Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-10-25Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Planning and Development Board Minutes October 25, 2011 Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Snyder; Meghan Thoreau 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: Seneca Way Apartments Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP; Jeff Smetana, Developer; Bryan Warren, Developer Fairfield Inn Larry Fabbroni, Sr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Larry Fabbroni, Jr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Jim Stephenson, Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Ajay Patel, Developer and Property Manager; Bill Manos, Restaurateur and Property Owner Computer & Information Sciences Building John Keefe, Capital Projects & Planning, Cornell University; Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University; Andrew Magré, Associate University Architect, Cornell University Aurora Street Dwelling Circle Susan Cosentini, Cosentini Construction, Inc. Johnson’s Boatyard Site Housing Project John Snyder, John Snyder Architects; Kate Krueger, John Snyder Architects; Ray Lefebvre, John Snyder Architects; Jeff Cleveland, Johnson’s Boatyard Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) Parking Lot Rick Manning, Landscape Architect; Eric Levine, Attorney, AFCU 1 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Lisa Nicholas suggested adding an “Old Business” agenda item to discuss the proposed Design Review Ordinance that was disseminated to the Board. No objections were raised. 2. Privilege of the Floor No members of the public stepped forward to speak. 3. Site Plan Review A. Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC. Consideration of Final 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 referred the Board to his October 13 cover letter delineating all the changes made to the project since the September meeting. The Board was provided with three updated drawings (two perspectives and a north building elevation), the latter showing additional spandrel glass and reduced transparent glass in the strip corresponding to the interior central hallway; the Project Review Committee requested this change to reduce impacts on the East Seneca Street neighborhood. Marcham asked whether light columns were still intended along the curve of Seneca Way, and Trowbridge said they were. Schroeder inquired about the color of the glow of 2 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting these light columns. Trowbridge responded that the light color would in all probability be white. Schroeder said that the Board would assume that the light columns would have a white glow, but that if the applicant subsequently preferred a different light color, that should be brought back to the Board for its review. Trowbridge said there are a few outstanding issues to be resolved. The deed restriction, for example, needs to be finalized after further consultation with City staff and the Planning Board. Trowbridge noted some questions had also been raised about the construction staging plan. He indicated construction would begin in the parking lot adjacent to True Insurance; after the demolition, construction would be moved to the East parking lot. Trowbridge noted he received e-mails from both Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson and Transportation Engineer Tim Logue: Gibson signed off on the modified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, while Logue asked for more details about the sidewalk and the curb. Schroeder asked if the Fire Department had approved the project, to which Nicholas replied, yes. Rudan asked about the materials and color of the mansard roof, to which Hugo replied it would be a dark bronze color and composed of individual diamond-shaped metal “shingles.” Marcham said she remains concerned with the project’s potential impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic (e.g., at the Tuning Fork). She asked for a formal submission of the planned pavement markings and other details pertaining to through traffic, entrances, and exits. Trowbridge replied that documentation had already been submitted several months before, and this had been reviewed and approved by Logue, and also reviewed by the DOT. Schroeder stated that the project has undergone many significant improvements since its inception. He is very pleased with the extent to which the applicant has been willing to make a variety of changes, such as relocating the apartments from the north end of the top level and altering the north façade to improve compatibility with the East Seneca Street neighborhood. He appreciates all the hard work and dialogue that has gone into the project. Schroeder remarked it is also particularly encouraging to see new housing and commercial space being built in the heart of downtown. Adopted Resolution for Final 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 3 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 has received variances for height, parking, and loading, and 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, P.C. 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 were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and WHEREAS: in a letter dated March 22, 2011, from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning and Community Sustainability to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined the project might have inter-community or county-wide impacts in regard to ingress and egress from the proposed parking lots, and 4 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 WHEREAS: Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF, based on the original proposed project and prepared by Planning staff on 2/9/11, 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 5 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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),” “First Floor Plan – Commercial (A2),” “Second, Third, and Fourth 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, and WHEREAS: on September 27, 2011, the Planning and Development Board granted 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 grey 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, and WHEREAS: on October 25, 2011, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate the following revised drawings entitled: “Staging Plan (C100),” “Utility Plan (C103),” “Utility Details (C104),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Details (L501),” all prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, LLP and dated 10/13/11, and 6 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting “First Floor Plan – Commercial (A2),” “Fifth Floor Plan (A4),” “Roof Plan (A5),” “East and North Elevations (A6),” “North Elevation – Enlarged (A15),” “North Elevation – 3D View (A16),” “South Elevation (A7),” and “West Elevation (A8),” and “3-Dimensional Views (A9.1 & A9.2),” all prepared by Holt Architects, P.C. and dated 10/13/11, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has determined that the applicant has satisfied conditions ii., iii., v., vi., vii., and viii. and partially satisfied condition iv., now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the Seneca Way Project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to Planning and Development Board 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 and approval of site details, including outdoor terrace balcony railing and signage, and iii. Submission of revised A7 and A8 drawings showing higher windows along State Street in the location of the proposed fitness center and low planter wall curving along State Street / Seneca Way façade, and iv. Submission of revised west elevation showing final colors (sympathetic to the ground floor terra cotta brick color) for ground floor service doors, and v. Approval by Planning and Development Board of color choice for tall light poles intended along State Street / Seneca Way curve, and vi. Applicant to work with City staff to determine color(s) and pattern(s) of sidewalk and any other pavement along State Street / Seneca Way, and submit drawings showing the final selected color(s) and pattern(s), and vii. Work in road right-of-way requires City approval, and viii. Bike racks shall meet City of Ithaca specifications and be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: Marcham Absent: None B. Fairfield Inn (106-Room Hotel), 359 Elmira Road, Lawrence Fabbroni, Applicant for Bill Manos, Owner, and Ava Development, Developer. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing a four-story, 106-room hotel 7 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting with 108 parking spaces, 5 of which are accessible. Project development will include the removal of the existing 2,400 SF building, construction of the new 14,500 SF (59,500 gross SF) hotel and 125-car parking area, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The applicant proposes to install a pedestrian walkway from Spencer Road to Elmira Road and vegetative screening along Spencer Road, as well as fencing along the neighboring residential property. The project is in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts and will require consolidation and/or subdivision approval to create the proposed 1.78-acre project site. The consolidation will result in a through-street lot extending from Elmira Road to Spencer Road. This is a Type 1 Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (d) & (l) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which environmental review was completed on July 26, 2011 for both site plan review and the requested uses and area variances. The project has received the requested use and area variances and requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Larry Fabbroni, Sr. recapitulated the salient details of the project and highlighted the following points: • The building is 15 feet further away from Spencer Road than originally submitted, increasing the width of the landscaped buffer area. • More plantings have been added to the landscape plan. • The permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway entrance has been better defined and the location of this walkway moved from the location originally submitted to the site edge nearest the Manos Diner property, thereby providing additional safety and uninterrupted access. • Signs will be erected indicating that this walkway is publicly accessible. • Mature trees along the residential lot lines will be preserved. • There will be net-zero additional stormwater run-off. • Applicant has met with the Building Department regarding proximity of project to the Manos Diner property line — this is either not an issue or it is something that can be easily mitigated. • The Fire Department has provided its hook-and-ladder truck templates and will review the final plans. • Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson has endorsed the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Project landscape architect Jim Stephenson said he had tried to blend all of the project’s elements together on the landscape plan, including: • Screening of neighboring properties by fences. • Separating parking from the building. • Increasing the buffer between project site and the Manos Diner property. • Eliminating the need for a retaining wall between the rear parking area and the landscaped area below Spencer Road. 8 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Acharya asked why such a circuitous route was chosen for the permanent publicly- accessible pedestrian walkway below Spencer Road, noting that pedestrians generally prefer to use the most direct route. Stephenson replied that the new walkway design made the path ADA-compliant on the slope below Spencer Road. He said a more direct walkway would have necessitated installing stairs to negotiate the slope, which seemed unnecessarily complicated and also less safe. Stephenson noted he had also added additional light bollards along the path for heightened safety. Thoreau asked if there would be any protective features between the parking spaces on the Manos Diner property near Elmira Road and the adjacent public walkway, since this is a location where there is no or little slope to separate the properties. Stephenson replied the applicant could install wheel stops at that corner of the Manos Diner property. Nicholas asked if winter maintenance was planned for the public walkway, to which Fabbroni, Sr., replied, yes. Schroeder inquired if the applicant would be willing to grant an easement for this walkway. Fabbroni, Sr. replied the applicant fully intends to maintain the permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway. Patel remarked he does not see the need for an easement, since the applicant could not simply eliminate the walkway without the Board’s knowledge and consent. Schroeder said a condition requiring maintenance of the public walkway could be added to the resolution, and asked that the walkway be labeled “permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway” on the site plan. Fabbroni, Sr. offered to file the final site plan approval resolution with the property deed to ensure that any future property owners would be aware of the public walkway requirement. In looking at the site plan, Marcham noted it appears a stretch of the sidewalks on Elmira Road does not comply with the City standard width of five feet, to which Fabbroni, Sr. replied that this was an error on the plan: the sidewalks would in fact all be five feet wide. Schroeder noted that the bicycle racks would need to support both wheels, not just one, to which Fabbroni, Sr. agreed. Schroeder remarked that the landscape plan was well done, although he would like to see street trees added along Elmira Road where gaps in the street tree row exist currently; Fabbroni, Sr. agreed to this. In conclusion, Schroeder thanked the applicants for their willingness throughout the process to accommodate the Board’s requests, and said the project is much improved since its initial submission. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham: 9 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval for the construction a new hotel at 359 Elmira Road, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing a four-story, 106-room hotel with 108 parking spaces (reduced from the originally proposed 125). Project development will include the removal of the existing 2,400 SF building, construction of the new 14,500 SF (59,500 gross SF) hotel and 108-car parking area, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The applicant proposes to install a publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway from Spencer Road to Elmira Road and vegetative screening along Spencer Road, as well as fencing along the neighboring residential property. The project is in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts and will require consolidation and/or subdivision approval to create the proposed 1.78-acre project site. The project has received a use variance for the proposed building and parking to extend past the permitted 30’ transition line for the SW-2 Zoning District into the R-2a Zoning District, and has received an area variance for number of stories and building height in feet, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (d) & (l) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on July 26, 2011 review and accept as adequate: Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), provided by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, provided by Planning staff and both revised by the Planning Board on July 26, 2011; drawings entitled “Site & Survey Map,” dated 3/6/11; “Location Plan;” “Site Sections;” “Proposed View from Elmira Road;” “Proposed View on Site;” and “Proposed View from Spencer Road;” all dated 4/15/11 and all prepared by L. Fabbroni, P.E., and other application materials, 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: during environmental review, the Planning Board identified potentially large impacts concerning the “Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood,” due to the fact the project requires a use variance to extend commercial use (parking & hotel) into the R-2a portion of the site, beyond the 30’ allowable under district regulations, and WHEREAS: Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form as adopted by the Planning Board on July 26, 2011 identified the following mitigations to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to “Land” and to the “Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood”: • Installation of a 45’ landscape buffer along Spencer Road (measured from road right-of-way), and 10 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting • Willingness, during Site Plan Review, to consider the potential to widen this landscape buffer, and • Placement of a permanent deed restriction prohibiting commercial use on this landscape buffer, and • Installation of a permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway connecting Spencer and Elmira Roads. No connection currently exists along the .75-mile stretch along Spencer Road from Elmira Road to South Meadow Street, and • Installation of signage stating this walkway is open to the public, and • Site configuration and grading that allows the parking and base of the building to be below the residential neighborhood on Spencer Road, which will mitigate headlight glare and maintain views, and • Fencing along adjacent residential properties to the north and south, and WHEREAS: on July 26, 2011, the Planning and Development Board determined the proposed new 106-room hotel and then-125-car parking lot to be located at 359 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca would, with the mitigations identified in Part 3 of the FEAF as revised on July 26, 2011, result in no significant impact on the environment, and WHEREAS: on October 25, 2011, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate new and revised drawings entitled: “Demolition Plan (C-101),’ “Utility Plan (C102),” “Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (C-103),” “Standard Details – Water Main (C- 105),” “Standard Details –Storm Sewer (C-502),” “Landscape Plan (L-101),” “Site Layout Plan (L-102),” “Grading Plan (L-103),” “Landscape Details (L501),” “Illustrative Plan (A-100),” “Ground Floor Plan (A-1),” “Ground Floor RCP (A-2),” “Typical Floor Plan (A-3),” “Elevations (A-5 & A-6),” “Conceptual Renderings (A-8 & A-9),” and “Illustrative Sections (A-401, A402, A-403 & A-404),” all dated 10/12/11, and further revised drawings entitled: “Landscape Plan (L-101),” “Site Layout Plan (L-102),” “Illustrative Plan (A-100),” “Illustrative Sections (A-401, A-402, A-403 & A-404)”, and “Signage Details (A-501)”, all dated 10/12/11 with revision dates of 11/19/11 (presumably intended to read 10/19/11), all prepared by Fabbroni Engineers and Surveyors and Jim Stevenson, RLA, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the new and revised drawings demonstrate that the proposed project incorporates all of the mitigations, with the exception of the deed restriction, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the Fairfield Inn to be located at 359 Elmira Road subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to Planning and Development Board demonstrating proof that a copy of this resolution has been recorded with the deed for the hotel parcel, and ii. Submission to Planning and Development Board demonstrating proof of legal establishment of a permanent deed restriction (with language and map approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Board), permanently prohibiting commercial use in the landscape buffer along Spencer Road, and iii. Submission of a revised drawing L-102 showing: 11 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting • Reference to drawing A-501 for detail of signs to be placed at both ends of the permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway, and • Label reading “permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway” on said walkway, and • Wheel stops added to four parking spaces near this walkway at the northwest corner of the Manos Diner parking lot, and iv. Submission of revised drawings showing a minimum five-foot sidewalk width throughout the site, and v. Submission of revised landscape plan showing four additional street trees along Elmira Road (filling current street tree gaps), and vi. Applicant (and any future property owners) shall provide regular winter maintenance of the permanent publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway, and shall, over time, provide maintenance and repair as needed to keep this walkway functional and attractive, and vii. Submission of a detail of the dumpster enclosure and of a bicycle rack design meeting City specifications, and viii. Approval in writing from the City Fire Department that all emergency access issues have been satisfied, and ix. Bike racks shall be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None C. Computer & Information Sciences Building, 107 Hoy Road, Cornell University Campus, Cornell University Applicant & Owner – Determination of Environmental Significance & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. 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 have a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel glass. A “skin” attached to this curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels, folded along the exterior to provide a 3- dimensional surface, allowing 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 mountable 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 12 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting B.(1)(b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4(b)(6)(iv) and is subject to environmental review. Keefe remarked that much of the focus of discussion at the last meeting had been on the stainless steel paneling system. He then highlighted the following features: • East façade is clad with fritted (or dotted) glass, rather than metal paneling, but the dots allude to the perforated stainless steel paneling seen on the other three elevations. • The north façade contains less paneling, since it receives less sun. • The stainless steel panels are 48 percent perforated, allowing for good views in and out. • The panels are sometimes flat, and sometimes oriented at angles, folding in and out from the building. • The atrium will allow light to penetrate in and out. • Internal walls are made up almost entirely of glass (both translucent and transparent). Thoreau asked if the windows would include shades, to which Keefe replied, yes, all external walls incorporate mechanical shades. Rudan asked about the anticipated impact of the panels on wildlife, to which Keefe replied that birds do not typically roost in exposed areas, according to the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, so that should not be a problem. Acharya inquired about the possibility of including solar panels, as was discussed at the last meeting. Keefe replied the applicant did examine the issue, as promised, but concluded it would simply be too uneconomical to implement. Solar gain in Ithaca is insufficient to support solar panels, so a return on the investment would not be seen for 75 years. Keefe noted the applicant believes its resources are better spent on maximizing the energy efficiency of the building instead. The chilled beam technology that is being used will dramatically reduce energy expenditure by minimizing the use of fans. (Olin Hall, for example, employs chilled beams, which have been working well.) Thoreau inquired into the heating system, to which Keefe replied it would consist of radiant heating on the perimeter and under-slab heating in the atrium. Acharya encouraged the applicant to consult with Ithaca College about its own experiences with climate control in LEED buildings. Ithaca College consistently receives numerous complaints from students and staff about the climate control systems in its own LEED buildings. Keefe replied that every office would have individual climate control panels. Rudan asked about the maintenance requirements for the stainless steel panels, to which Keefe replied the paneling is heavy-gauge, washable stainless steel. Other buildings using the same material have held up well after five years. 13 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder said the overall design is well executed, although he remains concerned about the “strata” hardscape in front of the building. He noted that concerns have been raised about these irregular layers of stone potentially being used as stairs, or for other undesirable or unsafe purposes such as skateboarding stunts. Schroeder asked for enlarged and more detailed illustrations of the “strata” hardscape showing precisely how this area will relate to the entry plaza and sidewalk. Keefe replied that there will be a four-foot retaining wall between the hardscape and the entry plaza. Schroeder pointed out that this wall is not discernable on any of the drawings so far submitted to the Board. Rudan said she, too, is still concerned with the risk associated with this hardscape. Schroeder then asked about the proposed relocation of the four Hoy Field stone pillars which have historically served as an entrance gateway to Hoy Field. (The siting of the new building requires that these pillars be moved.) Specifically, Schroeder asked whether these pillars would still function as a pedestrian gateway in their proposed location parallel to a Hoy Field fence. Keefe replied, no, and said that he thought the only conceivable way of using them as a functioning gateway would be to place them at the front of the building, which would not fit in with the rest of the design. However, Schroeder and Rudan pointed out other site locations (not directly in front of the building) where these pillars could continue to serve as a functioning gateway, with a sidewalk passing through them. Keefe replied the applicant could certainly examine the issue further. Schroeder suggested that investigation of this issue be a condition to the resolution. Marcham said she believes the project will cause the Hoy Field Parking Garage to become filled to capacity on a regular basis. Thoreau said the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) discussed the project at its October meeting. The CAC would like to see as many mature trees as possible preserved. It was noted that no landscape plan labeled with proposed species had yet been provided for the project. Board members then reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 and 3, and made some modifications to each. Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder: City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 – Project Impacts Project Name: Computer & Information Sciences (CIS) Building Date Created: 9/8/11 Revised by: Planning & Development Board on October 25, 2011 14 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 15 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? Other impacts: Construction involving land disturbance will last approximately 15 months. Removal of 18,000 CY of materials from the site. Construction impacts. See Part III.  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 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 16 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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. For Construction Only  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 17 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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: Construction impacts are expected. The applicant has proposed mitigations. A SWPPP is required for the project. See Part III.  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: Construction impacts only – see Part III.  Yes No 18 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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: Removal of 13 mature trees – applicant has submitted a Landscape Plan.  Yes No 19 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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: Project is located in a prominent location that is currently an open lot.  Yes No Other impacts: Hoy Field stone pillars, which have served as a gateway to the field for many years, will be moved to a new location.    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 20 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 21 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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: Project will remove 48 parking spaces.  Yes No Other impacts: “Strata” hardscape area could pose safety problems for pedestrians, depending on its design.  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 22 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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: Construction impacts only – see Part III.  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 23 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 Small-to- Moderate Potential Large Can Impact Be Reduced by 24 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Impact Impact 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 In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya: City of Ithaca  FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM — Part III  Site Plan Review — Computer & Information Sciences (CIS) Building  Preparation Date: September 8, 2011  Revised by: Planning & Development Board on October 25, 2011    PROJECT DESCRIPTION  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 0structure and will have a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel glass.  A  ‘skin’ attached to this curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels, folded along  the exterior to provide a 3‐dimensional surface, allowing for both daylight penetration and sun shading.   Site work will require the demolition of the existing 51‐car surface parking area, walkways and  25 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting vegetation, including 13 mature trees, and the construction of a drop‐off & delivery area, with a  mountable 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.     IMPACT ON LAND  The proposed construction site has been extensively developed.  The site currently serves as a surface  parking area surrounded by sidewalks and landscaping.  The parking area and all paving and vegetation  from within the proposed construction area will be removed.     Construction Impacts:    Construction is scheduled to begin in 2012 and is expected to last approximately 24 months.  Project  development will require the removal of all existing paving and landscaping, including 13 mature trees,  the removal of curbing along Campus Road, and the excavation of approximately 18,000 CY of soil  materials from the site.       The applicant is proposing to salvage all viable trees and vegetation for off‐site transplanting and to chip  all larger unsalvageable vegetation for mulch.  Clean soil materials which can be re‐used will be  stockpiled for use during site restoration activities.    Excavation will be done in accordance with standard construction practices, utilizing recommendations  by the design team’s geotechnical engineer.  The Contractor shall dispose of demolished materials,  cleared vegetation, excess topsoil, and poor quality excavation material off‐site in a legal manner and in  accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.  Disposal as “clean fill” will be implemented  where appropriate to reduce landfill disposal.     The applicant is proposing to restrict construction staging to the areas immediately around the building.   Specifically, the areas between Hoy Field, the edge of the Grumman Squash Courts, Hoy Road, and  Campus Road will become the contractor’s work site and must accommodate all immediate staging for  the project.  The contractor will designate a pull‐off area for supplies, deliveries, and waste staging.   Cornell’s Palm Road parking area will be used for contractor parking needed for this project and may  also accommodate a small amount of pre‐construction storage.  The applicant may allocate some  adjacent spaces around the building for temporary storage or staging, as work needs become better  defined.    The applicant is proposing to restore all impacted areas adjacent to the site upon completion of the  project.  Paved areas will be repaired, new curbing will be installed to the north of the parking (just  south of the new building), and vegetated areas disturbed by construction efforts will be re‐vegetated at  the completion of the project.  Walking surfaces adjacent to the project at both Hoy Road and Campus  Road will be included in the restoration.    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON WATER  26 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Water from the site is part of the watershed that is directed to Cascadilla Creek, a tributary of Cayuga  Lake.  The site is not located directly adjacent to Cascadilla Creek; therefore, any impacts from storm or  construction water will be indirect, through storm drainage ways and sewers, water systems, and similar  engineered conduits.    IMPACT ON DRAINAGE  The overall site disturbance area will be greater than 1 acre and new impervious surfaces (roof and  pavement) are part of the project scope.  The Applicant has submitted a Stormwater Pollution  Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address both construction (erosion and sediment control) and post‐ construction storm water management.  IMPACT ON AIR  This project is not associated with any air emission sources or discharges that require individual or  special permits under state or federal law. The applicant maintains that potential air pollutant  discharges in this building will be much lower than in many other campus science buildings (Duffield, Life  Sciences, Physical Sciences, etc.).    Construction Impacts:     Construction and site preparation activities will create the potential for increased airborne dust and dirt  particles.  This portion of work may last as long as 15 months.  The amount of construction‐generated  dust depends on several factors, including soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are  exposed to the wind and sun, weather‐related factors, and construction practices.    The applicant has proposed the following dust‐control measures, as needed, during construction:    • Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.  • Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.  • Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.  • Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.  • Requiring trucks to be covered.  • Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS  Project development will require the removal of all existing landscaping (with the exception of the  existing plantings around the proposed accessible parking area), including 13 mature trees.  The  applicant has proposed a landscaping plan which includes 22 new trees, some of which are larger  canopy trees, as well as evergreen shrubs, groundcover, and grass.      The applicant is proposing to salvage all viable trees and vegetation for off‐site transplanting and to chip  all larger unsalvageable vegetation for mulch.      No significant impacts anticipated.    27 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES  The project site is in a densely developed portion of campus in a prominent and highly visible corner  location at the intersection of Hoy and Campus Roads.  The project is compatible with adjacent land  uses and will occupy a previously open site that is surrounded by buildings and uses that have a wide  variety of architectural expressions, including the massive and historic Barton Hall, the contemporary  Statler Hall, the post‐war Phillips Hall, as well as Hoy Parking Garage and the Grumman Center.      At approximately 70’ in height, the building will have a smaller massing than many of the surrounding  buildings.  In its prominent location, it will change short‐ to mid‐range views along Hoy and Campus  Roads as they approach the intersection.  In general, the building will not affect the scenic views or  resources known to be important to the community.  However, four stone pillars, which have served as  a prominent gateway to Hoy Field since at least 1949, will have to be moved.  They should be moved to  another prominent location that continues to serve as a gateway.    Final design, including materials, finishes, and other potential aesthetic concerns will be addressed  during Site Plan Review.      No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES  The project site is not within or directly contiguous to any designated landmarks or historic districts;  however, it is surrounded by structures that are over 50 years old.  Of the buildings immediately  surrounding the site, Barton Hall is the only one that has been evaluated for eligibility for the Nation  Register of Historic Places.  It was determined to be eligible by SHPO in 1990, though it has not been  designated.  The applicant has submitted an Historic Resources Report, prepared by Bero Architecture,  LLP, that concludes that the project will not have a negative impact on historic resources.      The applicant has also submitted a Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment for the project that  concludes that further archeological survey is not recommended within the project limits.    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA  No State‐ or Federally‐listed resources lie within the viewshed of the project.  There is a locally‐ designated natural area (Cascadilla Creek Unique Natural Area or UNA) within the general project area,  although the UNA is separated from the project site by both Hoy Baseball Field and Hoy Road to the  south.     No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA  The site is a developed area which is not within or adjacent to any of the UNAs or Critical Environmental  Areas.  The closest listed Unique Natural Area is the Cascadilla Gorge unique natural area, located south  of the subject site, separated by a baseball field, road, and other facilities.      No impacts to this UNA are anticipated.  28 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting   IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION    Parking Impacts:    The project removes 51 surface parking spaces, 48 of which will not be replaced and three of which are  accessible and will be relocated to a new parking area adjacent to Barton Hall.   The applicant has  provided documentation from the Cornell Transportation Planner, stating that the Hoy Road parking  garage has sufficient capacity to absorb parking demand from the removal of the spaces as well as any  new demand created by additional faculty and students occupying the new building.      Pedestrian & Bike Impacts:     The applicant is providing covered bike parking and reserved a ROW on Campus Road for a future bike  lane.     The ‘strata’ hardscape area needs careful attention during Site Plan Review to ensure its safety with  respect to pedestrians, who may be tempted to climb it or use it as stairs, and to skateboarders or  bikers, who may be tempted to use it as a challenging obstacle course.    Construction Impacts:      Vehicular Traffic:   Construction is projected to commence in early 2012 and last approximately 24 months.  The daily  workforce will arrive prior to 8:00 a.m. and depart prior to 4:30 p.m.  These times are outside the  morning and afternoon peak commuter times on peripheral roads.      There are potential impacts to traffic on campus roads due to the location of the project near a principal  entry to campus, easily accessible from a State Highway (NYS Route 366).  Construction activities will  include daily deliveries of materials, supplies, and miscellaneous services, averaging approximately 10  construction deliveries per day.  Peak hour deliveries will require more time and space for maneuvering,  and delays for other vehicles.  Construction‐related traffic impacts are short term.     The applicant is proposing the following mitigations to construction related traffic impacts:    • The University will require the contractor to submit a delivery plan.  • Construction will start before peak traffic hours.  • Construction deliveries will be spread out during the day.  • Major deliveries and deliveries requiring staging will be coordinated and scheduled during non‐ peak hours.  • Escorts and flagmen will be used for large materials deliveries that may require temporary  staging along campus roadways for off‐loading.  • Primary construction workforce parking will be designated at the Contractor Parking Lot on Palm  Road.    Pedestrians and Bike Traffic:  29 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Portions of the community that walk or bike on paths along the north and east sides of Hoy Road, or the  south side of Campus Road, may experience delays or detours to accommodate construction and  construction staging areas and arriving or departing construction delivery traffic.     The applicant is proposing the following potential mitigations to construction related pedestrian and  bike impacts:    • Provide safe detours around active construction areas and mark these clearly.  • Utilize personnel with flags to assist with the safe arrival and departure of construction delivery  vehicles, as appropriate.  • Provide signage for pedestrians and bicyclists warning them of changed routes (minor detours)  and conditions.  • Construct adequate fencing, walls, or other barriers to prevent pedestrians or bicyclists from  entering active construction areas.    No significant impacts anticipated.  However, as discussed above, the ‘strata’ hardscape should be  carefully reviewed with respect to safety concerns during Site Plan Review.    IMPACT ON ENERGY  The proposed project will be served by existing utilities.  The applicant intends that the project will be  certified as a LEED green building to a Silver level.   No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS  This project does not include any usual or unique noise sources, and will comply with all local noise  ordinances.  The applicant is proposing that air handlers will be specified with noise‐reducing features  (insulation, vibration isolations) and designed (interior location and proper stack design) to exceed local  requirements for noise reduction.      Air discharge from the building will be through two stacks, which extend to at least eight feet above the  top level of the building, and designed to maintain a high degree of dispersion.  The project includes no  significant animal waste, agricultural odor components, or food service operations.  No other potentially  significant odor sources are part of the planned program.    Construction Impacts:    Noise exceeding the local ambient level in the immediate vicinity of the project from normal  construction practices will occur during portions of the construction process.  The impacts will largely be  felt in the immediately surrounding facilities, namely, Barton Hall to the north, the Hotel School to the  northwest, Phillips Hall (electrical engineering) to the west, and Rhodes Hall to the south.  Athletes using  the Hoy Baseball Field may also notice the construction noise.    The most significant noise is expected during the foundation work for the new building.  Based on pre‐ construction borings, there is currently no expectation of any blasting operations during construction  and no extensive pile‐driving activities.  There may be rock excavation to remove cobbles or softer  (shale) rock in some areas for the foundation, if encountered.  The applicant will muffle construction  30 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting noise to the extent possible and will not exceed levels allowed by law; existing noise ordinances, and  OSHA noise safety levels will also be enforced by contract to minimize disturbances.    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH  No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD  The project site is in a densely developed portion of campus in a prominent corner location at the  intersection of Hoy and Campus Roads.  The project is compatible with adjacent land uses and will  occupy a previously open site that is surrounded by buildings and uses that have a wide variety of  architectural expressions, including the massive and historic Barton Hall, the contemporary Statler Hall,  the post‐war Phillips Hall, as well Hoy Parking Garage and the Grumman Center.      The net growth for this project is projected at about 24 staff/faculty members and approximately 92  new professional/graduate students.  This growth will happen over several years, as the program  develops.  The applicant does not expect the project to change the overall projected growth or  character of the campus beyond levels long projected in campus planning documents.      No significant impacts to Community Growth or Character are anticipated to result from this project    PUBLIC CONTROVERSY  No significant impacts anticipated.    In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the Computer and Information Sciences (CIS) Building on Cornell University Campus in the City of Ithaca by Cornell University, applicant/owner, and 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 have a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel glass. A “skin” attached to this curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels, folded along the exterior to provide a 3-dimensional surface, allowing 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 31 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting and delivery area, with a mountable 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: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 25th, 2011, reviewed and accepted as adequate Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) provided by the applicant and Parts 2 & 3 provided by Planning staff, drawings entitled “Context Plan (A-020.0),” “General Site Plan (C- 100.0),” “Site Plan (A-021.0),” “Exterior Finishes (A-022.0),” “Existing Site Survey (C- 001.0),” “Grading Plan (C-101.0),” “Landscape Plan (L-100.0),” “Landscape Details (L- 500.0),” “Utility Plan (C-102.0),” “Utility Profiles (C-200.0),” “Building Elevations – South (A-201.0),” “Building Elevations – North (A-202.0),” “Building Elevations – West (A-203.0),” and “Building Elevations – East (A-204.0),” all dated 6/10/11 and prepared by Morphosis Architects, Inc., and other application materials, WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed CIS Building, located on the Cornell University Campus in the City of Ithaca, will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya: 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 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 have a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel glass. A “skin” attached to 32 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting this curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels, folded along the exterior to provide a 3-dimensional surface, allowing 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 mountable 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: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on October 25th, 2011 review and accept as adequate: Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), provided by the applicant and Parts 2 & 3 provided by Planning staff, drawings entitled “Context Plan (A-020.0),” “General Site Plan (C- 100.0),” “Site Plan (A-021.0),” “Exterior Finishes (A-022.0),” “Existing Site Survey (C- 001.0),” “Grading Plan (C-101.0),” “Landscape Plan (L-100.0),” “Landscape Details (L- 500.0),” “Utility Plan (C-102.0),” “Utility Profiles (C-200.0),” “Building Elevations – South (A-201.0),” “Building Elevations – North (A-202.0),” “Building Elevations – West (A-203.0),” and “Building Elevations – East (A-204.0),” all dated 6/10/11 and prepared by Morphosis Architects, Inc. and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: on October 25, 2011, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed CIS Building, located on the Cornell University Campus in the City of Ithaca, will result in no significant impact on the environment, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the CIS Building to be located on the Cornell University Campus, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of a final completed landscape plan, showing all trees to be removed or transplanted, and showing the species of all intended plantings labeled per the key, and ii. Submission of all building floor plans (in addition to the main floor plan and the roof plan already submitted), and iii. Submission of measured drawings showing more clearly the character of the “strata” hardscape area, and its relationship to adjacent areas, with special attention to demonstrating its safety with respect to pedestrians who may be tempted to climb it, or use it as stairs, and to skateboarders who may be tempted to use it as a challenging obstacle course, and 33 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting iv. Exploration of whether the stone Hoy Field pillars can be relocated in such a manner (e.g., on either side of a sidewalk or path) that they will continue to serve as a gateway with pedestrian movement through them still being possible, and submission of a detail drawing showing their relocation, and v. Submission of building material samples, including the pylons and the visually- prominent ceiling over the entry plaza, and vi. Submission of site details, including site lighting, precast concrete benches, bike racks, paving materials (including entry plaza paving materials), “strata” hardscape, and signage, and vii. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation-related issues have been addressed, and viii. Approval in writing from the City Storm Water Management Officer that the project meets City standards for storm water management. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None D. Modified Site Plan Review, Aurora Street Dwelling Circle, 519-523 Aurora Street. No Action. The applicant is requesting modifications to the approved site plan. The applicant proposes reducing the number of dwelling units from 5 to 4 and the number of parking spaces from 6 to 4. The new units will each be one-family detached units, with those on the alley being approximately 4 feet shorter in height than originally approved. The applicant has also proposed a new layout for the landscape plan. Planning staff has determined the proposed modifications are consistent with the environmental review done for this project and no additional environmental review is warranted. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District and has received an area variance (now expired) for rear- yard setback. Nicholas informed the Board that she had just learned the zoning variance the project received in 2009 has expired. Therefore the applicant will need to apply again for the variance, and the Board cannot take any action on the project this evening. Cornish noted that the Project Review Committee had asked for curbs or other defining elements to delineate the four proposed parking spaces along the alley. One additional reserve parking space was also eliminated. Schroeder said the project plans look good. The Board will take up this matter again after the new variance application has been approved. E. Johnson’s Boatyard Site Housing Project – Sketch Plan Snyder recused himself from the Board’s consideration of this project, in light of his role as project architect. 34 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Snyder noted the following: • Current site is wide-open area, used primarily for boat storage. • NYSEG utility lines running through the site pose a significant challenge needing resolution — applicant is working closely with NYSEG to investigate relocating these lines and creating requisite new easements (another existing easement may also simply be amended, according to Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson). • Site is easily developable, requiring no variances. • Approach and entry into development will be redesigned. • Dedicated parking would be added for golf course. Snyder indicated Phase One of the project would entail the construction of 20 townhouses, beginning at the western point (with construction to begin in 2012). Phase Two would entail construction of a mixture of 2- to 4-story retail and residential units towards the center of the property. The central parking zone, off Willow Avenue, would be dedicated parking (to be completed in 2013). Phase Three would entail construction of some additional retail/residential units. Snyder noted a trail would also run along the waterfront and then up to Pier Road through the center of the site. He added that the seawall would be entirely reconstructed, and that residents would be able to moor their boats along the waterfront. Boothroyd asked if Johnson’s Boatyard would be going out of business. Cleveland replied that this has yet to be determined, and that discussions regarding this are ongoing. Snyder noted parking would be provided in garages under the western townhouses, with additional visitor parking spaces. Schroeder remarked that Phase One of the project would be considerably more attractive without the parking spaces lining the access road. Acharya agreed, adding that the newly revised Waterfront Zoning Ordinance does not require parking. Thoreau suggested widening the road and installing parallel parking. Snyder said further market analysis may lead the applicant to reconsider the project’s current mixture of residential and commercial buildings. Marcham asked if a geotechnical analysis of any kind had been conducted, to which Snyder replied, yes. The applicant should be receiving soil boring data shortly. Thoreau suggested incorporating a nodal park, perhaps near the waterfront. Schroeder noted that the small pier shown on the sketch plan could be the focal point of a wider central park space that also provided an attractive setting for the proposed trail. Schroeder said he likes the townhouses on the western portion of the site, and would like to see the denser buildings moved further east toward Willow Avenue, thereby providing room for more townhouses in the central portion of the site along the shoreline. There was general consensus that this is an attractive project with great potential. 35 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting F. Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) Parking Lot – Sketch Plan AFCU attorney Eric Levine said a shortage of parking for both staff and customers prompted the project. When 635 W. Seneca Street went up for auction, AFCU decided purchase the site, demolish the unoccupied and deteriorating building there and construct parking. Levine said he believes Manning has come up with an attractive plan, complementing AFCU’s existing parking. Manning noted the following features of the project: • One-way entry from Seneca Street using existing curb cut. • One-way travel through lot, with exit onto Fulton Street. • Angled parking designated for compact cars only. • 14-foot wide curb cut on Fulton, which seems reasonably likely to be accepted by DOT (though DOT tries to limit curb cuts). • Corner rock garden like that at AFCU building. • Vertical oaks like those already on the AFCU site could be used here along Fulton Street. • Small rain gardens could be included. Thoreau inquired into the nature of the pavement, to which Manning replied that the applicant had been discussing this and will be meeting with Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson. The site is so small, Manning noted, that a SWPPP may not even be necessary and the applicant may choose not to use a permeable pavement. Acharya asked if AFCU charges its staff for parking or if it provides incentives not to park or use cars. Levine indicated he believes a small parking charge is levied against its employees, but that it is very minor. Staff members are also given a modest subsidy for taking public transportation. He promised to provide more detailed information about this to the Board. Acharya pointed out that the aerial photographic overview of the project site clearly shows that the vast majority of the space in the immediate vicinity is devoted to parking, which may not be something the City would like to encourage. Schroeder agreed, but also noted that the existing building on the site is decrepit and encroaches on publicly-owned space that should be added to the sidewalk width. Furthermore, additional street trees along Fulton Street would be an improvement. Manning said it is probably fair to say that the parking lot would not end up being a particularly long-term addition to the neighborhood. 