HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-02-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1 of 37
Planning Board Minutes
February 22, 2011
Board Members Attending: Bob Boothroyd, David Kay, Jane Marcham, John Schroeder
Govind Acharya, John Snyder
Board Members Absent: Tessa Rudan
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant
Applicants Attending: 410 Elmira Road
Marco Marzocchi, Widewaters
403-409 Elmira Road, Tim Hortons Restaurant
Dirk Galbraith, Holmberg, Galbraith, Van Houten, & Miller
Bob Bender, Tim Hortons
Tim Gawenus, Professional Engineer, Fisher Associates
Cascadilla Trail Reconstruction
Dan McClure, Cornell University
Todd Bittner, Cornell Plantations
Collegetown Terrace Apartments
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP
Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect
Seneca Way Apartments
Jeff Smetana, Developer
Bryan Warren, Developer
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP
Mr. Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review – No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Lou Cassaniti, 4297 E. Covert Road in Interlaken, commenting on the Seneca Way project, expressed his thanks
to Bryan Warren for meeting with him. He indicated he believes the project is a win-win situation for everyone.
He cannot think of a nicer project for the city and he believes it should be approved as soon as possible.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2 of 37
Sean Whitaker, 407 Cliff Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, indicated he is also President of
Incodema, which employs 50 people. He noted he has been closely following the project and he is a little
concerned the project approval process has been as drawn-out as it has. He believes it is a great project for both
the immediate neighborhood and the city as a whole.
Kristin Lewis, 114 Randolph Road, Operations Manager of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA), and owner of
Morris Men’s Wear, commenting on the Seneca Way project, indicated she believes this project is very
important. She also thinks many of her fellow downtown residents and business owners are coming to
appreciate the extent to which the downtown area is itself a neighborhood and can be developed as such. There
definitely needs to be more downtown housing.
Ethan Ash, 1184 Ellis Hollow Road, commenting on the Seneca Way project, stated that he is a long-time
resident of Ithaca and he would genuinely like to see more development that is good for the community. A
member of the Commons Advisory Board and the Cinemapolis Board, he very much supports the project for a
variety of reasons. Good housing is relatively scarce in downtown Ithaca and there seems to be considerable
pent-up demand for it. New residential construction projects, like Seneca Way, will attract more people to the
downtown area which is very important for the future health of the city.
Jean McPheeters, 276 Baylor Road in Brooktondale and speaking on behalf of the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce, remarked that the Chamber believes the Seneca Way project is very important to the city of
Ithaca and is of critical importance to Challenge Industries. She then proceeded to read the following text of the
Chamber’s resolution in support of the project:
“Resolution 2011-1
Whereas, the City Planning & Development Board will be considering a proposal regarding the Seneca
Way Apartments, and
Whereas, Challenge Industries is seeking to sell the property on Seneca Way and that such a sale would
put this valuable property back on the tax rolls, and
Whereas, the City’s tax base would be improved by the addition of new commercial and residential
units, and
Whereas, the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce is committed to supporting housing density in
line with the County Comprehensive Plan, and
Whereas, many of the surrounding buildings including Gateway, the Community School of Music and
Arts, and Schuyler House are of a similar height and scale so that the overall scale of the building is in
keeping with the neighborhood, and
Whereas, this matter has been considered and approved by the Chamber’s Government Affairs
Committee and Executive Committee;
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3 of 37
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors
supports higher density commercial and/or residential development on the former site of Challenge
Industries.
Approved, Feb. 2011, by Government Affairs Committee, Executive Committee, and Board of
Directors.”
Deirdre Kurzweil, 411 N. Aurora Street and 171 E. Estate Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project,
indicated that as a DIA Board member, owner of WB&A Market Research, and resident of the community, she
supports the project. While she sympathizes with the concerns of some of the community members, she
believes increasing downtown Ithaca’s density and creating a more concentrated downtown community is
ultimately more important. In light of the extremely limited housing options currently available downtown, Ms.
Kurzweil encouraged opponents of the project to step back and examine the larger picture.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, commenting on the Collegetown Terrace project, noted that as President of
the South Hill Civic Association, he would like to read the following text of an e-mail to the Board from the
Chair of the Ithaca Natural Areas Commission:
“Dear Ms. Cornish, Mr. Graves, Mr. Schroeder and All Concerned Parties,
The Natural Areas Commission of Ithaca fully supports the steps mentioned in Mr. Schroeder's site plan
resolution contained in his email. In discussing this during our February meeting we also came to an
agreement that using closed construction of walls for the parking levels will help reduce light pollution
into the Natural Area, as well as taking measures to prevent exterior lighting from shining down into or
across the Natural Area. We are concerned with the changes to the view that will result from the loss of
hemlock trees to the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid which is currently found in the Ithaca area and has had a
devastating effect on Hemlocks (a native evergreen) in areas where it has been found in the past decade.
I am somewhat disappointed with the single photo provided by Mr. Schroeder that gives the impression
that the current buildings are barely visible from Giles St. I have attached photos taken today from in
front of two residences on Giles St. and from the bottom of the gorge standing on the creek bank. As
you can see, a larger building with considerably more lights (exterior and from windows) will pose
dramatic changes to the Natural Areas for more than half of the year when leaves are not present on
trees.
It is the hope of the Natural Areas Commission of Ithaca that these issues are taken into consideration
when making its final decisions in how to proceed with the project.
Joe McMahon
Natural Areas Commission Chair”
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4 of 37
Joan Bokaer, 522 McGraw House, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked that she absolutely loves
living in the McGraw House, but does not know if it would have been built today, given the kind of opposition
the construction of similar buildings seems to attract. Ms. Bokaer expressed the hope that everyone understands
how important achieving good building density is to Ithaca – which the proposed building certainly appears to
be an example of. She encouraged the Board to take a leadership role and approve it.
Robert Morache, 527 N. Aurora Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, expressed his support for the
project and his belief that increasing the density of downtown Ithaca is critical to the economic sustainability of
the community. It seems there are currently so many obstacles to development in the city that development
projects are being pushed out to the suburbs, creating numerous unnecessary environmental, parking, and
infrastructural complications.
Joel Harlan, Newfield, commenting on the Seneca Way project, expressed his support for the project. He would
like to have seen it proceed more smoothly than it has; and he expressed dismay that every time a local project
is proposed it seems to attract disproportionate opposition. Ithaca needs more housing and needs to move
forward with these kinds of projects.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Major Subdivision, 410 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel #131.-1-6, Widewaters, Applicant/Owner.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into
three lots: Lot 1, measuring 10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing
the existing 97,129 SF Home Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of
frontage on Elmira Road and containing 80,882 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF
retail building; and Lot 3, measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and
which is vacant. The property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front
yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street
frontage be building-occupied. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
The applicant is required to build an architectural wall on the proposed Lot 2 to bring it into conformance with
the SW-3 district regulation regarding the required amount of building façade along the street frontage.
Marco Marzocchi recapitulated the basic details of the subdivision request, which involves subdividing one
parcel into three. The principal purpose of the subdivision request is to permit a greater degree of flexibility for
individually refinancing each of the parcels.
Mr. Marzocchi indicated he had two comments or questions for the Board:
• Regarding condition “iv.,” he believes it was already addressed by condition “iii.” JoAnn Cornish agreed
and indicated condition “iv.” could be removed.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5 of 37
• Regarding condition “v.,” Mr. Marzocchi remarked that the applicant had been trying for years to obtain
the traffic signal agreement with the City, but that little progress had been made. As a result, he does not
feel the applicant has much control over the condition and would like to ask the Board to eliminate it, if
possible. JoAnn Cornish replied that she understands the applicant’s concern and suggested that further
discussion of the subject be postponed for a month, with the hope that the Ithaca Attorney’s Office will be
able to resolve the issue.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was opened.
No public statements were presented.
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, in the City of Ithaca, by
Marco J. Marzocchi, applicant for owner, Widewaters Route 13 II Company, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into three lots: Lot 1, measuring
10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing the existing 97,129 SF Home
Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and
containing 80,8802 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF retail building; and Lot 3,
measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and which is vacant. The
property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback
requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be
building-occupied, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review for the action of subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel, #131-1-6,
located on Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca, by Marco J. Marzocchi, applicant for owner, Widewaters Route
13 II Company, LLC.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6 of 37
Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 131-1-6, in the City of Ithaca, by
Marco J. Marzocchi applicant for owner, Widewaters Route 13 II Company, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into three lots: Lot 1, measuring
10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing the existing 97,129 SF Home
Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and
containing 80,8802 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF retail building; and Lot 3,
measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and which is vacant. The
property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback
requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be
building-occupied, and
WHEREAS: this is a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1,
§290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation or two of more additional buildable
lots, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the
aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on February 22, 2011, reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant and Part
II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Subdivision Map (SM-01), November 7, 2007, and prepared by Bergmann
Associates, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this
subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels must be brought into conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance §325.29.2 B. (3) for properties located in the SW-3 Zoning District, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed
subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, located on Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca, will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7 of 37
Resolution for Preliminary Approval
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Snyder.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, in the City of Ithaca by
Marco J. Marzocchi, applicant for owner, Widewaters Route 13 II Company, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into three lots: Lot 1, measuring
10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing the existing 97,129 SF Home
Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and
containing 80,8802 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF retail building; and Lot 3,
measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and which is vacant. The
property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback
requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be
building-occupied, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290,
Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of two or more additional
buildable lots, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance and under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance
with Chapters 290-9 (C)(1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: a legal advertisement was placed in the Ithaca Journal and a public hearing for this subdivision
was held on February 22, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the
aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 22, 2011 reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Subdivision Map,” dated November 7, 2007, and prepared by Bergmann
Associates, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review, did on February 22, 2011 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this
subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels must be brought into conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance §325.29.2 B.(3) for properties located in the SW-3 Zoning District, now, therefore be it
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8 of 37
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6 located on Elmira
Road in the City of Ithaca subject to the following conditions:
i. Any future development plans for the proposed Lot 3 shall include ingress and egress from the existing
internal access road on the proposed Lot 1. No curb cut shall be allowed on Elmira Road, and
ii. Submission to and approval by planning staff of a site plan that includes a wall along Elmira Road (to be
the same height as wall on adjacent parcel to northeast), that demonstrates compliance with the City of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance regarding street frontage requirements in accordance with §325.29.2 B.(3), and
iii. The applicant must post a bond to insure construction of the wall as proposed in site plan above, and
iv. An executed agreement with the City of Ithaca stating that the traffic signal at the entrance to the
property on Route 13 is: (1) privately owned by Widewaters, (2) allowed in the public right-of-way, and
(3) maintained by the City at the cost of the owner, and
v. Confirmation that all conditions of the previously approved site plan review have been satisfied, and
vi. Submission of easements as necessary to demonstrate internal permanent access from the existing Elmira
Road curbcut and entrance to all parcels,
vii. Submission of a final surveyed map showing subdivision plat.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
John Snyder indicated he was confused about condition “v.,” requiring an executed agreement with the City of
Ithaca regarding the entrance traffic signal.
The language of the condition states the traffic signal shall be “maintained by the City at the cost of the owner;”
however, the City Superintendent has indicated he believes the state Department of Transportation controls and
services these kinds of signals.
JoAnn Cornish affirmed that the Board will need clarification on this point, prior to final approval.
The Chair added that the language in condition “vii.,” regarding the access from Elmira Road, also needs to be
clarified.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9 of 37
B. Minor Subdivision, 403-409 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12, Buttermilk Falls, LLC,
Applicant/Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the
existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762 acres (33,175 SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on
Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273 SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road.
The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a site plan review application for a new restaurant is
currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the proposed northern lot. The property is in the SW-2
Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet
from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be occupied by building façade. This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Dirk Galbraith summarized the salient details of the subdivision request, underscoring that all of the property
shall remain under common ownership.
The Chair indicated that City Engineer, Tim Logue, raised some concerns with the proposal in a February 17,
2011 letter to the Board, including: (1) the need for the traffic signal owner to obtain the legal right to place
traffic signal loops on the property, (2) inadequate queuing space for vehicles waiting at the signal, and (3) the
need for the city to retain any and all rights to the Old Spencer Road right-of-way.
Govind Acharya expressed his concern that the traffic light in question does not currently include a pedestrian
signal.
Dirk Galbraith noted that he understands access to the Tim Hortons is from Elmira Road. He appreciates Mr.
Logue’s written comments.
At this point, the Chair indicated the Board would proceed with preliminary approval of the project, based on
the assumption that any remaining issues can be resolved without undue difficulty.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was opened.
No public statements were presented.
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12 in the City of Ithaca
by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10 of 37
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762
acres (33,175 SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273
SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road. The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a
site plan review application for a new restaurant is currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the
proposed southern lot. The property is in the SW-2 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF,
a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street
frontage be occupied by building façade, and
WHEREAS: this is a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1,
§290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional
buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review for the action of subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-
01.12 in the City of Ithaca by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Boothroyd.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12 in the City of Ithaca
by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762
acres (33,175SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273
SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road. The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a
site plan review application for a new restaurant is currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the
proposed southern lot. The property is in the SW-2 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF,
a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street
frontage be occupied by building façade, and
WHEREAS: this is a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1,
§290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional
buildable lot, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11 of 37
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to
date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on February 22, 2011 reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Proposed Buttermilk Falls Subdivision,” dated 11-09-10, and prepared by
Stockwin Surveying, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this
subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for
properties located in the SW-2 Zoning District, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed
subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12 located at 403-409 Elmira Road by applicant and
owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
Resolution for Preliminary Approval
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12 in the City of Ithaca
by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762
acres (33,175 SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273
SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road. The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a
site plan review application for a new restaurant is currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the
proposed southern lot. The property is in the SW-2 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF,
a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street
frontage be occupied by building façade, and
WHEREAS: this is a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1,
§290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional
buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12 of 37
WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance
with Chapters 290-9(C)(1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: a legal advertisement was placed in the Ithaca Journal and a public hearing for this subdivision
was held on February 22, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the
aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on February 22, 2011 reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Proposed Buttermilk Falls Subdivision,” dated 11-09-10, and prepared by
Stockwin Surveying, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review did on February 22, 2011 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this
subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for
properties located in the SW-2 Zoning District, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12, located at 403-409 Elmira Road, by
applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of a final surveyed map showing subdivision plat, and
ii. Submission of a copy of the cross easement agreement ensuring permanent access from Elmira
Road to all parcels.
iii. Applicant shall work with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue to address the concerns stated
in Logue’s February 17, 2011 memorandum to the Planning and Development Board and Senior
Planner Lisa Nicholas.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13 of 37
4. Site Plan Review
A. Tim Hortons Restaurant, 411 Elmira Road, Tim Hortons, Applicant, Buttermilk Falls, LLC,
Property Owner. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary &
Final Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,500 SF restaurant with a drive-through window and
an outdoor dining area on a 0.708-acre lot that is currently paved parking. The site is accessed from Elmira
Road by an existing signalized entrance. The project requires the removal of the existing paving and curbing
and one planting island. Site development will include a 29-space parking area (including two accessible
spaces), installation of concrete curbing on the perimeter of the site, the interior of the parking area and all
planting islands, landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, a crosswalk and sidewalk extending to the existing
sidewalk on Elmira Road, and installation of two stormwater catch basins that will convey water to the existing
curb inlet. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and the applicant has received the necessary variance
from the BZA. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Bob Bender reported that the applicant received the setback variance and noted that the design plans have been
adjusted to reflect the Planning Board’s concerns (e.g., landscaping adjustments), as well as the input received
by both City Engineer Tim Logue and the Board of Zoning Appeals. He remarked that an issue arose regarding
the address for the proposed restaurant: the Fire Department will not issue a precise street address until final
approval has been obtained for the project. As a result, the address will temporarily be referred to as 407-409.
The Chair noted that it appears many of the plantings depicted in the original landscaping plan (drawing C4), on
the narrow strips on the periphery of the property, have now been removed. The Chair asked if these could be
re-incorporated.
Bob Bender replied they had been removed because it was thought they would simply be destroyed every
winter and would pose a considerable maintenance challenge.
The Chair replied he can certainly understand why that would be the case, but that at least the plantings
depicted on the left side of the landscaping plan could be restored.
JoAnn Cornish noted the landscaping plan depicts three boxwoods in the southeast corner; however, she
believes these are too small and slow-growing. She would prefer to see more robust and sizeable plantings in
that space (and she would like a condition added to that effect).
The Chair indicated he would also like to see the transplanted pear trees in the front-left section of the drawing
replaced with taller canopy trees. It would also be helpful if there were better labeling on the drawing to
designate the mulch and grass areas. The Chair indicated he would like to examine some of the building
material samples, too.
Bob Bender replied he had, in fact, brought building materials with him and proceeded to show them to the
Board. He added that they are very nice materials (higher-end than most of the applicant’s past projects) and
they had met with a very positive response in other projects.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14 of 37
Govind Acharya asked why the parking spaces appear to be more numerous than required, to which Mr. Bender
responded that they were intended to accommodate all the employees, franchise owners and operators, and
customers. He noted he could not accurately predict at this time how often all 29 spaces would be employed,
but indicated the applicant hopes a reasonable number of customers will in fact be stopping to park and eat
inside, rather than merely use the drive-through.
Govind Acharya reiterated his concern with the apparent excess number of parking spaces, either/both because
many of them may go unused and/or because they risk creating a disincentive for customers to use pedestrian,
bicycle, and public transportation options. Mr. Acharya inquired if there will be any pedestrian and cyclist
access to Spencer Road, to which Mr. Bender replied, no, a chain link fence prevents it.
Resolution for Approval of City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for construction of a Tim Hortons Restaurant, to be located at 407-409 Elmira Road in the
City of Ithaca by Tim Hortons, Applicant, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, Property Owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 2,500 SF restaurant with a drive-through window and an
outdoor dining area on a 0.708-acre lot that is currently paved parking. The site is accessed from Elmira Road
by an existing signalized entrance. The project will require the removal of the existing paving and curbing and
one planting island. Site development will include a 29-space parking area (including two accessible spaces),
installation of concrete curbing on the perimeter of the site, the interior of the parking area and all planting
islands, landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, a crosswalk and sidewalk extending to the existing
sidewalk on Elmira Road, and installation of two stormwater catch basins that will convey water to the existing
curb inlet. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and has received a variance for front yard setback, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department and
other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments
received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on November 23, 2010, reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part
2, prepared by Planning Staff, plans entitled “ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey (FA-1),” dated 2-14-11, “Site
Plan (C-1),” “Utility Plan (C-2),” “Grading and Erosion Control Plan (C-3),” “Landscaping Plan (C-4),” and
“Lighting Plan (C-5),” and “Construction Details (C-6, C-7 & C-8),” all dated 11-18-10, and all prepared by
Fisher Associates, and other application materials, now therefore be it
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15 of 37
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed Tim
Hortons Restaurant, located at 407-409 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca will result in no significant impact on
the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
The Chair added that the revised resolution for preliminary and final approval shall also include the following
agreed-upon condition:
(1) the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to incorporate: (a) canopy trees on the south side of the
site, (b) the plantings included on the south side of the original drawing, (c) labels for the mulch and
grass areas, and (d) the building elevation.
Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder.
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for construction of a restaurant, to be located at 407-409 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca
by Tim Hortons, Applicant, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, Property Owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 2,500 SF restaurant with a drive-through window and an
outdoor dining area on a 0.708-acre lot that is currently paved parking. The site is accessed from Elmira Road
by an existing signalized entrance. The project will require the removal of the existing paving and curbing and
one planting island. Site development will include a 29-space parking area (including two accessible spaces),
installation of concrete curbing on the perimeter of the site, the interior of the parking area and all planting
islands, landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, a crosswalk and sidewalk extending to the existing
sidewalk on Elmira Road, and installation of two stormwater catch basins that will convey water to the existing
curb inlet. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and has received a variance for front yard setback, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B)(4) and 176-
12 (A)(2)(c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on November 23, 2010, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and no comments have been received to
date on the aforementioned, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16 of 37
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on February 22, 2011, reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part
2, prepared by Planning Staff, plans entitled “ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey (FA-1),” dated 2-14-11, “Site
Plan (C-1),” “Utility Plan (C-2),” “Grading and Erosion Control Plan (C-3),” “Landscaping Plan (C-4),” and
“Lighting Plan (C-5),” and “Construction Details (C-6, C-7 & C-8),” all dated 11-18-10, and all prepared by
Fisher Associates, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review, did, on February 22, 2011, make a negative determination of environmental significance, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and final
site plan approval to the proposed 2,500 SF restaurant (Tim Hortons) to be located at 407-409 Elmira Road in
the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submit revised landscape plan showing (1) additional canopy trees along the south side of the
site, (2) additional shrubs in linear planting bed at the south edge of the site, and (3) labeling of
all landscape areas as “grass” or “mulch,” and
ii. Submit revised building elevations with the building materials labeled and clarifying that the
artificial stone wall (and not metal fence) is intended to enclose the outdoor dining area.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
B. Cascadilla Trail Reconstruction, Cascadilla Gorge, Cornell University, Applicant/Owner.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval (Pending Lead Agency Concurrence for DEC). The
applicant proposes to reconstruct/rehabilitate a section of the gorge trail from Stewart Ave. to College Ave.,
including the east entry gate area. The work will entail repair work on the trail, as well as the three staircases.
The western portion of the staircase below the bridge at Stewart Ave. will be relocated and reconstructed. The
new stairs will have a solid reinforced concrete base with drainage ports for high stream conditions, viewing
platforms at each of the two stair landings, and railings on both sides. The staircase at Highland Ave. will be
resurfaced in place and have enhanced storm drain connections. The stairs at the east entrance of the trail at
College Ave. will be completely replaced. The construction of the new stairs would be cast-in-place reinforced
concrete with a simulated stone pattern. The stairs will be constructed to a safe rise/run standard and will
include a railing. The proposal also includes a refurbished east entrance with interpretive signs and seating
situated at the crescent below the performing arts center. A portion of the work will require a joint permit from
the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is located
in the U-I and R-3a Zoning Districts. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and [3] and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17 of 37
Todd Bittner summarized the purpose and details of the proposal and noted that, as a result of serious damage to
the trail over the years, the trail was determined unsafe for public use in 2008. The first phase of the
reconstruction process was successfully completed in October 2010, permitting a portion of the trail to be re-
opened. Mr. Bittner indicated that the majority of the proposed work will involve the replacement-in-kind of
the trail, to make it appear as it once did.
Mr. Bittner noted that the trail has been suffering from a worsening drainwater run-off problem over the years,
associated with a large rock mass looming over the trail. As a result, it was decided to move the staircase 10-15
feet out/away from its current location, into the creek bed itself (which, Mr. McClure interjected, is actually
closer to the staircase’s original historic position). Mr. Bittner remarked that the gorge is an extremely dynamic
environment, so moving the staircase seems like the most prudent course of action.
Dan McClure noted that the width of the trail is not represented on the drawings which were provided, for
which he apologized. The Chair indicated that it would also be helpful to see the elevation of the falls lookout.
JoAnn Cornish inquired if the Board had ever been provided with any section indicators on any of the drawings,
to which Mr. McClure responded that he was not entirely certain, though they are not on the most recent
drawings.
Todd Bittner added that the College Avenue gate design still needs to be completed, to which the Chair replied
that the Board would definitely like to see the completed design. JoAnn Cornish indicated the applicant could
just provide it upon completion.
Mr. Bittner noted that the objective is to complete the project later in the year; and, although some things will
remain unfinished until later, the intent is to re-open the trail in the fall.
Ms. Cornish inquired where the pipe railing would be located, to which Mr. McClure replied that it would be
situated on both sides of the trail. Ms. Cornish asked that this kind of information be included in the final
drawings.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was opened.
No public statements were presented.
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18 of 37
Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder.
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for rehabilitation of a portion of the Cascadilla Gorge Trail by applicant and owner Cornell University,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to reconstruct/rehabilitate a section of the gorge trail from Stewart Ave. to
College Ave., including the east entry gate area. The work will entail repair work on the trail, as well as the
three staircases. The western portion of the staircase below the bridge at Stewart Ave. will be relocated and
reconstructed. The new stairs will have a solid reinforced concrete base with simulated stone pattern drainage
ports for high stream conditions, viewing platforms at each of the two stair landings, and chain railings on both
sides. The staircase at Highland Ave. will be resurfaced in place and have enhanced storm drain connections.
The stairs at the east entrance of the trail at College Ave. will be completely replaced. The construction of the
new stairs would be cast-in-place reinforced concrete with a simulated stone pattern. The stairs will be
constructed to a safe rise/run standard and will include a chain railing. The proposal also includes a refurbished
east entrance with interpretive signs and seating situated at the crescent below the performing arts center. A
portion of the work will require a joint permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is located in the U-1 and R-3a Zoning Districts, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4
B.(1)(h)[2] and [3] and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, an
involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this
project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has consented to the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, now therefore be it
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19 of 37
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this resolution, declaring
itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed rehabilitation of a portion of the Cascadilla
Gorge Trail, located in Cascadilla Gorge between the Stewart Ave. and College Ave. bridges in the City of
Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
Resolution for Approval of City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Acharya.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for rehabilitation of a portion of the Cascadilla Gorge Trail by applicant and owner Cornell University,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to reconstruct/rehabilitate a section of the gorge trail from Stewart Ave. to
College Ave., including the east entry gate area. The work will entail repair work on the trail, as well as the
three staircases. The western portion of the staircase below the bridge at Stewart Ave. will be relocated and
reconstructed. The new stairs will have a solid reinforced concrete base with simulated stone pattern drainage
ports for high stream conditions, viewing platforms at each of the two stair landings, and chain railings on both
sides. The staircase at Highland Ave. will be resurfaced in place and have enhanced storm drain connections.
The stairs at the east entrance of the trail at College Ave. will be completely replaced. The construction of the
new stairs would be cast-in-place reinforced concrete with a simulated stone pattern. The stairs will be
constructed to a safe rise/run standard and will include a chain railing. The proposal also includes a refurbished
east entrance with interpretive signs and seating situated at the crescent below the performing arts center. A
portion of the work will require a joint permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is located in the U-1 and R-3a Zoning Districts, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4
B.(1)(h)[2] and [3] and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, an
involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this
project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, has consented to the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20 of 37
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on February 22, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long
Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant and Part 2, prepared by planning staff,
drawings entitled “Existing Trail & Stair Conditions, Stewart Ave.” and “Existing Trail and Stair Conditions,
College Ave.,” both drawings undated and unattributed (date stamped 12-22-10), and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments
received have been considered, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
Resolution for Approval of Preliminary and Final Approval
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for rehabilitation of a portion of the Cascadilla Gorge Trail by applicant and owner Cornell University,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to reconstruct/rehabilitate a section of the gorge trail from Stewart Ave. to
College Ave., including the east entry gate area. The work will entail repair work on the trail, as well as the
three staircases. The western portion of the staircase below the bridge at Stewart Ave. will be relocated and
reconstructed. The new stairs will have a solid reinforced concrete base with simulated stone pattern, drainage
ports for high stream conditions, viewing platforms at each of the two stair landings, and chain railings on both
sides. The staircase at Highland Ave. will be resurfaced in place and have enhanced storm drain connections.
The stairs at the east entrance of the trail at College Ave. will be completely replaced. The construction of the
new stairs would be cast-in-place reinforced concrete with a simulated stone pattern. The stairs will be
constructed to a safe rise/run standard and will include a chain railing. The proposal also includes a refurbished
east entrance with interpretive signs and seating situated at the crescent below the performing arts center. A
portion of the work will require a joint permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is located in the U-1 and R-3a Zoning Districts, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4
B.(1)(h)[2] and [3] and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, an
involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this
project, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21 of 37
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has consented to the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B)(4) and 176-
12 (A)(2)(c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on February 22, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on February 22, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long
Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 submitted by the applicant and Part 2, prepared by planning staff,
drawings entitled “Existing Trail & Stair Conditions, Stewart Ave.” and “Existing Trail and Stair Conditions,
College Ave.,” both undated and unattributed (date stamped 12-22-10), and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments
received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review, did on February 22, 2011 make a negative determination of environmental significance, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and final
site plan approval to the proposed rehabilitation of a portion of the Cascadilla Gorge Trail subject to the
following conditions:
i. Submission to the Planning and Development Board of a drawing or photograph of the proposed
gates to be located at the trail entrances on Linn Street and at the performing arts center, and
ii. Submission of revised drawings with the trail width labeled, with clarification that the viewing
platform along the Stewart Ave. stairs will have continuous flat surface, and showing the
location of all trail railings.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
The Chair noted that both conditions “i.” and “ii.” had now been satisfied; but that the following agreed-upon
conditions will be incorporated into the final resolution text: the applicant will revise the site plan to incorporate
(a) the path width, (b) the viewing platform continuous plat surface, and (c) the locations of the railings.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22 of 37
C. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, Applicant for
Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John Novarr). Consideration of Preliminary
Approval. The applicant has proposed a new rental apartment development targeted to graduate students. This
Project anticipates providing approximately 589 net additional bedrooms for a maximum of 1,226 bedrooms in
new and existing apartment buildings. The Project involves the demolition of 29 buildings, all roads, and some
landscaping on site. Three existing apartment buildings to remain – Quarry Arms, Casa Roma, and Boiler
Works – include 162 beds and are all located within the East Hill Historic District. No work is proposed to
these buildings. 901 East State Street, known as the Williams House, is also to remain. The 16 proposed new
buildings (not including the retained and renovated George C. Williams House) will have up to four stories of
residential use and up to two stories of parking under the buildings. Some of the parking will be below grade.
The Project site is bounded on the northeast by NYS Route 79/East State Street, on the southeast by Valentine
Place, on the southwest by the Six Mile Creek gorge, and on the northwest by South Quarry Street. The total
size of the Project site is 16.4 acres, 12.4 of which will be redeveloped. The environmental review for this
project was completed on October 26, 2010, when the Planning and Development Board adopted the Findings
of the Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant has been granted a lot line adjustment and is seeking a
height variance and from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Kathryn Wolf noted that the applicant would present a brief overview of the changes made since additional
input was received from the Board at the February 8, 2011 Project Review Committee meeting.
Ian Tyndell indicated he would cover three major issues in his presentation: (1) fire trucks will now be turning
around in “T” turnaround, allowing more plantings on the site; (2) the parking lot entry has been moved to
permit the addition of another sidewalk; and (3) the number of bicycle racks has been augmented (representing
an approximate 1:8 ratio of racks to residents). In addition, a bicycle ramp has been added, originating from
Eddy Street.
Mr. Tyndell also noted that they will no longer be transplanting the Norway maples, the barberry bushes have
been removed, and shadbush will be of either the Canada or Pennsylvania variety.
Alan Chimacoff then presented an overview of the updates that were made to the structure and elevation of the
pavilion and other buildings. Even more mass has been removed from the top of the pavilion, although the
elevation remains comparable to what it was. More trees have been added and fences will contour both sides of
all the buildings. The textures and colors, however, remain to be determined.
The Chair indicated that the Board would proceed with the preliminary approval, with final approval to follow
according to the different phases of the project. (Alan Chimacoff noted that all the drawings will be updated by
the March 9th Board meeting.) The Chair then confirmed with the other Board members that they were all
satisfied that condition “xi.” on page six of the resolution (regarding the redesign of Building 3.4) had in fact
been met. The condition was removed.
Kathryn Wolf then inquired if condition “iii. 14.” on page eight of the resolution requires the applicant to
update every single perspective and axonometric drawing ever submitted, to which the Chair replied that only
the eye-level and skyview perspectives would be required.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23 of 37
Resolution for Preliminary Approval
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya.
WHEREAS: Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, as the agent for Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John
Novarr), has requested Site Plan Approval from the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the
proposed Collegetown Terrace project. The 16.4 contiguous acre Project site (of which approximately 12.1
acres will be disturbed for construction) is located on the south side of Route 79 between South Quarry Street
and Valentine Place in the City of Ithaca. The Project is in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts and a portion of
the site is in the East Hill Historic District, and
WHEREAS: the proposed Project will include the construction of 16 new buildings, and rehabilitation of one
existing building at 901 East State Street, that will provide approximately 1,064 new bedrooms and 640 new
parking spaces. The existing buildings on the Project site currently include 637 bedrooms and 467 parking
spaces; of these, 475 bedrooms and 361 parking spaces will be removed, leaving 162 existing bedrooms and
106 existing parking spaces to remain. The combined proposed (new) and existing (to remain) bedrooms and
parking spaces for the proposed Project will result in a total of not-to-exceed 1,226 bedrooms and not-to-exceed
746 parking spaces. The proposed Project will result in not-to-exceed 589 net additional bedrooms and not-to-
exceed 279 net additional parking spaces (relative to the existing conditions). The proposed Project will result
in a maximum building footprint of 175,001 gross square feet, comprising an estimated 628,642 gross square
feet of residential space and 235,645 gross square feet of parking. The 16 new proposed buildings range in size
and height from two to six stories; all but two of the proposed buildings are at least four stories tall. Proposed
site development includes the demolition of roadways, and some vegetation and landscaping on the Project site.
Of the total 16.4-acres of property, approximately 12.1 acres would be disturbed for construction. Almost all of
the proposed construction would occur in previously disturbed areas, except for very limited utility work in
undisturbed areas. Construction of the Project would remove approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill, soil, and
rock from the site. The proposed Project would also include construction of a complete pedestrian and vehicular
system that links the site to the surrounding city network. The principal vehicular access points will be at South
Quarry Street and Valentine Place; access into the Project site at both these locations will be two-way. All new
parking is proposed to be located under the new residential apartment buildings and no new surface parking lots
will be developed, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action subject to environmental review under the provisions of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO),
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a positive Declaration
of Environmental Significance on July 28, 2009, directing Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP to prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Collegetown Terrace
project, and
WHEREAS: on September 10, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an Agency
Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact
Statement, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on September 22, 2009 approve a
Scoping Document, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24 of 37
WHEREAS: on March 30, 2010, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP submitted a DEIS to the City of Ithaca Planning
and Development Board, which examined possible environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS: the City and the applicant did by mutual agreement elect to extend the adequacy review period
first until May 25, 2010, and subsequently until June 1, 2010, and
WHEREAS: on May 25, 2010, the applicant, responding to comments received from Planning Board members
and the City’s consultant, Environmental Design & Research, P.C. (EDR), submitted a revised DEIS, identified
on its cover by the language “Submitted: March 30, 2010 Revised: May 25, 2010,” and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of
environmental review, did on June 1, 2010 (1) review the DEIS submitted on March 30, 2010 and revised on
May 25, 2010 for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and (2) with the
assistance of City Staff and the City’s consultants, EDR, find the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its
scope, content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS: on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to
obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the
DEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 16, 2010, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency did on October 5, 2010 accept the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Collegetown Terrace project as complete for filing, having duly
considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6
NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, CEQRO), with the additions/clarifications mutually agreed upon by
the applicant and the Planning Board on that date, and
WHEREAS: on October 26, 2010, the Planning Board adopted the Findings Statement, which was a “positive”
findings statement, meaning that the proposed Project was potentially “approvable” (a relevant term used in the
State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has used the Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site
plan, and in considering conditions that should be applied to any approval thereof, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has received the required Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission and the required lot line adjustment and height variances from the Board of Zoning
Appeals, and
WHEREAS: the Board has, on February 22, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate the following plans:
“Survey Map,” dated 10-15-2010, and prepared by T.G. Miller
“Overall Architectural Site Plan-Sequence 1 (G2.01)”
“Overall Architectural Site Plan-Sequence 2 (G2.02)”
“Existing Conditions Map (C1.01, C1.02, C1.03, & C1.04)”
“Construction Staging Plan (C2.01)”
“Surface Demolition Plan (C2.1.1, C2.1.2, C2.1.2 & C2.1.4)”
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25 of 37
“Utility Demolition Plan (C2.2.1, C2.2.2, C2.2.3 & C2.2.1)”
“Street Layout Plan (C3.01, C3.02, C3.03 & C3.04)”
“Street Profiles (C3.1.1)”
“Street Sections and Pavement Details (C3.2.1)”
“Site Utility Plan (C4.01, C4.02 C4.03 & C4.04)”
“Utility Details (C4.1.1)”
“Storm Drainage Plan (C.5.01, C.5.02, C.5.03 & C.5.04)”
“Storm Drainage Details (C5.1.1)”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Demolition Phase (C6.01)”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Construction Phase (C6.02)”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Stabilization Phase (C6.03)”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Details (C6.1.1)”
“Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (C7.01)”
“Emergency Access Plan (C8.01)”
“Overall Site Plan (L1.00)”
“Sheet 1 Sector A Site Layout Plan (L2.01A)”
“Sheet 1 Sector B Site Layout Plan (L2.01B)”
“Sheet 2 Sector A Site Layout Plan (L2.02A)”
“Sheet 2 Sector B Site Layout Plan (L2.02B)”
“Plaza Layout Plans (L2.03)”
“Sheet 1 Sector A Site Grading Plan (L3.01A)”
“Sheet 1 Sector B Site Grading Plan (L3.01B)”
“Sheet 2 Sector A Site Grading Plan (L3.02A)”
“Sheet 2 Sector B Site Grading Plan (L3.02B)”
“Site Lighting Plan (L4.00)”
“Sheet 1 Sector A Site Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01A)”
“Sheet 1 Sector B Site Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01B)”
“Sheet 2 Sector A Site Landscape Planting Plan (L5.02A)”
“Sheet 2 Sector B Site Landscape Planting Plan (L5.02B)”
“Plant Schedule and Planting Details (L6.00)”
“Site Details (L7.00, L8.00 & L9.00)”
“Building 1 Floor Plan - Level A, Level B (A2.10A)”
“Building 1 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.10B)”
“Building 1 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.10C)”
“Building 2 Floor Plan - Level A, Level B (A2.20A)”
“Building 2 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.20B)”
“Building 2 Floor Plan - Level E, Level F (A2.20C)”
“Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.30A)”
“Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.30B)”
“Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level E, Level F (A2.30C)”
“Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level G, Level H (A2.30D)”
“Building 4 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.40A)”
“Building 4 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.40B)”
“Building 4 Floor Plan - Level C (A2.40C)”
“Building 4 Floor Plan - Level D (A2.40D)”
“Building 4 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.40E)”
“Building 5 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.50A)”
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26 of 37
“Building 5 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.50B)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.61A)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.61B)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level C (A2.62C)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level D (A2.62D)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.62E)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level F (A2.62F)”
“Building 6 Floor Plan - Level G (A2.62G)”
“Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.70A)”
“Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.70B)”
“Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level E, Level F (A2.70C)”
“Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level G, Level H (A2.70D)”
“Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level I (A2.70E)”
“Building 1 Exterior Elevations (A4.11A, A4.11B, A4.11C & A4.11D)”
“Building 2 Exterior Elevations (A4.21)”
“Building 3 Exterior Elevations (A4.31)”
“Building 4.1 Exterior Elevations (A4.41)”
“Building 4.2 Exterior Elevations (A4.42)”
“Building 4.3 Exterior Elevations (A4.43)”
“Building 4.4 Exterior Elevations (901 East State Street) (A4.44)”
“Building 5 Exterior Elevations (A4.51)”
“Building 6 Exterior Elevations (A4.61)”
“Building 7 Exterior Elevations (A4.71)”
“Bridge Elevations (A4.81)”
all individually dated 10-19-10, but labeled “Preliminary Site Plan Review Submission – January 12, 2011” on
the drawing set cover, and prepared by ikon.5 architects, and other application materials, including many
additional drawings presented at the January 25, 2011, February 7, 2011, and February 22, 2011 Planning
Board meetings that substantially revise significant portions of the drawings listed above, and
WHEREAS: the Project consists of two phases, as shown on the drawing titled “Project Sequencing” included
in a bound set of drawings titled “Collegetown Terrace Site Drawings 12.9.10.” Phase 1 (called “Sequence 1”
on the aforementioned drawing) consists of the construction of Buildings 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
the entry pavilion, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, and the rehabilitation of 901 East State Street (the Williams House)
including the construction of an addition to its south, as well as all associated site work and improvements.
Phase 2 (called “Sequence 2” on the aforementioned drawing) consists of the construction of Buildings 5, 6, and
7, as well as all associated site work and improvements, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to
Phases 1 & 2 of the proposed Collegetown Terrace project, subject to the following conditions:
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27 of 37
Conditions Taken Directly From Findings Statement Language:
(Findings Statement mitigations that have already been incorporated into the current Project design are not
restated here. Minor modifications or clarifications to Findings Statement language appear in italics.)
i. To minimize potential impacts from run-off and erosion during construction, the Applicant will be
required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that meets the satisfaction of the
Tompkins County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SWPPP will include an erosion and sediment control
plan and detailed drawings of all required practices, and
ii. Thorough, professional documentation of the history and architectural details of the Jane A. Delano
Home consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation (NPS 2005). Specifically, the Lead Agency has determined that the structure should be
recorded in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
Documentation Level II, and
iii. The rehabilitation of 901 East State Street (the George C. Williams House) in its current location, and
adaptive reuse of the structure within the proposed Project program. This will include restoration of the
exterior of the structure to its historic appearance, including the removal of inappropriate additions and
features that compromise the character and integrity of the structure. 901 East State Street was selected
as an appropriate building to be retained because of: (1) its layers of importance to the community
(including association with the life of George C. Williams, architectural sophistication, and role as a
prominent urbanistic “marker” at the intersection of Mitchell and East State Streets), and (2) its greater
visibility and prominence (compared to the Van Rensselaer and Driscoll houses) due to its location,
height, massing, and architectural expression. Retention of the George C. Williams House is intended to
reduce the impact on community character and the setting of the East Hill Historic District by retaining
a notable structure within the affected streetscape. The retention and reuse of 901 East State Street will
also avoid the complete loss of the single-family residential phase of the site’s history. The
rehabilitation of this structure is also intended to mitigate, in part, for the loss of the Jane A. Delano
Home, and
iv. The preparation of one or more interpretive displays that will be accessible to the public and located
within the Collegetown Terrace project, which will depict the (proposed to be demolished) buildings
within the Project site and provide information about historically significant residents, builders,
architects, and associations with local institutions (including the Ithaca City Hospital and the nursing
profession in Ithaca). Sufficient historical research will be conducted to document the significance of
notable persons associated with the site, including Jane A. Delano, the Driscoll family, Martha Van
Rensselaer, and George C. Williams. These interpretive displays could be an effective tool for
educating current and future residents of Ithaca and visitors to the city about change over time to the
urban streetscape. Distinctive architectural elements from the existing buildings, such as a triplet arcade
from the Jane A. Delano Home, could be used as components of the interpretive presentations, as
appropriate, and
v. The Applicant will pursue an agreement with an appropriate group that will accept and reuse salvaged
architectural materials, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28 of 37
vi. The existing rental apartment complex on the Project site provides a private shuttle service that runs
every 20 minutes from 7:30-11:30 a.m. on weekdays. To accommodate the increased demand that
would result from the proposed Project, the Applicant has stated that it would add additional shuttles as
necessary. The traffic analysis and conclusions presented in the DEIS are dependent on the continued
availability and expansion of the existing shuttle service. The analysis would no longer be valid if the
shuttle service were terminated. The continued provision and expansion of the shuttle service shall
apply to the Project even if the property changes ownership in the future. If for some unforeseeable
reason the Applicant (or future operator of Collegetown Terrace) were interested in ceasing shuttle
service, a traffic study will be required, at the Project owner’s expense, to identify potential impacts of
not using the shuttle and reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures, and
vii. Parking will be provided solely for residents of the Project and no parking will be available on the
Project site for non-tenant usage or rental, other than by employees or guests of the residents of the
Project on a short-term basis, and
viii. The color palette for Building 1 will use a combination of earth-toned brick (later changed, by mutual
consent of all parties, to stone) and stucco to be compatible with the neighboring architecture. The
design of Building 1 will be further developed during site plan review, and
ix. The palette of colors for Buildings 2.1-2.4 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the
materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The quality of design and materials
used for surface treatments on the façades along East State Street will continue along the façade of
Building 2.4 that faces South Quarry Street. The design of these buildings will be further developed
during site plan review, and
x. While the Lead Agency agrees that it is appropriate that Buildings 3.1-3.3 and the Entry Pavilion have a
more modern architectural expression than Buildings 4.1-4.4 and 2.1-2.4, the Lead Agency has also
determined that minimizing impacts to community character requires that these buildings make greater
reference to the colors, textures, and architectural patterns of the existing East Hill neighborhood than is
seen in the FEIS illustrations. The materials to be used for these buildings are in the process of research
and selection. The facades and surface treatments (including materials and colors) for Buildings 3.1-
3.4, and the design of the Entry Pavilion, will be determined during site plan review, and
xi. The palette of colors for Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the
materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The palette of colors for renovated
Building 4.4 (George C. Williams House, 901 East State Street) will be appropriate to its history. High-
quality materials will be used for all surface treatments on the façades along both East State Street and
Valentine Place. The design of Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be further developed during site plan review, as
will the specifics of the renovation of the George C. Williams House, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
29 of 37
xii. Proposed site work for the Project includes the demolition of South Quarry Street, Valentine Place, and
the south curb line of East State Street between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place (all of which
will require permits from the Department or the Board of Public Works). As mitigation for construction
traffic-related impacts, the Applicant will be required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, Valentine
Place, and the south curb line of NYS Route 79/East State Street as part of the Project. The City of
Ithaca Department of Public Works, Division of Streets and Facilities, will require the Applicant to post
a bond, prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of
repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction. Best practice controls will be
employed during the construction of the Project to minimize impacts related to noise and short-term air
quality impacts, such as the proper maintenance of equipment, limits of construction hours, and dust
control measures. The Applicant will be required to prepare a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic
(M&PT) plan to minimize construction-related traffic impacts. This plan will be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and may set restrictions on when construction can occur or when trucks can
deliver/remove material to or from the site.
Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review:
i. Prior to final site plan approval of a phase (Phase 1 or Phase 2), all drawings relevant to that phase shall
be updated, and made internally consistent, showing all approved Project changes. Hence, prior to
Phase 1 final site plan approval, all Project-set drawings shall be updated and made consistent with all
changes relevant to Phase 1 made at the January 25, 2011, February 7, 2011, and February 22, 2011
Planning Board meetings, and
ii. Submission of revised site drawings showing the following:
1. Modification of landscape plan to show standard City planting specifications, removal of
Norway maple and Japanese barberry from plant list, labeling of trees (with species) to remain
on the Project site, and addition of note indicating that transplanted or newly-planted trees that
die will be replaced with similar plantings, and
2. Modification of landscape plan plant list to reflect the recommendations of local plant expert F.
Robert Wesley (per his February 18, 2011 e-mail), and
3. Modification of landscape plan to show species of new plantings resulting from the relocation
of Street A; new trees in Mitchell Street Plaza and along north side of Building 3.4 shall include
tall canopy trees, and
4. Modification of landscape plan to show, for Phase I areas, all proposed plant species that have
not yet been selected (e.g., plantings currently shown as generic “shrubs” or generic
“groundcover”), and
5. Modification of landscape plan to show additional native trees, including tall evergreen trees,
south of Building 7, and
6. Identification of intended caliper of all proposed street trees and of trees intended to provide
screening in the several spaces between Buildings 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and the Williams House), and
7. Addition of fencing between Buildings 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, and
8. Use of bluestone (not limestone) site walls at the west side of Building 2.4, at the north
entrance to Building 1, and at the intersection of State and Quarry Streets, and
9. Addition of attractive barrier rail on top of retaining wall at northeast corner of Building 6, and
10. Addition of undulating fence at Mitchell Street Plaza, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
30 of 37
11. Addition of label showing intended historically-appropriate paving material in front of the
Williams House, and
12. Submission of a detail showing the design of the narrow bike ramp intended to accompany a
series of stairs leading down into the site from the Eddy Street Plaza, and
iii. Submission of revised building elevations showing the following:
1. Building 1: Enlargement of windows in north façade of stair tower, and
2. Building 2.1: Addition of sills under windows in brick faces and of column motif (per front
façade) on the upper north corner of the eastern façade, and
3. Building 2.2: Addition of window(s) or other architectural detail on stair tower and
differentiation of the cornices, and
4. Building 2.3: Redesign of stair tower (now with angled roof fragment) to have more of a
chimney-like appearance, possibly including brick cladding, and
5. Building 2.4: Addition to north elevation of southeast rear building projection, change of
sloped center pavilion to flat roof and addition of windows to stair tower on south façade, and
6. Buildings 2.1 through 2.4: Provide missing enlarged east and west elevations, and
7. Buildings 2.1 through 2.3: Provide sectional elevations of walls flanking the main entrances for
each of these buildings, and
8. Entry Pavilion: Exterior columns to be constructed of sandstone, interior and exterior ceiling
under roof volume to be surfaced with natural wood, and interior elements visible from the
exterior to exhibit warm color palette, and
9. Building 4.1: Narrowing of chimney width to roughly 6’, and
10. Building 4.2: Addition of intended projecting bay on left-hand side of elevation, and
11. Building 6: Redesigned east end to be added to relevant elevations and plans, and
12. Openings in all parking levels in all buildings shall be designed so that the headlights of
maneuvering cars and the glare of lighting fixtures within the parking decks are not visible off-
site, and such that light spillage through these openings is minimized, and
13. Updated site axonometric drawing showing, from both eye-level and sky-level points of view,
current state of all buildings, and
iv. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final building details, materials and colors
(including building material samples), and
v. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final locations and designs for exterior art,
fountains and interpretative displays (the west end of Building 3.3 at the Eddy Street Plaza is
considered exterior art), and
vi. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of (1) final rehabilitation drawings for the Williams
House at 901 East State Street, (2) final drawings for the addition planned to the south of the historic
portions of the Williams House and (3) final design of landscape elements and plantings in the vicinity
of the Williams House, and
vii. Confirmation that trees to the south of the Eddy Street Plaza and to the south of the openings between
the 2.x buildings series do not block views, and
viii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of any proposed signage, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
31 of 37
ix. Modification of drawings to reflect the comments of City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue in his
February 17, 2011 memo to the Planning Board and Lisa Nicholas, and
x. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation issues have been
satisfied, including approval of type, location, and number of bike racks, and
xi. Approval in writing from the Ithaca Fire Department that all fire access requirements have been
satisfied, and
xii. Approval in writing from the Storm Water Management Officer that the Project and its SWPPP meets
City standards for storm water management, and
xiii. Submission of documentation that the parcels have been consolidated to one parcel, and
xiv. Construction sequencing and staging conditions:
1. Applicant shall develop a “Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan” in conjunction with the
City Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer, to be approved by the City
Department of Public Works, and
2. Construction work on publicly-owned property requires a “Work Permit” from the City
Department of Public Works, and
3. Applicant shall post a bond, in an amount acceptable to the City Department of Public Works,
prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of
repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction, and
4. All vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian routes shall remain open during construction, except —
with written City Department of Public Works approval — for specified time periods during
demolition, and
5. Any temporary construction entrances from public streets shall require City Department of
Public Works approval, and
6. A “Staging Plan” shall be developed for Phase 1 building demolition, and
7. Temporary barriers and pedestrian protection shall meet the requirements of the New York
State building code, and
xv. Conditions regarding applicant’s rebuilding of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street
and Valentine Place:
1. Applicant is required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, and the south curb line of NYS Route
79/East State Street and Valentine Place as part of the Project, and shall coordinate this work
with the City Department of Public Works, and
2. Regarding South Quarry Street, applicant shall install new curb and gutter along most of its east
side, and shall mill and resurface the street, and
3. Applicant shall replace all curb and gutter on the south side of East State Street, and
4. Regarding Valentine Place, applicant shall install new curbing without a gutter on both sides of
the street, and shall mill and resurface the street, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
32 of 37
5. Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate city staff for the rebuilding of the sidewalks
along the east side of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street, and the west side
of Valentine Place, and
6. All new curb cuts shall include drop curbs with concrete drive aprons ramped up to the
sidewalks; sidewalks shall be continuous through curb cuts, and
7. Applicant has agreed to pay for the initial restriping of the pedestrian crosswalk at the Mitchell
Street intersection with East State Street; this work shall be coordinated with the City
Department of Public Works, and
xvi. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and
xvii. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Schroeder, Snyder
Opposed: Marcham
Absent: Rudan
Jane Marcham noted she is voting against the project because she does not believe her concerns regarding
building height and population density were satisfactorily addressed.
D. Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Fall
Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency and Public Hearing. The applicant is
proposing to construct a mixed-use building with 63,400 total gross SF with 5 stories and a 14-space basement
level parking area on the 0.78-acre site. The building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first floor commercial
space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd- 5th floors. Other proposed
amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. Proposed site development will include two surface
parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping, and a paved entry plaza. The applicant is proposing to
consolidate the nearly continuous existing curbcut into two curbcuts, one accessing the east surface parking lot,
and the other accessing the western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install a sidewalk and
treelawn along the length of the property. Site development will require the demolition and removal of the
existing building (former Challenge Industries). The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and is contiguous to
the East Hill Historic District. This is a Type I Action §176-4(h)[4], (k), and (n) under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and variances for height,
setbacks, and parking.
The Chair noted that he does not believe the Tompkins County General Municipal Review (GML)
recommendation regarding population density applies to this particular project; however, the Board will seek
clarification from the Tompkins County Planning Department.
Jeffrey Smetana indicated he feels confident the traffic management concerns expressed by City Transportation
Engineer Tim Logue, in his 2/17/11 memorandum to the Board, can be satisfactorily addressed; likewise, he
believes the comments captured in Part 3 of the draft Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) can also be
satisfactorily addressed.
Mr. Smetana concluded by noting that considerable progress has been made, over the history of the project, in
modifying the building design, lowering the elevation, and working with Planning Board to satisfy both its
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
33 of 37
concerns and those of neighbors and community members. The current height of the building, for example, is
now no higher than any of the other buildings in the vicinity; and the variances that have been/are being sought
for this project do not differ substantially from those obtained by other major projects in recent years.
Steve Hugo reviewed the recent changes made to the site plan, the most significant change being the re-
orientation of the building along a north-south axis. The design team also successfully redesigned the
building’s foundation to permit it to function as a retaining wall. Sun studies that were performed illustrate that
the north-south orientation generally falls along the eave lines of the adjacent buildings; so the shadow depth is
little different from that of the neighboring homes. Although winter is the worst season in terms of shadow
depth, allowing the building’s shadow to creep into some neighboring yards, the building’s shadow never
reaches the neighboring houses themselves.
Steve Hugo concluded by noting that some other aesthetic refinements were added to the design, as well, such
as banners, retaining trees, and some streamlined street edging.
Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Kay.
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for the Seneca Way Apartments, to be located at 402 East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP,
applicant for owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC , and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use building with 63,400 total gross SF with 5
stories and a 14-space basement level parking area on the 0.78-acre site. The building proposal includes 9,311
SF of first floor commercial space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd-5th
floors. Other proposed amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. Proposed site development will
include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping, and a paved entry plaza. The applicant
is proposing to consolidate the nearly continuous existing curbcut into two curbcuts, one accessing the east
surface parking lot, and the other accessing the western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install a
sidewalk and treelawn along the length of the property. Site development will require the demolition and
removal of the existing building (former Challenge Industries). The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and is
contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and
variances for height, parking, and loading, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
34 of 37
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-
4(h)[4], (k), and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental reviews,
and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Transportation, the City of Ithaca
Board of Public Works, and the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, all potentially involved agencies,
consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and
the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board being Lead Agency for this project, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this resolution, declaring
itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed Seneca Way Apartments, located at 402 East
State Street, in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
Public Hearing
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was opened.
Susan Robertson, 403 East Seneca Street, remarked that it is important to understand that the Seneca Way
project needs to serve as a transition area between two distinct zones. The neighbors only have two principal
concerns, height and proximity; but every time they have made suggestions to the developer that would
alleviate their concerns, the response has been that implementing them would cost too much. Ms. Robertson
noted that all parties need to make sacrifices in a historic district; so any developer wishing to construct a
building in the transition area needs to be flexible.
Warren Schlesinger, 407-409 East Seneca Street, expressed that his primary concern is the height of the
building, which he believes will end up being a lot higher than what appears in the drawing. Mr. Schlesinger
indicated that he would genuinely like to support the project – but the height issue prevents this.
Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca Street, remarked that he understands that there is demand for projects that benefit
the business and commercial life of the city, but he feels the proposed building is too tall. It is a huge building,
at 17½’ above zoning requirements. Furthermore, the overall size, location, and amount of parking involved are
matters of serious concern for him. No one in the immediate neighborhood supports the project.
Joel Harlan expressed his support for the project and his frustration with the degree to which development
projects invariably seem to be opposed by community members, regardless of the merits of each project.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
35 of 37
Virginia Augusta, 419 East Seneca Street, indicated she does not believe the city needs the proposed building in
order to establish an appealing ‘gateway’ into the city that an earlier comment alluded to. If it is not financially
feasible for the developer to remove the top floor of the building, then the developer most likely agreed to pay
too much for the property. Ms. Augusta added that she would like to see the actual financial figures that
purportedly make the cost of such modifications prohibitive. She believes the neighboring houses would be
considerably more affected by the height of the building than is reflected in the applicant’s statements and
drawings. Finally, she added that the parking situation would most likely be a significant concern for her.
Nancy Schuler remarked that, as a former Common Council representative for the Fourth Ward, she has had the
pleasure of observing the rebirth of the 400 block of East Seneca Street through the gradual, painstaking
restoration of the homes. Ms. Schuler then read the text of the letter she submitted to the Board:
“My name is Nancy Schuler, our family has lived at 110 Ferris Place in the city for 37 years.
I represented the 4th Ward on Common Council and on the County Legislature for 23 years. The
400 block of East Seneca Street was in the 4th Ward until redistricting made it part of the 2nd Ward.
Even after the ward was divided, I still kept close watch over that portion of the East Hill Historic
District. I noted the positive changes – a rebirth of that block. The homes returned to owner
occupancy and those that were income properties were also brought under guidelines. The homes
have been carefully and painstakingly restored following these guidelines under the demanding
eyes of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Once again baby strollers are on the front porches, young children live and play in the
neighborhood. Ithaca should be proud.
The commercial plans for Seneca Way, the Challenge property, which borders this historic
residential district, must take into account its proximity to this area. Transitional zoning would
reduce the clash of commercial and residential properties and provide a buffer between the two.
Developers should work within existing zoning regulations and not be granted multiple variances
of height, setback, and parking.”
Eric Rosario, 22nd South Geneva Street and Second Ward Alderman, remarked he has a track record of
supporting housing development in the city and would thus generally be inclined to support the proposed
project, but for the height and proximity concerns associated with it.
Gary Ferguson, DIA Executive Director, remarked that the DIA’s Board recently passed a resolution in support
of the project. The proposed building would serve as a very good landmark for the entrance to the city and
would certainly help meet some of the pent-up demand for downtown housing. Moreover, Mr. Ferguson
indicated he believes the building fits very well into the transitional area it would fill, and the building design
does a very good job of minimizing viewshed loss.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
36 of 37
Patrick J. McKee, 305 Brookfield Road and President of Challenge Industries, Inc. (“Challenge”), declared that
the sale price of the former Challenge building and land is not more than the building is worth. Challenge
explored several options for renovating the building, but the cost would have been ($3-4 million) prohibitive for
the organization. Mr. McKee stated that the sale of the building will have a powerful and direct impact on the
health of his organization, which would be faced with serious funding challenges without it.
Mack Travis, DIA Vice President for Business Retention & Development and co-owner of Gateway Plaza
Associates, noted that it is important for people to understand the building site is located in a transition zone.
By rights, the developer could be proposing a building three times the width of the proposed structure; and the
site could just as easily have been developed into something far less desirable, from the neighbors’ perspective,
such as a gas station, convenience store, or parking lot. Finally, the Ithaca strategic plan calls for 1,500
additional residences and the proposed building would be a considerable help towards meeting that goal.
No further comments were presented.
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Responding to an earlier comment, JoAnn Cornish remarked for the record that the Planning Board has no
power to assign building addresses, as task that is handled entirely by the Fire Department.
The Chair indicated he believes the project is the subject of a conflict between two important competing needs –
the need for greater population density and the need to retain and promote the vibrancy of the immediate
neighborhood, East Seneca Street, which has been a great success story. He believes it is possible to design a
building with a comparable number of rooms as the current proposal, but which also allows for a more
harmonious degree of integration with neighboring homes. He hopes a compromise will be possible.
5. Zoning Appeal
APPEAL #2841 220 Esty Street
Special Use Permit
Appeal of Barbara Brazill and Donald Ruff for the renewal of a special permit for a bed and breakfast home
as required by Section 325-9C (4)(g)(3), renewal requirements for special permits for bed and breakfast
homes. The property at 220 Esty Street was granted a special permit to operate a bed and breakfast home on
November 1, 2005. The ordinance requires that a special permit for a bed and breakfast home located in an
R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years. The owners would like to renew the special permit and
continue to operate the Esty House Bed and Breakfast. The property is located in an R-2b residential use
district in which the proposed accessory use is permitted by special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Members of the Planning Board feel the special use permit is warranted and support the granting of this
appeal.
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Acharya.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Rudan
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
37 of 37
6. Old Business – Planning Board Comments on Proposed Collegetown Zoning
7. New Business – Inlet Island Rezoning
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
B. Director of Planning & Development
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
9. Adjournment
On a motion by, seconded by, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”