HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-04-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
April 26, 2011
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Bob Boothroyd, Jane Marcham,
Tessa Rudan, John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: John Snyder, David Kay (left at 9:25)
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of
Planning and Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of
Planning and Development
Applicants Attending: Collegetown Terrace Apartments
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect
Student Housing Addition, 140 College Avenue
Jason Demarest, Architect;
Ching Po, Po Family Real Estate, Applicant
3-Car Residential Parking Area, 215 Grandview
Ave.
Brian Buttner, Applied Design Research
Associates;
John and Kelly Seferlis, Applicants
Stewart Park Mayor’s Garden
Rick Manning, Rick Manning Landscape Architect
Means Restriction
Andrew Magre, Cornell University, Associate
University Architect;
Tim Marchell, Cornell University, Director of
Mental Health Initiatives;
Gilbert Delgado, Cornell University, University
Architect
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. Agenda Review
Chair Schroeder indicated the agenda description of the 140 College Avenue Student
Housing Addition project should in fact have reflected its consideration for both
preliminary and final approval, not merely preliminary.
Lisa Nicholas indicated the Cornell University Gates Building sketch plan review
should be removed from the agenda, at the applicant’s request. Nicholas also
indicated the review of zoning appeal #2848 for an area variance on 1108 North
Cayuga Street would need to be removed, as it is no longer on the next Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, speaking on behalf of the South Hill Civic
Association regarding the 3-car residential parking project at 215 Grandview Avenue,
indicated the civic association is opposed to the proposed project due to serious
concerns regarding off-street parking ‘creep’ and potential negative environmental
impacts.
Graham Kerslick, 115 Orchard Place, commenting on the student housing addition
project at 140 College Avenue, indicated he examined the revised project site plans
and would like to commend the Board for its role in improving the initial design.
Kerslick indicated he remains opposed to the project, however, and does not believe
it is realistic to presume it will not have a deleterious impact on parking in the
neighborhood.
Margaret Shisler, 213 Grandview Avenue, commenting on the 3-car residential
parking project at 215 Grandview Avenue, indicated she had been assured by the
project architect and the owners that they would only ask the Board to approve the
construction of a new driveway. However, she opposes the addition of any new
parking spaces on the property, as she believes it would be disruptive to neighbors.
Jesse Hill, South Hill landlord and property manager, commenting on the 3-car
residential parking project at 215 Grandview Avenue, remarked that one of his
properties was approved with a BZA variance that rendered it a car-free house. Hill
indicated he would like to see approvals of more similarly non-‘vehicle-centric’
designs. He encouraged the Board to carefully examine the trade-offs, costs and
benefits, and adverse impacts associated with current City parking-related zoning
regulations.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Site Plan Review
A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf,
LLP, Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o
John Novarr). Presentation & Discussion — No Action. The 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. 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
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. 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 a
height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Kathryn Wolf indicated the applicant would present its proposals to address the
remaining items identified as conditions in the Board’s final Phase I approval
resolution. The design team will also present its Phase 2 design to the Board for
review and feedback. Wolf anticipates returning to the Board for a final
presentation in May, in advance of the Board’s expected final approval in June.
The Chair indicated there were three conditions in particular he would like to
review, associated with Building 2.1 (“restoring Llenroc stone water table to
southern portion of elevation”), Building 2.3 (“design of new cantilever over
driveway at northwest building corner”), and Building 2.4 (“restoring Llenroc
stone base to west façade”).
Alan Chimacoff proceeded to review the revised building elevation drawings.
He noted that for Building 2.3 the cantilever over the driveway at the northwest
corner of the building had been redesigned to render it more compatible with the
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Building 2.0 series (including the installation of a supporting bracket, and some
corbeling and elaboration on the corner of the building).
Chimacoff then reviewed the proposed changes to the Building 2.1 design,
addressing the Board’s interest in restoring Llenroc stone to the southern portion
of the building. (Chimacoff noted that the red line shown on the elevation
reflects the Eddy Street ground-line.) He added that heavy plantings would be
incorporated in order to conceal that portion of the building and eliminate the
need for Llenroc.
Finally, Chimacoff reviewed the proposed changes to the Building 2.4 design,
made in response to the Board’s desire to restore the Llenroc stone base to the
west façade. (The red box on this elevation delineates where the Llenroc would
be restored.) There would be no Llenroc below the retaining wall.
Schroeder emphasized that that the quality of the façade should be as consistent
as possible and the Llenroc extended further. Chimacoff replied that the
applicant would be willing to do that.
Chimacoff then reviewed the proposed Phase II designs for Buildings 5–7,
noting that the northern “Landscape” side would feature diamond-shaped
patterns extending up from ground-level, while the southern “Geological” side
would feature alternating rock ‘fissures’ (into which the heating/cooling
elements would be incorporated).
Schroeder expressed his continuing concern that the lower walls surrounding the
garage entrances be tall enough to conceal the direct beams of vehicle
headlights. Chimacoff confirmed this would be the case and that all of those
instances had been eliminated from the design plan.
Chimacoff proceeded to review the proposed changes made to the east side of
Building 3, noting that the intent is to set the stage and thematic tone as one
moves towards Valentine Place. The east end of Building 6 will also now
include the volumetric designs the Board had sought, eliminating the direct light
from corridors.
Schroeder asked if Building 7 received Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission approval, to which Chimacoff responded, yes, but conditioned upon
the Commission’s review and approval of sheathing colors and materials prior to
the issuance of the building permit.
At this juncture, Ian Tyndell reviewed the illustrative site plan. He noted the
intent was to connect the site’s disparate areas into a more unified whole. To
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
this end, additional plantings have been added, with minor changes to such
things as the spacing and configuration of the walkway, amphitheater, seating
areas, bike racks, guard rails, and street lamps.
Wolf asked whether the evergreen plantings were required to be native species,
to which Schroeder indicated that native species would be preferable, although
this could certainly be discussed further.
Wolf concluded the presentation by noting the intention is to present final site
plan modifications to the Board in May, followed by the submission of final site
plan drawings by June 12, 2011. Wolf further indicated the decisions on colors
and materials should be finalized by the May meeting of the Board. Initial
consideration of colors and materials made it evident that it would take longer to
arrive at a final decision than originally anticipated. Wolf indicated final bridge
and bracket designs would also be presented at the next Board meeting.
B. Student Housing Addition, 140 College Avenue, Jason Demarest, Applicant
for Owner, Po Family Realty. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing,
Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a
three-story addition on the south side of the building, incorporating the footprint
of an existing one-story garage. The addition, which will function as an
independent dwelling unit, will have a gross floor area of 3,800 SF and will
match the three stories and walk-out basement level of the existing building.
The property has an existing grandfathered 6-space parking area, which is being
reduced to 4 spaces due to the addition. The layout of the new parking area
includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street. The property
is in the R-3b Zoning District. 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.
Mr. Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the project and reviewed the
changes to the initial design that had been made. On the east elevation, Board
members will notice that the color of the glass building connector frame has
been changed to black. The glass connector roof line has also been stepped back
a little to help differentiate the original building from the addition.
Rudan asked if the door to the connector would appear institutional in nature
(e.g., feature a heavy push-bar handle), to which Demarest responded, no, the
door would appear more residential in nature.
Schroeder indicated he would like it clearly marked on the northwest corner of
the drawing that the original parking space is no longer in fact a parking space,
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
since it is now intended to serve as a turn-around space for vehicles. Demarest
noted that this space could easily be striped to accentuate this.
Marcham asked why the project includes a reference to student housing in the
title, to which Demarest responded that it was not meant to be exclusively
restricted to student housing and that anyone can rent the space.
Rudan asked the applicant to explain the reference to the 12 required parking
spaces. Demarest responded that they would comprise 4 on-site parking spaces
and 8 off-site spaces; and that the 4 off-site spaces across the street would in fact
be deeded to the site.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for an addition to an existing multi-family residence
used for student housing, submitted by Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Po Family
Realty, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story addition on the south
side of the building, incorporating part of the footprint of an existing one-story garage.
The addition, which will function as an independent multi-family dwelling unit, will
have a gross floor area of 3,800 SF, will contain 12 additional bedrooms, and will have
three stories and a walk-out basement at the same levels as the existing building. The
property has 12 existing bedrooms and will require 12 parking spaces, four of which
will be provided on site, and eight of which will be provided off site. The layout of the
new parking area includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street.
The property is in the R-3b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: 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, 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 is, by way of
this resolution, declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
addition to 140 College Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
Public Hearing
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously,
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
No members of the public came forward to speak about the proposed project.
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously,
Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2:
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Boothroyd:
(begins on following page)
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): 140 College Avenue, aka “John
Snaith House,” is included in the “Collegetown Historic
Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of
Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural
Ensembles, and Landscape Features,” prepared by Mary
Tomlan and John Schroeder, June 14, 2009. It was also
one of the 15 properties selected from that document for
additional research under a Certified Local Government
grant application, authorized by the City of Ithaca
Common Council at its September 1, 2010 meeting. Any
addition to this historically important structure should
be sympathetic and deferential to the original building.
See Part 3 for additional information.
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): 140 College Avenue, aka “John
Snaith House,” is included in the “Collegetown Historic
Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of
Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural
Ensembles, and Landscape Features,” prepared by Mary
Tomlan and John Schroeder, June 14, 2009. It was also
one of the 15 properties selected from that document for
additional research under a Certified Local Government
grant application, authorized by the City of Ithaca
Common Council at its September 1, 2010 meeting. Any
addition to this historically important structure should
be sympathetic and deferential to the original building.
See Part 3 for additional information.
Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS (cont.)
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction noise in a residential
area.
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have
expressed opposition to or rejected proposed action, or have
not been contacted.
Yes No
Objections to proposed action from within the community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya:
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story addition on the south side of the
building, incorporating part of the footprint of an existing one-story garage. The
addition, which will function as an independent multi-family dwelling unit, will have a
gross floor area of 3,800 SF, will contain 12 additional bedrooms, and will have three
stories and a walk-out basement at the same levels as the existing building. The property
has 12 existing bedrooms and will require 12 parking spaces, four of which will be
provided on site, and eight of which will be provided off site. The layout of the new
parking area includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street. The
property is in the R-3b Zoning District.
IMPACT ON LAND
No significant impact on land is anticipated as a result of this project.
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON WATER
No significant impact on water is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No significant impact on drainage is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AIR
No significant impact on air is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
No significant impact on plants and animals is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES and IMPACT ON HISTORIC
RESOURCES
140 College Ave. (John Snaith House) is included in the Collegetown Historic
Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings,
Architectural Ensembles & Landscape Features report, prepared by Mary Tomlan and
John Schroeder, June 14, 2009 (see attached applicable excerpts). In addition, fifteen of
the properties in the report, including the Snaith House, were identified in the
application for a 2011 New York State Certified Local Government Sub-Grant to fund
survey and documentation, pursuant to local historic designation and potential
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places; this grant application was
authorized by the City of Ithaca Common Council at its September 1, 2010 meeting.
Additional information on the historic significance of this property was submitted to the
Planning Board by architectural historian Mary Tomlan on March 21, 2011. Any
addition to this historically important structure should be sympathetic and deferential to
the original building.
Although design changes made since the initial building concept was presented to the
Board in March 2011 — which include (1) moving the proposed addition to the west, so
that its College Avenue façade is behind the front porch of the existing building, thereby
giving deference to the original building; (2) adding a narrow metal-and-glass vertical
strip between the historic building and the proposed addition, to clearly distinguish old
from new; and (3) preserving a pair of chimneys on the south side of the original
building — have greatly improved the addition’s visual relationship to the original
structure, the April 8, 2011 redesign continues to have some impacts on aesthetic and
historic resources.
Board members have suggested two design changes that would further serve to visually
separate the two buildings, thus giving more prominence to the original structure. The
first change is to make the glass façade of the narrow metal-and-glass vertical strip
separating the historic building from the addition as neutral as possible, with clear, un-
tinted glass and an unembellished neutral-colored metal framework. The second change
is to alter the design to provide at least a slight recession of the proposed metal-and-
glass strip so that it is behind the top of the existing mansard roof. These changes should
be incorporated into the final design to fully mitigate impacts on aesthetic and visual
resources.
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
No significant impact on open space and recreation is anticipated as a result of this
project.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No significant impacts on transportation are anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impact on energy is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE
No significant impacts on the quality of daily life are anticipated as a result of this
project.
IMPACT ON HEALTH AND HAZARDS
No significant impact on health and hazards is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD
No significant impacts on growth and character of community or neighborhood are
anticipated as a result of this project.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Not known at this time.
Adopted City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Resolution:
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 an addition to an existing multi-family residence
used for student housing, submitted by Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Po Family
Realty, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story addition on the south
side of the building, incorporating part of the footprint of an existing one-story garage.
The addition, which will function as an independent multi-family dwelling unit, will
have a gross floor area of 3,800 SF, will contain 12 additional bedrooms, and will have
three stories and a walk-out basement at the same levels as the existing building. The
property has 12 existing bedrooms and will require 12 parking spaces, four of which
will be provided on site, and eight of which will be provided off site. The layout of the
new parking area includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street.
The property is in the R-3b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: 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, and
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: 140 College Ave. (John Snaith House) is included in the Collegetown
Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles & Landscape Features report, prepared by Mary
Tomlan and John Schroeder, June 14, 2009. In addition, fifteen of the properties in the
report, including the Snaith House, were identified in the application authorized by the
City of Ithaca Common Council on September 1, 2010 for a 2011 New York State
Certified Local Government Sub-Grant to fund survey and documentation, pursuant to
local historic designation and potential nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has
on April 26, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by
planning staff and the Planning Board, drawings entitled “Topographic Map Showing
Spot Elevations and Various Features at No. 140 College Avenue, City of Ithaca,
County of Tompkins, State of New York,” prepared by Reagan Land Surveying and
dated May 7, 2010, “Ground & 1st Floor Demolition Plans (D1.00),” dated February 22,
2011, “Site Plan (C1.00)” and “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” both dated 4/8/11 and all
prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has on April 26, 2011 submitted new drawings showing the
design changes described in detail in FEAF, Part 3, that improve the addition’s visual
relationship to the original structure and its appropriateness as an addition to a building
of historic importance, specifically “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 4/25/11, an
undated new College Avenue perspective, an undated new roof-level perspective detail
and an undated new plan detail of the juncture of the existing and new buildings at the
southeast corner of the project, all prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council 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, with the revisions described in FEAF, Part 3, will result in no
significant impacts 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.
Adopted Preliminary and Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for an addition to an existing multi-family residence
used for student housing, submitted by Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Po Family
Realty, and
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story addition on the south
side of the building, incorporating part of the footprint of an existing one-story garage.
The addition, which will function as an independent multi-family dwelling unit, will
have a gross floor area of 3,800 SF, will contain 12 additional bedrooms, and will have
three stories and a walk-out basement at the same levels as the existing building. The
property has 12 existing bedrooms and will require 12 parking spaces, four of which
will be provided on site, and eight of which will be provided off site. The layout of the
new parking area includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street.
The property is in the R-3b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: 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, and
WHEREAS: on April 26, 2011, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
declared itself 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
April 26, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has
on April 26, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment
Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by planning staff
and the Planning Board, drawings entitled “Topographic Map Showing Spot Elevations
and Various Features at No. 140 College Avenue, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins,
State of New York,” prepared by Reagan Land Surveying and dated May 7, 2010,
“Ground & 1st Floor Demolition Plans (D1.00),” February 22, 2011, “Site Plan (C1.00)”
and “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” both dated 04/08/11 and all prepared by Jason
Demarest, Architect, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested
agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all
comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: 140 College Ave. (John Snaith House) is included in the Collegetown
Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles & Landscape Features report, prepared by Mary
Tomlan and John Schroeder, June 14, 2009. In addition, fifteen of the properties in the
report, including the Snaith House, were identified in the application authorized by the
City of Ithaca Common Council on September 1, 2010 for a 2011 New York State
Certified Local Government Sub-Grant to fund survey and documentation, pursuant to
local historic designation and potential nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places, and
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant has on April 26, 2011 submitted new drawings showing the
design changes described in detail in FEAF, Part 3, that improve the addition’s visual
relationship to the original structure and its appropriateness as an addition to a building
of historic importance, specifically “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 4/25/11, an
undated new College Avenue perspective, an undated new roof-level perspective detail
and an undated new plan detail of the juncture of the existing and new buildings at the
southeast corner of the project, all prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on April 26, 2011 make a negative declaration 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 addition to an existing
multi-family residence used for student housing, located at 140 College Avenue, subject
to the following conditions:
i. Approval in writing from the City of Ithaca Fire Department that the project
meets City standards for fire access, and
ii. Submission of final building materials, including colors, and correction of note at
bottom of East Elevation on drawing A2.00, dated 4/25/11 (which incorrectly
states that the frame color of the narrow metal-and-glass vertical strip will
match existing woodwork), to accurately specify that the frame color of this
vertical strip will be the dark, neutral color actually depicted on this drawing.
The Planning Board would prefer the use of natural slate, if feasible, on at least
the College Avenue façade of the addition, and
iii. Submission of site details including building and paving materials, site
furnishings and site lighting, and detail showing that the new door on the front
façade of the narrow metal-and-glass vertical strip has a residential appearance,
and
iv. The former parking space at the northwest corner of the building to be clearly
marked, through signage or pavement striping, as a no parking area.
C. 3-Car Residential Parking Area, 215 Grandview Ave., John and Kelly
Seferlis, Applicants and Owners. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration
of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicants are proposing to install a 3-
car gravel parking area on the east side of the multi-family home to replace the
existing driveway on the west side, due its inaccessibility in winter. Site work
will include removal of existing curbcut and driveway, installation of new
curbcut and parking area with PVC edging, construction of a low retaining wall
made of pressure-treated lumber between the front edge of the parking spaces
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
and the residence, installation of a 30” concrete sidewalk connecting the parking
area to the front door, new landscaping (including reseeding of removed
driveway area), and drainage improvements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning
District, and there is an existing parking lot directly to the west of the property.
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.
Brian Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Schroeder clarified for the record that the project does not involve multiple
residences and the parking addition would not, therefore, increase building
occupancy.
