times the threshold in Section B. His opinion is that we can’t
do this without an EIS even though he’s friendly to the proposal. He believes that there is the
potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact, and that it revolves around energy.
We have about 80 percent of what would be in an EIS, so he’s not being kept awake at night, but he
thinks it should be studied formally, within the EIS process, and in a way that lets the public ask
questions and get them answered. It’s more of a process concern, and it means a lot to him that there
isn’t a formal treatment of not doing the project.
Mr. Wilcox said one of the themes he keeps hearing is that there’s so much information that comes
out of the process, including addressing public comments. He agrees that it would be nice to have
that information, and we appreciate the value it provides to us and the public. But that’s not the
question in front of us.
Mr. Beach agreed with Mr. Wilcox, particularly in relation to the energy issue. He agrees that while it
would be good to have more information, there’s not a single significant impact.
Ms. Fogarty was taken aback by the 28-page packet addressing questions, because it had a lot of going
back and forth that didn’t mean anything: there were paragraphs that said something like “we would
target these goals” or “options will be investigated,” but nothing concrete in relation to the renovation
of Balch Hall. She agreed with most of what Mr. Wilcox said, but also with Mr. Bosak that there’s a
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 7 of 8
significant potential with regard to energy. The upstream emissions remain a big question. She feels a
little out of her element because she’s not an engineer.
Mr. Wilcox said if she thinks energy has the potential, but feels out of her element, maybe the use of
an independent consultant to assist in the review would help. We’ve been bombarded with numbers.
He finally decided he couldn’t make a decision based on all the numbers and needed to look at it a
different way.
Ms. Fogarty said that Taitem already did an independent analysis. She would like to see a conversa-
tion between Cornell and the public that is not in this environment. As it is now, we hear a presenta-
tion one night, and all the numbers sound good, but then we hear the other side,and thosenumbers
sound good as well. This format is not good for her. You have to choose one side or the other. Maybe
there are compromises: maybe you don’t have to use all heat pumps. She thinks there needs to be a
different conversation.
Mr. Bosak said in the site plan review, one thing we don’t get to do is require certain mitigations in
order to approve it. Once the environmental review is done, that horse has already leftthe barn. With
regard to whether an expert would help, he thinks probably not because it’s not about energy use, it’s
about climate change. The expert would closely study this for a month and then say this is a slight net
win for energy. What’s being discussed is leakage of methane; that’s not energy use, so he’s not sure
what the expert would contribute. He thanked Cornell for the information they provided about
embedded energy.
Ms. Balestra said when we conduct Part 2 and Part 3 of the full EAF, we also look at the specific items
listed in Part 2. She brought attention to Part 2, #18 Consistency with Community Character,
particularly e) “the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.” The full EAF workbook talks about how the predominant architectural scale and character
of the area could include “those that result in a structure or landscape that’s in sharp contrast to that
which already exists.” The applicant talked a lot about scale, and staff has no problem with the scale
of the project. In terms of architectural character, we looked at the entire site, not just the part of the
project in the town of Ithaca. The majority of the buildings on North Campus are beautiful old
buildings: Clara Dickson Hall, Balch Hall, and Carol Tatkon Center. Sandwiched in between them
on the city side are the Court-Kay-Bauer Halls, which merge the older architectural styles – the slate
roofs and the brick and stone and residential windows – with a more modernistic style. They have
somewhat pitched roofs, the windows are more modern, but there are still brick facades and natural
materials. That’s what staff would recommend and we suggest the planning board consider natural
materials – not just the colors, but also actual brick or stone and something that’s more consistent
with the whole North Campus area. She had a suggestion for adding comments related to the
architectural character of the project to the letter being crafted to the city. She would say that two of
the four board members present thought that the energy issues were such that an EIS was an
appropriate mechanism for proceeding. Then she would add that we would like the city to take a
closer look at the full EAF Part 2 related to the architecture or community character, and we could
list a number of things we would like for them to look at. That way, we’re not completely abandoning
those ideas and waiting for site plan review.
The board agreed with that approach.
Planning Board Minutes 10-16-2018
Page 8 of 8
AGENDA ITEM
Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a local law
amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding proposed changes to Section
270-219.5, Streamsetback
Ms. Ritter said there was an issue with the way the law is written, and that the wording stating that a
delineation identifying the stream setback zonecould be interpreted as wanting to havemetes and
bounds, something precise that the surveyor signs. But our streams in the town are variable: you
could have a steep slope in one spot and a streamside wetlandin another. Because of that,it could be
very time consuming for a surveyor to have to measure, especially the 50-foot and 100-foot setbacks.
The revised law allows them to provide the approximate limits on a survey plat and site plan for
planning purposes, but when they come in for a building permit or fill permit, they will have to
provide evidence satisfactory to the town that they will be outside the stream setback zones. Any plat
or site plan would have a note on it saying it’s subject to the provisions of the stream setback law and
that restrictions and setbacks on development, soil disturbance, vegetation removal, and other
activities apply. Anyone who buys property will be noticed that there’s a stream setback associated
with the stream and that any disturbance they’re proposing will not be in the stream setback zone; if it
is, they’ll have to apply for a variance.
Mr. Wilcoxsaid, in a nutshell, we want to protect the stream, not force an onerous cost onto the
landowner.
Mr. Bosak agreed that it’s a real problem that has to be solved. A stream bank is mathematically a
perfect example of a fractal, meaning the closer you get to it, it the more detail there is. You never run
out of little bumps that need to be tracked, so it’s an impossible task to map it.
AGENDA ITEM
Persons to be heard – No one came forward to address the board.
Adjournment
Upon a motion by Mr. Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk