HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-09-27DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
September 27, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd
(arrived 6:05 p.m.); Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan;
Meghan Thoreau
Board Members Absent: John Snyder
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Applicants Attending: Collegetown Terrace Apartments
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Noah Demarest, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect
Seneca Way Apartments
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller, P.C.;
Jeff Smetana, Developer;
Bryan Warren, Developer
Means Restriction on Seven Bridges
Andrew Magré, Associate University Architect,
Cornell University
Computer & Information Sciences Building
John Keefe, Capital Projects & Planning, Cornell University;
Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Lisa Nicholas suggested adding a “New Business” agenda item to address the upcoming
means restriction site visits. No objections were raised.
2. Privilege of the Floor
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
No members of the public stepped forward to speak.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments – Consideration of Approval for Building
Materials & Colors. 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.
Kim Michaels recapitulated the current status of the project and indicated the applicant
would now present the final building details, materials and colors, per conditions in the
final Phase 1 and Phase 2 site plan approval resolutions.
Chair Schroeder indicated it was his understanding that this evening the Planning Board
would only be reviewing and approving the colors and materials of the project, and not
the building details. Michaels replied she believes the Board now has enough information
to approve the building details, as well. Schroeder indicated this would be the subject of
subsequent discussion.
Alan Chimacoff noted the design team has worked assiduously over the past few months
in collaboration with local artist and Cornell professor, Stan Taft, to create a rich array of
colors and materials best suited to Ithaca and its unique geological and naturalistic
features.
Chimacoff presented an overview of the East Hill neighborhood and its relationship to
the project. He alluded to East Hill’s beautiful assortment of buildings with
complementary colors, architectural details, and styles, with no single dominant feature.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
Highly similar in appearance, East Hill’s windows might be loosely characterized as
standard American design, he said. Chimacoff observed that the replacement of so many
East Hill windows over the years has not detracted from the overall character of the
neighborhood. Other notable East Hill features include period elements, such as columns
and balustrades, which in many cases could easily be interchanged from one building to
the next.
Chimacoff indicated much of the inspiration for the project’s colors and details was
derived from specific East Hill buildings, like Grey Court and the Miller-Heller House
(originally William Henry Miller’s home). The other principal influence for the colors
and materials was the surrounding natural landscape, inspiring a variety of spring-like
and autumnal colors. The orientations and facades of certain East Hill buildings also
played a role in the selection of colors and materials (e.g., south-facing facades will
feature stucco-like features and stone, or stone-like, features). Chimacoff added that the
Llenroc stone being used on various site buildings will be installed with a certain
percentage of angled side joints (in addition to some vertical side joints) to make the
work affordable; this percentage will be similar to the percentage used on the newest set
of North Campus buildings, which were designed by Chimacoff. The project’s windows
will all be various models of Paradigm windows, while the wood details will comprise a
wide variety of different molded simulated wood designs, which will last significantly
longer than natural wood.
Chimacoff then walked through the salient features of each building, showing large high-
resolution color images of the principal facades, especially those facing public streets.
Rudan inquired into the nature of the roof panel seams on Building 1, to which
Chimacoff replied they will be individually flat-seamed by hand.
Schroeder remarked the dark red around the windows of Building #1 is a beautiful detail.
Chimacoff noted that particular feature comes straight from Casa Roma.
Schroeder asked if the two central towers flanking the front doors on the Building 2.1
façade was actually grey brick, similar in color to the stucco, as it appears on the
elevation, to which Chimacoff replied, no, this brick would actually be a yellow ochre
color. Schroeder said this was a significant improvement.
Rudan inquired into the nature of the railings shown on certain windows on Buildings 2.2
and 2.3, to which Chimacoff replied they would be metal and painted the same color as
the rest of the building,
Schroeder asked about the construction technique for the diamond-patterned mansard-lie
“roof” elements on the Building 2.x series, to which Chimacoff replied each diamond
piece would be flat-seamed.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Acharya asked whether the colored diamond-shaped wall coverings on the north facades
of the serpentine buildings could be changed, if they do not work. Chimacoff replied that
these could not realistically be changed, once installed.
Schroeder asked if, as previously agreed, the Entry Pavilion would feature warm interior
colors and a natural wood ceiling (indoors and outdoors), to which Chimacoff replied,
yes.
Thoreau asked what kinds of environmentally sensitive features, if any, the project would
include, to which Demarest replied that all the lighting is energy-efficient and the
individual units themselves are as energy-efficient as possible.
Schroeder asked if the intention was still to develop Building 3.3’s west façade as an art
piece, to which Chimacoff replied that the multicolored glass components and central
column shown previously had been eliminated, and that the design now focuses more on
mimicking local gorge stratifications. Schroeder said he thought the current design is far
less interesting than the one given site plan approval.
Acharya said he was ambivalent about the green-tiled diamond shown on the tall portion
of Building 3.4 and asked if it would integrate well into the neighborhood and
surroundings. Chimacoff responded, yes, the design was expected to integrate well into
its environment as an abstract mimicry of the natural surroundings. The buildings would,
in essence, be partially camouflaged into the landscape.
Schroeder added the taller portion of Building 3.4 would be largely hidden behind the
Building 4.x series, which include dense landscape plantings between them, and that the
Building 3 façades were designed to make the building appear to dissolve or
dematerialize in certain places. He expects it should blend reasonably well into the
surroundings, with the diamond-patterned areas visually breaking up the massing of the
building and — in the case of Buildings 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3 — blending to some degree with
the branching patterns of the trees to be planted between them and East State St. Cornish
added it is also important to remember that in real life no one will ever be in a position to
view all of Building 3 at once.
Schroeder asked if the colors for the George C. Williams House had been based on
research into the original historic colors, and Chimacoffs said, yes.
Rudan inquired into the materials for the proposed new rear addition to the Williams
House. Chimacoff replied they had not yet been selected. Schroeder noted that, per a
condition in the final site plan approval resolution for Phase 1, the applicant had to come
back to the Planning Board for approval of the design of this addition.
Schroeder said he thought the applicant’s presentation of materials and colors generally
looks very good. He repeated, however, his opinion that Building 3.3’s west façade,
intended as an art work, was now less attractive and distinctive than the version given
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
final site plan approval. Schroeder added that while he was initially concerned that
Building 2.1 would have a monochromatic gray appearance, the new information
presented this evening — that the central towers on the front façade of this building
would actually be clad in yellow ochre brick, providing a contrast with the building’s
gray stucco — completely resolved his concern. Chimacoff confirmed that yellow ochre
bricks would be used for these towers, and not the gray brick seen on the color Building
2.1 drawing presented at the meeting. Chimacoff also agreed to further explore the design
of the west end of Building 3.3, for approval at a future Planning Board meeting.
Marcham asked about maintenance issues regarding the stucco used on many of the
buildings, to which Chimacoff replied that the applicant will use a coloring product
specifically designed for stucco, so the coloring should endure reasonably well.
Owner John Novarr added that the primary maintenance concern associated with the
stucco is not so much its deterioration, but the accumulation of dirt and soot. He said
applicant is committed to regularly cleaning the stucco with a high-pressure washer.
Marcham asked if the metal siding or windows would ever need to be repainted, to which
Novarr replied, no.
Schroeder said he would like the following statements incorporated into the minutes:
(1) The applicant has stated that yellow ochre brick would be used on the central
towers flanking the front entrance of Building 2.1, rather than the grey brick shown in
the renderings;
(2) The applicant has agreed more work will be done to enrich the design of the west
façade of Building 3.3, which was always intended to be an art work, for future
review by the Planning Board;
(3) The applicant has agreed to submit building details for a number of the project’s
architectural elements for future approval by the Board.
Chimacoff agreed to the above statements.
With the understanding that building details would be considered for approval at a future
meeting, Schroeder asked Board members if there was agreement that the applicant had
met the site plan review condition that the Board approve the project’s materials and
colors. All Board members nodded their assent.
Schroeder said he and Planning Department staff will come up with a specific list of
building details for the applicant to provide to the Board.
B. Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant for
Owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC. Consideration of Preliminary
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
Approval.
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. 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 curb cut into two curb cuts, 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 curb lawn 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 for which
environmental review was completed in March 2011. As mitigation for potential impacts
identified during Environmental Review, the applicant has redesigned the northern façade
and interior of the building, removed pedestrian access along the northern portion of the
site, and is required to place a permanent deed restriction on the property so that no
building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the footprint of the
currently proposed building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by the City of Ithaca
zoning ordinance, in effect on March 29, 2011. This project has received variances for
height, setbacks, and parking, and requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Trowbridge updated the Board on the project’s site plan, which now includes a row of
light columns (with even tops) along Seneca Way to provide definition along the
curvature of this street. Because the lower portion of the Challenge Industries building’s
walls will remain and function as site retaining walls, more existing vegetation at the
north end of the site can now be preserved.
Along Seneca Way, more stalwart cultivars will be planted in lieu of the trees in the
original proposal. On the North end, fast-growing indigenous canopy trees have been
added to provide visual screening there. Pedestrian-scale bollard lights have also been
added to the site; these will be in the same design vocabulary to the proposed light
columns along Seneca Way.
Trowbridge noted a planting plan has also been generated for the roof terrace, featuring
contorted willows, small trees, and shrubs (partly visible from the ground), as well as a
semi-evergreen vine to grow on the proposed trellis.
Steve Hugo introduced his presentation by noting that one of the Planning Board’s
primary requests had been to reduce the scale and break up the massing of the building’s
north elevation, which faces a residential neighborhood. In response, the building here is
also now broken up into volumes of different heights and setbacks from the north
property line. The design team has also used colors and recessed elements to visually
break up this facade, and has added mansard roofs here at two levels.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Cornish inquired about the air-handling system, to which Hugo replied that HVAC
systems will be installed in each unit, eliminating the need for air-handling on the roof
(which will only have very small fans, unseen from ground level).
Schroeder remarked though the mansard roof elements, now shown with vertical seams,
should have a pattern more consistent with the residential neighborhood they face.
Schroeder also said a dark brown base for the building (as shown in earlier drawings)
would also be more appropriate than the currently depicted gray base. Hugo replied that
the base will actually be clad in terra-cotta-colored brick.
Thoreau asked if any environmentally sensitive features are included in the design (e.g.,
fixtures, energy-efficient systems, etc.). Trowbridge replied that more surface-level
porosity would be one such feature, to which Hugo added that the building will also have
low-albedo roofing, high-performance windows, and sunshades.
Demarest noted that another important environmentally sensitive feature is the project’s
structural load-bearing system, which will require less steel than a conventional building.
The building will also incorporate thinner floor slabs, significantly reducing the amount
of concrete required for each floor; and the exterior finish system mentioned earlier is
light-weight and will serve as an excellent insulation system.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval:
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 the Seneca Way Apartments, to be located at 140
Seneca Way, by Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, applicant for owner, Fall Creek
Development of Ithaca, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant’s original proposal was to construct a 5-story mixed-use
building with 63,400 total gross square feet and a 14-space basement level parking area
on the 0.78-acre site. The building proposal included 9,311 SF of first floor commercial
space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd-5th floors.
Other proposed amenities included a fitness center and a roof terrace, and
WHEREAS: proposed site development includes two surface parking lots with a total of
41 spaces, landscaping, and a paved entry plaza. The applicant proposes 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 curb lawn along the length of the property. Site
development requires 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. The project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
and has received variances for height, parking, and loading, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
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 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, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation, (NYS DOT) the City of
Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW), and the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), all involved agencies, consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the applicant’s original Site Plan Review Application consisted of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, and the following drawings, contained
within the Site Plan Review Application Report, dated 12/22/10, prepared by Holt
Architects and Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP: “Figure 9: Basement Floor Plan;” “Figure 10:
First Floor Plan – Commercial;” “Figure 11: 2nd-4th Floor Plan;” “Figure 12: 5th Floor
Plan;” “Figure 13: Roof Plan;” “Figure 14: Northwest View;” “Figure 15: Seneca Way
View;” “Figure 16: Residential District;” “Figure 17: South Elevation;” “Figure 18: West
Elevation;” “Figure 19: East Elevation, Back Yard Viewshed;” “Figure 21: Site Plan;”
“Figure 27: Northeast View;” “Figure 29: Proposed Seneca Way Section;” “Figure 30:
Proposed Seneca Way Elevation;” “Figure 34: View from East State Street – Proposed;”
and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins
County Planning Department, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYS DEC), and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: in a letter dated March 22, 2011, from Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning
and Community Sustainability to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined
that the project might have inter-community or county-wide impacts in regard to ingress
and egress from the proposed parking lots, and
WHEREAS: in a letter dated February 4, 2011 from Joseph A. Flint, Acting Director of
Planning and Program Management for the NYS DOT to John Schroeder, Planning
Board Chair, the NYS DOT requested additional information about the project and
identified concerns regarding line of sight and sidewalk issues, 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: neighbors in the East Hill Historic District, located to the north and east of
the project site, have expressed concerns regarding traffic, views, and access to light and
air due to the proposed building height, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
WHEREAS: Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF, based on the original proposed project and
prepared by planning staff on 2/9/11 and revised on 3/16/11 (Part 2) and prepared by
planning staff on 2/10/11 (Part 3), both identified potentially significant impacts on
aesthetic resources, historic resources, quality of life, and neighborhood growth and
character, and
WHEREAS: in response to the potentially significant impacts as identified above, the
applicant proposed the following revisions to the project: (1) relocation of the two
northernmost one-bedroom apartments on the 5th floor to the southernmost part of the 5th
floor, originally proposed to be the fitness center and terrace, thereby lowering the
building height of the north end by one story; (2) addition of mansard roof elements on
the north end of the 4th floor and stair tower which face the historic neighborhood, with
continued design work on the north end of the building to occur during site plan review to
improve its contextuality with the adjacent neighborhood; (3) the new lower roof on the
north end of the building is to be inaccessible to building tenants; (4) relocation of the
northern stair tower from the northernmost end of the building to the newly proposed
north façade of the 5th floor; (5) removal of the originally proposed walkway along the
north façade and at the northeast corner of the building and replacement with
landscaping; (6) removal of proposed street trees in response to line-of-sight comments;
and (7) applicant’s agreement to place a permanent deed restriction on the property so
that no building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the footprint of
the currently proposed building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by the City of
Ithaca zoning ordinance in effect on March 29, 2011, and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2011, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate
the following revised drawings illustrating the above revisions:
a set of 29 drawings handed out at the March 22, 2011 Planning Board meeting and dated
3/22/11 and prepared by Holt Architects, P.C.; a “Schematic Site Plan (L100),” prepared
by Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP; “Truck Turning Diagram (L000),” “Entry Floor Plan
(AP-2),” “First Floor Plan (AP-3),” “2nd-4th Floor Plan (AP-4),” “5th Floor Plan (AP-5),”
“Roof Plan (AP-9),” and “North Elevation (AP-18),” all prepared by Holt Architects,
P.C. and all dated 3/24/11, and other application materials; and the following revised
environmental review documents: Part 2 of the FEAF, as further revised by the Planning
Board on 3/29/11 (based on the original project design) and Part 3 of the FEAF, as
further revised by planning staff on 3/17/11 and by the Planning Board on 3/29/11
(reflecting the revised project design), and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2011, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
determined, by a vote of five in favor and two opposed, that the proposed project, with
the revisions stated above, would result in no significant impacts on the environment, and
WHEREAS: on September 27, 2011, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as
adequate the following revised drawings entitled: “Demolition Plan (C101),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (C102),” “Utility Plan (C103),” “Utility Details (C104),”
“Planting Plan (L001),” “Schematic Site Plan (L100),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading
Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Details (L501),” all prepared by Trowbridge
& Wolf Landscape Architects, LLP and dated 9/14/11; and “Entry Floor Plan (A1),”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
“First Floor Plan – Commercial (A2),” “Second, Third, and Forth Floor Plan –
Residential (A3),” Fifth Floor Plan (A4),” “Roof Plan (A5),” “East and North Elevations
(A6),” “South Elevation (A7),” and “West Elevation (A8),” all prepared by Holt
Architects, P.C. and dated 9/14/11, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary
Site Plan Approval to the Seneca Way Project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission demonstrating proof of legal establishment of a permanent deed
restriction (with language and map approved by the City Attorney and the
Planning Board), as described in the fifteenth “WHEREAS” clause of this
resolution, and
ii. Submission of a landscape plan for the roof terrace, and
iii. Submission of a revised north elevation, showing shadowing created by
recessed and protruding panels, for approval by the Planning Board, and
iv. Submission and approval of site details, including building materials, A/C
louvers, sun shade elements, mansard roof, site lighting, exterior furnishings
(including fence at East property line), paving materials, signage, and
v. Submission of revised building elevations, showing intended terra cotta color
(rather than gray color) at base of building, and
vi. Submission of construction staging plan, and
vii. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer, and
viii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: Marcham
Absent: Snyder
C. Means Restriction on Seven Bridges – Update on Vertical Fencing & New Visual
Simulations
Andrew Magré said the applicant has made multiple refinements to the tensile mesh and
abutment designs in response to the Board’s past comments. He said a mock-up of the
horizontal net installations will be available for viewing in the future at the Fire
Department training facility. He then proceeded to walk through some of the changes and
salient details of each of the bridge designs:
Thurston Avenue Bridge
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
• Net design remains the same, but vertical fencing has been reduced along
abutments and bridge approaches.
• New vertical fencing below bridge deck level will merge with Cornell Plantations
fencing.
• Small vertical panels added to strategic locations at both ends of the net.
• Distance from bridge deck level to nets needs to be about 15 feet.
Stewart Avenue Bridge Over Cascadilla Creek
• Removed vertical fencing.
• Added small vertical panels at ends of net in strategic locations.
• Closed access to bridge structure below bridge.
Schroeder asked if it would not be preferable to add vertical panels to all four
ends of the bridge net, to which Magré replied he had actually explored this, but
the design team concluded it would be best to only add the panels in those places
that genuinely require them.
Stewart Avenue Bridge Over Fall Creek
• Raised strut system to 15 feet below bridge deck level.
• Small vertical panels at all four ends of the net.
• Employ existing Cornell Plantations fence and former Sagan property fence.
Suspension Bridge
• Vertical net proposal unchanged.
• Employ existing Cornell Plantations fences on all four sides.
Beebe Footbridge
• Small vertical panels at ends of the net.
• Employs existing fences, except that one fence above the former Hydraulics Lab
will be moved further downhill toward the gorge rim, thereby opening up views.
Trolley Bridge
• Focus on protecting central portion of bridge (hence, much less net is currently
proposed below the bridge).
• No need for fencing along sides, given gentle slope.
• Small vertical panels at all four corners of the net.
Stone Arch Bridge
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
• Due to complications associated with rigging at top of arch, this rigging was
pushed down to 15 feet below bridge deck.
• Employs existing fences.
Cornish said she very much appreciates all the changes that have been made at the
Board’s request. Schroeder agreed, noting that the project has improved in many ways.
Two site visits (to be led by the applicant) were scheduled to provide Board members
with an opportunity to view all the bridges. The first will occur at noon on Friday,
October 7, and the second at noon on Friday, October 14. The latest drawings will be
provided to Board members during these site visits.
D. Computer & Information Sciences Building, 107 Hoy Road, Cornell University
Campus, Cornell University Applicant & Owner – Declaration of Lead Agency and
Public Hearing. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with
103,000 gross SF on a 56,000 SF building site, located at the southeast corner of Hoy and
Campus Roads, and the expansion of an existing motorcycle parking lot adjacent to
Barton Hall to incorporate 3 accessible spaces. The building will have a steel structure
and will be composed entirely of a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50%
spandrel glass. The exterior of the curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless
steel panels, folded along the exterior to provide a 3-dimensional surface, and allow for
both daylight penetration and sun shading. Site work will require the demolition of the
existing 51-car surface parking area, walkways, and vegetation, including 13 mature
trees, and the construction of a drop-off & delivery area, with a curb cut on Hoy Road, to
the south of the building, sidewalks along Hoy and Campus Roads, a pull-off area on
Campus Road, an entry plaza, landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in
the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §175-4 B.(1)(b) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act §617.4(b)(6)(iv) and is subject to environmental review.
Keefe described the following features of the project:
• Replacing as many trees as possible.
• Concealing Grumman Squash Court building.
• Incorporating green space to separate CIS building from Hoy Field, while
maintaining access to the field.
• Incorporating porous concrete pavement.
• Employing underground retaining structure.
• Ability to use large covered space at west end of building for events.
• Adding two small parking lots near Barton Hall.
• Will include ADA accessible access from nearby parking garage.
• Building’s massing will be medium and not overpowering.
• Front “strata” hardscape is intended to be naturalistic and mimic local gorges.
• Building will be essentially a glass box, enveloped in part by a perforated metal
skin.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
• Roof will be almost entirely flat, with no stacks or other major protuberances.
Acharya said the large covered front open space would be ideal for a large number of
bike racks, to which Keefe replied this had in fact already been planned. Acharya asked
if solar panels had been considered for the roof, to which Keefe replied, no. The building
as a whole, however, is intended to be a LEED Silver certified building, so it will have
many energy efficient features (e.g., chilled beam technology). Delgado added the
building also boasts a highly efficient glass system.
Keefe noted that the metal cladding not only contributes to the aesthetic qualities of the
building, but also provides an important energy-saving and sun-screening function. The
glass curtain wall system is also highly efficient. Delgado added the perforated metal
panels are custom-configured to account for the angles of daily solar illumination,
heightening their efficiency.
Schroeder said that the majority of the submitted three-dimensional images appear blurry
and/or grainy. He asked if the applicant could provide clearer three-dimensional images
of all the façades, to allow the board to better understand the intended appearance of the
building. Keefe said this would be done.
Delgado remarked the building would look radically different at night. In that case,
Schroeder replied, it would also be helpful to see some night renderings.
Acharya reiterated his desire to see solar panels incorporated into the project design and
encouraged the applicant to explore this issue further. Delgado agreed to do so.
Rudan said she appreciates the stratified naturalistic appearance of the sculptured front
hardscape area; however, this area appears too similar to stairs. To the casual observer,
she said, the “strata” hardscape would essentially “read” like stairs and would all too
likely be used as such.
Delgado replied that Rudan’s concern about the sculptured front entrance area should
largely be mitigated by its scale; however, he agreed to re-examine this aspect of the
project.
Adopted 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 the Computer and Information Sciences
(CIS) Building on Cornell University Campus in the City of Ithaca by Cornell University,
Applicant/Owner, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with 103,000
gross SF on a 56,000 SF building site located at the southeast corner of Hoy and Campus
Roads and the expansion of an existing motorcycle parking lot adjacent to Barton Hall to
incorporate 3 accessible spaces. The building will have a steel structure and will be
composed entirely of a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel
glass. The curtain wall exterior will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels,
folded along the exterior to provide a 3-dimensional surface, and allow for both daylight
penetration and sun shading. Site work will require demolition of the existing 51-car
surface parking area, walkways, and vegetation, including 13 mature trees, and the
construction of a drop-off and delivery area, with a curb cut on Hoy Road, to the south of
the building, sidewalks along Hoy and Campus Roads, a pull-off area on Campus Road,
an entry plaza, landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the U-1
Zoning district, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §175-4 B.(1)(b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
§617.4(b)(6)(iv) 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 does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan
approval for the proposed CIS Building, located on the Cornell University Campus in the
City of Ithaca.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Public Hearing
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
No member of the public came forward to speak about the proposed project.
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Boothroyd, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2861 ― 106 Worth Street: Special Permit
Appeal of Randi Beckmann for a special permit as required by Section 325-8, Column 3,
permitted accessory use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In May of 2000, the
applicant received a BZA variance to remove an existing garage and construct an
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
addition to the single-family home located at 106 Worth Street. The addition was
originally constructed to provide more room to accommodate additional family members.
The applicant now proposes to use the addition as an accessory apartment and provide
long-term rentals to visiting scholars, college parents, or visiting neighborhood family
members. The existing addition meets the square footage requirements for an accessory
apartment as required by Section 325-10D(4), having 30% of the maximum 33⅓% of the
total habitable floor area of the building. The property has existing deficiencies in
percentage of lot coverage by building, front yard dimension, and side yard dimension
that will not be exacerbated by the proposed use.
The property is located in an R-1b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-10 requires a variance be granted for a special permit,
before a building permit may be issued.
The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal. The
Board recommends approval, provided any neighborhood concerns have been addressed.
Appeal #2862 ― 222 Linn Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Kathleen Connelly on behalf of the owner Susan Shrong for an area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 10, percentage of lot coverage of the zoning ordinance. The
applicant proposes to remove multiple additions on the southwest corner of the building
and construct a new two-story addition on the property located at 222 Linn Street. The
applicant would like to construct the addition within the squared-off area of the existing
additions’ footprints and utilize the additional space. The footprint of the new addition
will be approximately 15 square feet larger than that of the existing structures and will
increase the existing deficiency from 41.6% to 42.1% of the 35% maximum lot coverage
required by the ordinance. The property is located on a corner lot and has existing
deficiencies in both front yards that will not be exacerbated by the proposed addition.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building
permit may be issued.
The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal.
They do, however, feel that the design of the addition — featuring large, mostly blank,
walls and irregular window placement — needs further development to be compatible
with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
5. New Business
A. November & December Meeting Schedule
Nicholas noted the Board may like to consider altering its November and December
meeting schedule at this time, as has been done in the past, to account for people’s
holiday schedules. After some discussion, the Board decided to leave the November
meeting schedule unchanged, but move the regular meeting, originally scheduled for
December 27, 2011, to December 20, 2011.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
B. Comprehensive Plan Committee
Schroeder explained the current status of the Comprehensive Plan Committee and work
on the new comprehensive plan. Board members then reviewed the draft “Planning and
Development Board Resolution Appointing & Charging a Reconstituted City of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan Committee.” Brief discussion ensued. It was agreed a replacement
for Mary Tomlan (who had announced her resignation from the existing Comprehensive
Plan Committee earlier in the day) would need to be identified, preferably someone with
a historic preservation and cultural resources background / perspective. Historic Ithaca’s
Executive Director, Alphonse Pieper, was recommended for the vacancy slot, if he is
willing to serve. He, like Tomlan, lives on East Hill.
Adopted Resolution for Appointing and Charging a Reconstituted Comprehensive
Plan Committee:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION
APPOINTING & CHARGING A RECONSTITUTED
CITY OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE
— approved at September 27, 2011 meeting of City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board —
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
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 Department
staff members and, as of January 2008, two members of the Planning and Development
Board, and
WHEREAS: 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 with Tompkins County, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council and local employer planning initiatives either under way
or recently completed, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
WHEREAS: it is important that the procedure for creating this new comprehensive plan
be properly grounded in applicable state and local authorizing legislation, so that the
resulting plan will have the full confidence of the community and be able to withstand
any potential court challenges, and
WHEREAS: on April 29, 2008, the Planning and Development Board passed a resolution
titled “Planning and Development Board Resolution Concerning Procedures for Creating
New City Comprehensive Plan,” setting out its understanding of the proper procedure as
expressed in state and local law, and
WHEREAS: the applicable authorizing legislation at the state level is N.Y.S. General
City Law §28-a, titled “City comprehensive plan,” which contains the following
language:
“5. Preparation. The legislative body of the city, or by resolution of such body, the
planning board or a special board, may prepare a proposed city comprehensive plan and
amendments thereto. In the event the planning board or special board is directed to
prepare a proposed comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, such board shall, by
resolution, recommend such proposed plan or amendment to the legislative body of the
city,” [emphasis added] and
WHEREAS: the applicable authorizing legislation at the local level is contained within
City of Ithaca Municipal Code §4-23, titled “Planning and Development Board,” which
states in paragraph B., titled “Powers and duties,” that among the Planning and
Development Board’s “powers and duties” is:
“2. Initiating, preparing and adopting a comprehensive plan for the city for subsequent
adoption by the Common Council, with staff service provided by the Director of Planning
and Development.
3. Reviewing periodically, preparing and adopting amendments to the comprehensive
plan for subsequent adoption by the Common Council,” and
WHEREAS: the City Attorney has stated he believes the above City of Ithaca Municipal
Code language constitutes Common Council’s selection of the N.Y.S. General City Law
option (underlined, for emphasis, above) whereby the legislative body of a city may
direct the planning board to prepare that city’s comprehensive plan and recommend said
plan to the city’s legislative body for adoption, and
WHEREAS: the City Attorney has further stated that, under this procedure, the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board would prepare and recommend a new
comprehensive plan to the Common Council, which would have the exclusive power to
formally adopt the plan for the City; thus, the language in the Municipal Code about the
Planning Board “adopting” the plan is limited to the sense in which the Planning Board
internally adopts any resolution or decision, and
WHEREAS: the City Attorney has further stated his opinion that it would be proper,
under this procedure, for the Planning and Development Board to appoint and charge a
broad-based Comprehensive Plan Committee, which would include Common Council
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
members and representatives of community stakeholder groups, to directly supervise the
ongoing preparation of the new comprehensive plan, with this Comprehensive Plan
Committee periodically reporting back to the Planning Board, and with the resulting plan,
if accepted by the Planning Board, to be recommended by it to Common Council for
Council’s adoption; and
WHEREAS: the procedure outlined above was endorsed by Common Council in a
resolution titled “Reaffirmation of Procedure for Creating a New Comprehensive Plan for
the City of Ithaca,” which was approved at the June 4, 2008 Common Council meeting,
and
WHEREAS: the “preplanning” committee convened by the Mayor in February 2007 to
discuss issues related to the preparation of a new comprehensive plan has 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 neighborhoods, and 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, 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 the comprehensive plan, and
WHEREAS: in early summer of 2008, after several months of consideration, and after
public notice allowing members of the public to place their own names into
consideration, the “preplanning” committee recommended to the Planning Board, as
potential members of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, a specific group of individuals
which included representation from the Common Council, the Planning and Development
Board and the Town of Ithaca, along with 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: on July 22, 2008, the Planning and Development Board—desiring to
proceed with the creation of a new City comprehensive plan by building upon the work
accomplished to by the “preplanning” committee while also adhering to the
comprehensive plan preparation procedure set out by the N.Y.S. General City Law §28-a
and the City of Ithaca Municipal Code §4-23 as described above — adopted a resolution
that:
(1) appointed a City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee comprised of 22 voting
members (including three Common Council members and two Planning Board members)
plus a non-voting liaison from the Town of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan Committee, all
as recommended by the aforementioned “preplanning” committee, and
(2) charged this City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee (working under the
supervision of the Planning Board, which is to provide broad oversight for the whole
comprehensive planning process) with the following responsibilities regarding the
preparation of a proposed, new comprehensive plan:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
(a.) 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;
(b.) Reviewing the responses to the RFQ, conducting interviews of consultant teams
and making a recommendation of a consultant team to the Planning Board,
Mayor and Common Council for their respective approval;
(c.) Overseeing the preparation of a draft of phase 1 of the proposed, new
comprehensive plan, by coordinating the work of staff and the selected consultant
team, ensuring the level of public outreach and engagement necessary to reflect
community goals, and making progress reports to the Planning Board and
Common Council (periodically and as requested); and
(d.) Approving a draft of phase 1 of the proposed, new comprehensive plan for
review and acceptance (with possible modification) by the Planning Board,
recommendation by the Planning Board to Common Council, review and
approval (with possible modification) by Common Council’s Planning and
Economic Development Committee, and adoption by Common Council, and
WHEREAS: the Comprehensive Plan Committee subsequently accomplished tasks (a.)
and (b.) above, resulting in the selection of Parsons Brinckerhoff as the proposed lead
comprehensive plan consultant, and then — after unexpected subsequent events,
including substantial personnel and project team turnover at the originally selected firm
— the subsequent selection of Clarion Associates as the proposed lead comprehensive
plan consultant, and
WHEREAS: concurrently with the beginning of the phase 1 planning process with the
new consultant team, the Planning and Development Board wishes to reconstitute the
City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee as a somewhat smaller committee,
consisting of both continuing and newly-appointed members, that continues to reflect a
broad and diverse range of community and neighborhood interests, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby appoints a
reconstituted City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee comprised of the following
individuals:
Common Council members
(1) Jennifer Dotson
(2) Deborah Mohlenhoff
Planning and Development Board members
(3) Govind Acharya
(4) John Schroeder
Other members
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
(5) Cody Austern-Aceto
(6) Rajesh Bhaskaran
(7) Fernando de Aragón
(8) Jutta Dotterweich
(9) Kirby Edmonds
(10) Gary Ferguson
(11) Chad Hoover
(12) David Kay
(13) Graham Kerslick
(14) Rob Morache
(15) Ayana Richardson
(16) Larry Roberts
(17) Thomas Shelley
(18) Replacement for Mary Tomlan
(19) Wendy Wallitt
Town of Ithaca representative (non-voting, but would become a voting position if the
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee were to agree to allow the
corresponding City of Ithaca representative on its committee to have voting rights)
(20) Joe Wetmore
and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee shall choose one
person from amongst its membership to serve as a City representative on the Town of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee, under the
supervision of the Planning Board (which will provide broad oversight for the whole
comprehensive planning process), be charged with the following responsibilities
regarding the preparation of a proposed, new comprehensive plan:
(a.) Overseeing the preparation of a draft of phase 1 of the proposed, new
comprehensive plan, by coordinating the work of staff and the selected consultant
team, ensuring the level of public outreach and engagement necessary to reflect
community goals, and making progress reports to the Planning Board and
Common Council (periodically and as requested); and
(b.) Approving a draft of phase 1 of the proposed, new comprehensive plan for
review and acceptance (with possible modification) by the Planning Board,
recommendation by the Planning Board to Common Council, review and
approval (with possible modification) by Common Council’s Planning and
Economic Development Committee, and adoption by Common Council.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
C. Water Plant Roundtable — October 12
Nicholas informed the Board that a presentation, discussion, and opportunity for public
comment has been scheduled regarding the proposed designs for the rebuilding of the
City Water Plant on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Second Floor
Conference Room, City Hall. City staff and the O’Brien & Gere design team will give a
short presentation and make themselves available for discussion and questions. The
announcement was distributed to the Common Council, Conservation Advisory Council,
the Natural Areas Commission, the Board of Public Works, City neighborhood
associations, and select City staff.
Cornish said this public meeting was arranged because the City had promised members
of the public that a public outreach effort would be made after completion of
environmental review for the water plant.
Nicholas noted the water plant design team will submit its site plan review application
after this public meeting.
D. Means Restriction Site Visits
This agenda item was accomplished during the bridge “means restriction” site plan
review project discussion earlier in the meeting.
6. Old Business
A. Amendments to Parking Ordinance
Schroeder made a number of suggestions for revising Section 325-20 of the zoning
ordinance, which deals with off-street parking, with the intention of (1) clarifying that
this section must be understood within the context of the zoning ordinance as a whole,
including the District Regulations Chart, (2) eliminating the ability under the “Setback
Compliance Method” to build parking areas in required minimum side yard and rear
yards (as these are specified in the District Regulations Chart), and (3) clarifying that the
“Landscaping Compliance Method” is not as-of-right, but rather at the discretion of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Planning Board. Members of the
Board expressed their approval of these proposed revisions.
Schroeder indicated that these proposed revisions would represent the Board’s
contribution to review of Section 325-20 also being undertaken by Building
Commissioner Phyllis Radke and City Attorney Dan Hoffman.
Acharya inquired about the timeline for the ordinance revisions, to which Cornish replied
that if the Planning Board recommends a specific ordinance text (after input from Radke
and Hoffman), the ordinance revisions would then go before the Planning and Economic
Development Committee for its own review and approval. The draft ordinance would
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
then return one final time to the Planning Board for its recommendations before the
Planning and Economic Development Committee sends a proposed resolution on to
Common Council.
B. Project Review Committee Rotation
Boothroyd said he would be able to participate in the October 18, 2011 Project Review
Committee meeting.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Due to lateness of hour, no report.
B. Director of Planning & Development
No report.
A. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.