Buttner indicated that his clients are very sensitive to the needs and concerns of
the community regarding the addition of parking to the site. However, it was
deemed necessary given that the on-street parking situation for building
residents is so problematic, especially in the winter when 2 out of the 3 residents
are forced to park on the street. Buttner noted that the net increase in gravel
would only be 680 square feet and that the project would produce a significant
increase in the amount of natural landscaping.
Schroeder asked if the applicant had investigated the prospect of shared parking
with the church, to which Buttner responded that the church had indeed
expressed an interest in that, but would require it to be on a rental basis and it
did not agree to guarantee parking for the residents.
Rudan remarked that it appears a considerable amount of lawn space would be
lost, to which Kelly Seferlis responded that this would be mitigated in part by
the extension of the lawn onto the existing driveway.
Rudan indicated that she is also concerned about the prospect of ‘stacking’ of
parked vehicles.
Acharya remarked he is not sure why this project is being proposed, since there
appears to be sufficient on-street parking. Kelly Seferlis encouraged the Board
to keep in mind that on-street parking is particularly problematic in the winter,
when the streets are ploughed.
Schroeder asked whether any lighting is being proposed as part of the project, to
which Buttner responded, no.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Acharya inquired whether bike racks would be installed, to which Buttner
responded, no. Seferlis added that current residents store their bikes inside the
building.
Schroeder remarked that the proposed project is a legally conforming proposal
and that he sees no basis for denying it.
Marcham indicated she agrees that parking in the winter tends to be a real
problem and that this appears to be a solution.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
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 a 3-car parking area located at 215 Grandview
Avenue, submitted by John and Kelly Seferlis, applicants and owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to install a 3-car gravel parking area on the
east side of the single-family home to replace the existing driveway on the west side,
due its inaccessibility in winter. Site work will include removal of existing curbcut and
driveway, installation of new curbcut and parking area with PVC edging, construction
of a low retaining wall made of pressure-treated lumber between the front edge of the
parking spaces and the residence, installation of a 30” concrete sidewalk connecting the
parking area to the front door, new landscaping (including reseeding of removed
driveway area), and drainage improvements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District,
and there is an existing parking lot directly to the east of the property, and
WHEREAS: 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, 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 is, by way of
this resolution, declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
parking area at 215 Grandview Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder
Absent: Snyder
Public Hearing
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the
Public Hearing was opened.
No members of the public came forward to speak about the proposed project.
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the
Public Hearing was closed.
Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2:
(begins on following page)
26
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Approximately 12 CY of material
will be removed from the site to grade the parking area.
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
27
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
28
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
29
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): The project will increase
impervious surface by 1,000 SF, however paving will be
replaced with vegetation steepest portion of the site.
The project includes a drainage structure to handle
runoff from the proposed parking area.
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
30
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Project will remove approximately
1000 SF of lawn area. Existing paved drive will be
replaced with lawn new landscaping will be installed. Yes No
31
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): The parking area replaces lawn and
will be visible from the street in a residential
neighborhood. A large church parking area is directly
across the street from the property and an overflow area
is adjacent to the proposed parking area. A landscape
screen should be added to in front of the new parking
area
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
32
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
33
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: Creating off-street parking can create
parking demand.
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
34
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
35
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
36
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any): The parking area replaces lawn
and will be visible from the street in a residential
neighborhood. However, an existing church and
parking area are directly across the street from the
property and an overflow area is adjacent to the
proposed parking area. A landscape screen should be
added in front of the new parking area.
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have
expressed opposition to or rejected proposed action, or have
not been contacted.
Yes No
Objections to proposed action from within the community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder
Absent: Snyder
Adopted City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Resolution:
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 a 3-car parking area located at 215 Grandview Avenue, submitted by John and Kelly
Seferlis, applicants and owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to install a 3-car gravel parking area on the east side of the
single-family home to replace the existing driveway on the west side, due its inaccessibility in winter.
Site work will include removal of existing curbcut and driveway, installation of new curbcut and
parking area with PVC edging, construction of a low retaining wall made of pressure-treated lumber
between the front edge of the parking spaces and the residence, installation of a 30” concrete sidewalk
connecting the parking area to the front door, new landscaping (including reseeding of removed
37
driveway area), and drainage improvements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District, and there is
an existing parking lot directly to the east of the property, and
WHEREAS: 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,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on April 26,
2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant and Part 2, prepared by planning staff and the Planning Board, drawings
entitled “Site Plan – Existing Conditions,” “Site Plan – Proposed Parking Lot,” and one sheet of site
details containing a Parking Lot Section and Planter Retaining Wall detail, all date-stamped 4/4/11
and prepared by ADR Associates, 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 the proposed
project will result in no significant impacts 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: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: Acharya
Absent: Snyder
Adopted Preliminary and Final Resolution:
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 a 3-car parking area located at 215 Grandview Avenue, submitted by John and Kelly
Seferlis, applicants and owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to install a 3-car gravel parking area on the east side of the
single-family home to replace the existing driveway on the west side, due its inaccessibility in winter.
Site work will include removal of existing curbcut and driveway, installation of new curbcut and
parking area with PVC edging, construction of a low retaining wall made of pressure-treated lumber
between the front edge of the parking spaces and the residence, installation of a 30” concrete sidewalk
connecting the parking area to the front door, new landscaping (including reseeding of removed
driveway area), and drainage improvements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District, and there is
an existing parking lot directly to the east of the property, and
WHEREAS: 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,
and
38
WHEREAS: on April 26, 2011, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board declared itself
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 April 26,
2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on April 26,
2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by planning staff and the Planning Board, drawings entitled “Site
Plan – Existing Conditions,” “Site Plan – Proposed Parking Lot,” and one sheet of site details
containing a Parking Lot Section, Planter Retaining Wall detail, all date-stamped 4/4/11 and all
prepared by ADR Associates, 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 does hereby grant preliminary
and final site plan approval to the proposed 3-car parking area located at 215 Grandview Ave in the
city of Ithaca subject the following conditions:
i. Submission of revised drawings showing additional plantings, appropriate as a visual screen,
between the parking area and the street and replacement of the proposed boxwoods along the
rear fence line with a similar plant of a faster growth habit, and
ii. Submission of material sample of proposed PVC edging, and
iii. Approval in writing from the City of Ithaca Fire Department that the project meets City
standards for fire access.
In favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: Acharya
Absent: Snyder
Acharya indicated that since the project is a legally conforming site plan modification, the
Board as a whole is obligated to approve it. However, he also indicated that he believes this
is a good illustration of why the City needs to carefully re-examine parking needs and
associated zoning requirements.
Boothroyd also remarked that he does not particularly like the proposed changes. Given that
it is a legally conforming proposal, however, he is voting to approve.
39
D. Stewart Park Mayor’s Garden, Sketch Plan
Rick Manning proceeded to describe the salient details of the Mayor’s Garden (or Memorial
Flagpole Garden). The site was originally dedicated in 1921. In 1927, the local citizenry got
together to design the flagpole and the garden around it. The intent is to fully restore the
garden with the support of two grants, in time for its commemoration on July 24th for the 90th
anniversary of the park’s dedication. The vast majority of the work is anticipated to be done
by volunteers and the project would require Planning Board approval. Fundraising needs for
the project are estimated to be approximately $20,000, including $10,000 from a City starter
fund.
Schroeder confirmed the project would need to undergo site plan review at the Board’s next
regular meeting. He also suggested recycled granite for the work on the exterior of the site.
Manning indicated that would be a wonderful idea, although he would need to determine if
recycled granite would be light enough for volunteers working on the project.
Manning then proceeded to review the overall Stewart Park Rehabilitation Plan, which was
created with the intent of identifying short-term projects that can be completed at little or
moderate expense (and generally within two years).
• Cascadilla Boathouse: Phase one would involve creating a stairway to the
second floor to permit its use as a gymnasium by the Cascadilla Boat Club, with
subsequent phases designed to make the offices useable and fully restore the rest of
the structure.
• Small Pavilion: Initiated when the building was identified as unstable and
subsequently condemned, the design for the building’s renovation is well under way,
with reconstruction to be funded and organized by the City.
• Wharton Studio: The current plan is to create a silent film museum.
• Large Pavilion: Boat storage shall be installed.
• Concessions Building: Although discussion is still taking place about whether
or not the building should be saved, it has been suggested that a volunteer
community build be planned to replace the new roof and make some other minor
renovations to make it usable for special events.
• Children’s Playground: The current playground is dilapidated and needs to be
renovated. The plan is to make it more accessible and also move it away from
overhead utility lines.
Boothroyd remarked that fundraising efforts should be reasonably successful, given the
park’s popularity. Manning agreed. He added that the Tompkins County Strategic Tourism
40
Planning Board might also be approached to lend its support, as well as the Health Planning
Council and/or Friends of Stewart Park.
Manning concluded his comments by noting that the complete Sketches and Plans of Park
Building and Landscape Improvement Projects study would be presented in detail at a public
meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 16 in the Tompkins County Public Library Borg-
Warner Room.
Boothroyd departed at 7:32 p.m.
E. Gates Building, Cornell University, Sketch Plan (removed from agenda)
F. Means Restriction, Cornell University, Sketch Plan
Tim Marchell presented a brief overview of the means restriction project, noting that 29
people attempted suicide from 1990−2010 by jumping into East Hill gorges. Of the 26 fatal
incidents, more than half were Cornell University (13) or Ithaca College (1) students, with the
remaining twelve non-college students.
Boothroyd returned at 7:35 p.m.
Marchell remarked that means restriction should make it more difficult for suicidal
individuals to act on their impulses and reduce the risk of imitative suicides, as well as reduce
the risk of trauma to others and the risk of harm to rescue personnel. Marchell noted that
several studies indicate means restriction on bridges significantly reduces jumping suicides in
those locations. However, since means restriction at one site has been shown to increase
instances of jumping deaths at other sites, it would be more effective to employ means
restriction on a collective basis at multiple sites.
Andrew Magre the proceeded to walk the Board through a detailed presentation of the current
bridge design proposals submitted by the NADAAA architectural design firm (chosen for its
appreciation of the sensitivity of the project and its inventive and diverse portfolio). He
indicated the deadline for site plan review submission is May 31, 2011.
Magre indicated that three sets of potential materials were examined: metal bars or rods,
glass, and tensile steel mesh. Glass was ultimately rejected for both cost and maintenance
reasons; so all the design proposals presented to the Board incorporate either bars/rods or
tensile steel mesh.
Designs for the following bridges were presented:
• Cascadilla Creek Gorge — Stewart Avenue Bridge
• Fall Creek Gorge — Stewart Avenue Bridge
• Thurston Avenue — Bridge Fall Creek Gorge
• Stone Arch Bridge — Cascadilla Creek Gorge
41
• Trolley Bridge — Cascadilla Creek Gorge
• Beebe Dam Bridge — Fall Creek Gorge
• Suspension Bridge — Fall Creek Gorge
Schroeder remarked he is not persuaded of the necessity for fencing on the Trolley Bridge and
inquired into the number of fatalities associated with it, to which Magre responded that there were
none that he is aware of. Marchell noted that the value of installing fencing around the Trolley
Bridge was primarily to compensate for any displacement of suicide attempts as a result of other
bridge alterations. Schroeder indicated that he is concerned with the prospect of installing any kind
of fencing on the Stone Arch Bridge, since it is such an historic/traditional-looking edifice.
Magre noted that the tensile steel mesh netting design proposed for the Stone Arch Bridge is likely
the best option, as it would preserve the view.
Schroeder asked if cleaning is anticipated to be a significant problem for the steel mesh netting, to
which Magre responded that its retractable design should significantly facilitate cleaning.
Schroeder asked if steel mesh netting had been considered for the Trolley Bridge, to which Gilbert
Delgado responded, no, gorge attachments had not been considered for it.
Rudan asked if the consequences of public misuse or misbehavior had been considered in the design
of the steel mesh netting (e.g., large objects being dropped or thrown into the mesh). Marchell
responded that although such instances could not be avoided altogether, the likelihood of such
behavior should be considerably diminished by the fact that most of the mesh netting cannot be seen
from the bridge itself.
Discussion turned to the design of the Thurston Avenue bridge. Rudan remarked she regrets the
removal of the previous award-winning design, while Boothroyd asked if glass could not be re-
examined as an option for some portions of the design. Marchell responded glass had certainly been
considered, but there were too many maintenance issues (e.g., dirt, scratching, etc.), as well as cost
considerations.
Schroeder asked if steel mesh netting had been considered for the Thurston Avenue bridge, to which
Marchell responded, yes. Delgado added that, as a result of the heavier traffic along the bridge, the
design team specifically sought a means of introducing a positive unifying social element into the
bridge design.
Rudan asked who would be responsible for funding and handling the maintenance of the City
bridges, to which Marchell responded that this has yet to be finalized.
Schroeder stressed he would much prefer to see steel mesh netting on the Trolley Bridge; it seems a
far better alternative to the more intrusive proposed rod/bar enclosure. Delgado responded that the
proposed rod/bar enclosure could be given a lighter and more organic profile to allay some of these
kinds of concerns.
42
4. Zoning Appeal: #2848, Area Variance, 1108 N. Cayuga Street (removed from agenda)
5. New Business – Resolution to Approve Selection of Consultant for Preparation of Phase I
of Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Resolution to Approve Selection of Consultant for Preparation of Phase I of
Comprehensive Plan:
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Boothroyd:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971 and has since been
amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and
WHEREAS, while some objectives of the 1971 plan are still applicable, many are not, and both local
conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have changed dramatically since
then, resulting in a need to update the comprehensive plan to address present-day issues and anticipate
future ones, and
WHEREAS, the preparation of a comprehensive plan at this time provides a valuable opportunity to
coordinate with the Town of Ithaca as it updates its comprehensive plan as well as with Tompkins
County, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, and
local employer planning initiatives, either under way or recently completed, and
WHEREAS, the undertaking of a comprehensive plan at this time comes at the Mayor’s initiative, first
expressed in the 2004 “State of the City” address and later with the appointment of a “pre-planning”
committee in February 2007, consisting of the Mayor, four Common Council members, Department of
Planning and Development staff members, and, as of January 2008, two members of the Planning and
Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the “pre-planning” committee, convened by the Mayor to discuss issues related to the
preparation of a new comprehensive plan, discussed a two-phase planning process, where phase 1 would
entail the preparation of a city-wide vision statement that would set forth broad principles to guide future
planning and development throughout the city and its neighborhoods, and where phase 2 would include
the preparation of specific neighborhood plans and other distinct thematically-based plans, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 6, 2008, the Common Council approved a capital project in the
amount of $200,000 ($125,000 the first year and $75,000 the second year) to prepare a comprehensive
plan, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the N.Y.S. General City Law §28-a and the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code §4-23, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is responsible for the preparation and
recommendation of a new comprehensive plan to the Common Council, which has the exclusive power
to formally adopt the plan for the City, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board established the Comprehensive Plan Committee at its
meeting on July 22, 2008 and appointed a group of twenty-three members which includes representation
from the Common Council, the Planning and Development Board, and the Town of Ithaca, along with
43
representation from established City advisory boards and from other stakeholder groups intended to
reflect a broad and diverse range of community and neighborhood interests, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee, which is to work under the supervision of the
Planning and Development Board (which will provide broad oversight for the whole comprehensive
planning process), was charged by the Planning Board with several responsibilities regarding the
preparation of a new comprehensive plan, and these overall responsibilities include: (1) preparing and
approving a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) for a consultant team to assist with phase 1 of the
development of the proposed, new City of Ithaca comprehensive plan; and (2) reviewing the responses to
the RFQ, conducting interviews of consultant teams, and making a recommendation of a consultant team
to the Planning and Development Board, Mayor, and Common Council for their respective approvals,
and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee prepared and approved a RFQ in the spring of 2009,
and the City received responses from 20 consultant firms, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the responses and interviewed four firms in
October 2009, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended the Parsons Brinckerhoff Team to be
the consultant to prepare Phase I of the new comprehensive plan and the Planning and Development
Board, Common Council, and the Mayor selected that firm in November and December 2009, and
WHEREAS, there was a staffing change within the Parsons Brinckerhoff Team and after further
discussion there was mutual agreement not to proceed with a contract between the City and the firm, and
WHEREAS, the consultant selection process was reopened to three top firms identified by the
Comprehensive Plan Committee during the 2009 selection process, and
WHEREAS, a seven-member subcommittee of the Comprehensive Plan Committee conducted the
consultant interviews on March 2-3, 2011 and met again March 31, 2011, at which time the
subcommittee unanimously recommended the Clarion Associates Team for consideration by the larger
committee, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed and discussed the subcommittee’s
recommendation at its meeting on April 14, 2011;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Comprehensive Plan Committee, based on the reasons identified in the
“Comprehensive Plan Committee’s Consultant Recommendation to the Planning and Development
Board, Mayor, and Common Council,” dated April 14, 2011, does hereby recommend to the Planning
and Development Board, Mayor and Common Council that the Clarion Associates Team be selected as
the consultant to prepare phase 1 of the proposed, new comprehensive plan.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Schroeder
Absent: Kay, Snyder
44
6. Approval of Minutes
• January 25, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
• March 8, 2011 (Special Meeting)
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Schroeder
Absent: Kay, Snyder
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning & Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Schroeder asked BPW Liaison Acharya what his opinion of the Columbia Street pedestrian
bridge rail is, to which Acharya responded that he is ambivalent about the design, but is
tentatively leaning towards approval.
Schroeder remarked the design should really have remained the same as that in the original
proposal that was presented to the Planning Board.
Acharya noted that one problem he has with the proposal is that it appears to have moved
forward entirely out of the broader context of the means restriction discussion that has been
taking place.
Schroeder added that he finds it somewhat objectionable that the Planning Board’s positive
comments regarding the initial design appeared to have been accepted at the time, but were
then subsequently ignored. Schroeder very much liked the design without the eight-foot
fence. He believes the process should have been more carefully undertaken (as the Cornell
means restriction process has been).
Acharya agreed that he believes the process was poorly handled.
Rudan also agreed that the Board should at least have been informed of the changes.
Boothroyd concurred.
45
Acharya indicated he would raise the Board’s aforementioned concerns with the BPW.
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Rudan, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
46