4. New Business A. Zoning Procedures Amendment – Planning Board Recommendation 36 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting The Board agreed to make the following comments to the Planning and Economic Development Committee of Common Council: Zoning Amendment Procedures On October 25, 2011, the Planning and Development Board discussed the proposed amendments to the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance §325-45, regarding zoning amendment procedures. The proposed change calls for sending letters to all affected property owners describing any proposed zoning revision, to be sent out prior to a public hearing, so that property owners will be able to attend this hearing and voice any concerns they may have about the proposal. The Planning Board strongly endorses this proposed change to the notification procedures, but suggests the addition of language requiring that the mailed notification be postmarked a minimum of 20 days before the date of the public hearing. B. Planning Board Training Nicholas suggested the Board consider the New York Planning Federation web-based training program, which is designed for planning boards and committees. Multiple training modules are available. Schroeder indicated he would prefer a group training session, and suggested that Nicholas try to set up such a session. C. Grandview Parking Area Schroeder said Acharya has informed him that while biking past the Grandview property he has noticed parking spaces for five cars, not the three approved by the Board on April 26. In addition, there do not appear to be new plantings of any kind, as required by the Board (“[…] 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”). Acharya added that the owners also appear to have added concrete wheel stops to the edge of the entire parking area. Schroeder asked staff to investigate why this property in not in conformance with the April 26 Site Plan Review approval resolution. Cornish remarked that this is another example of why City parking regulations need to be revised. 5. Old Business A. Project Review Committee Rotation 37 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Rudan indicated she would be able to participate in the November 15, 2011 Project Review Committee meeting; while Acharya agreed to participate in the December 13, 2011 Project Review Committee meeting. B. Comprehensive Plan Committee Update and Resolution Schroeder said Alphonse Pieper had agreed to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Committee to replace fellow East Hill resident Mary Tomlan (who had chosen to resign from the Committee); Pieper had been suggested as a replacement at the last Planning Board meeting. Furthermore, as a response to an orchestrated series of e-mailed requests from multiple individuals associated with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Schroeder and staff suggested that BZA member Geoffrey Milz also be added to the Committee. Adopted Resolution to Revise Comprehensive Plan Committee Membership On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Boothroyd: WHEREAS: a reconstituted City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee was appointed and charged by the Planning and Development Board at the latter’s September 27, 2011 meeting, and WHEREAS: Alphonse Pieper has agreed to replace Mary Tomlan (who has resigned) as a member of this Committee, and various members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have requested that BZA member Geoffrey Milz be appointed to this Committee, and Milz has agreed to serve, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby (1) appoint Alphonse Pieper as a replacement for Mary Tomlan on the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee and (2) appoint Geoffrey Milz as a new member of the same Committee. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None C. Design Review Ordinance – Planning Board Recommendation Cornish noted that the proposed Design Review Ordinance the Board is being asked to review would dissolve the current Design Review Board and assign its responsibilities to the Planning Board. A provision of the ordinance would also permit a limited staff-level design review process, under certain conditions. The design review process would be mandatory, but not legally binding. As a member of the Design Review Board, John Snyder said that body unfortunately is not as effective as it could be. 38 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting The Board agreed to make the following comments to the Planning and Economic Development Committee of Common Council: Design Review Also discussed on October 25, 2011 were the proposed changes to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code regarding Design Review. The proposal is to revise the City’s existing mandatory non-binding design review procedure to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. It would repeal the existing §325-41, Design Review, and establish a new Chapter 160, Design Review, within the Code. It would abolish the Design Review Board and assign the responsibility of design review to the Planning and Development Board. The Planning Board recommends expeditious adoption of these proposed changes, but only after one important modification has been made to the draft language of Chapter 160. The modification requested by the Planning Board concerns §160-8.E., which — in the current draft — states, “The Planning and Development Board shall review the proposal within 45 days from receipt of the completed application.” The Planning Board strongly recommends that the language here be modified to distinguish between (1) applications concerning projects that do not require environmental review and (2) applications concerning overall projects that require Site Plan Review and that therefore do require environmental review. In the former case, it would be appropriate to require that the Planning Board review the proposal within a specified number of days from receipt of the completed application, although the Planning Board feels 65 days is a more appropriate number than 45 days. However, in the latter case, the design review decision should be required not within 65 days of receipt of the application, but rather within 65 days of the completion of the project’s environmental review. This change is important, because the environmental review of a project often involves issues (e.g., impacts on community character, impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, impacts on historic resources, impacts on views) that directly and fundamentally affect the design of the project. If design review is to be effective and relevant, it must take place after potential environmental impacts have been analyzed and any necessary mitigations for environmental impacts have been identified. The Planning Board also requests that no changes be made to the composition of the Planning Board (e.g., to include design professionals) until the City has the benefit of advice regarding this specific issue — and regarding recommended design review procedures in general — from the professional consultant who will be writing design guidelines for the Collegetown Planning Area. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair 39 Approved at the December 20, 2011 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder said that he and Cornish would be meeting with the Building Commissioner and the City Attorney on November 26 regarding the Section 325-20 parking ordinance revisions that have been the subject of ongoing Board discussions over the past few months. Schroeder also informed the Board that the City Attorney’s office is still in the process of responding to the Jesse Polenberg Article 78 lawsuit regarding Collegetown Terrace Apartments. Schroeder said he was writing an affidavit for the case. Schroeder asked Nicholas if the Planning Department still maintained an ongoing detailed database or list of housing units approved by the Board, to which Nicholas replied, yes, although it is not complete at this time. She said more data needs to be included, although she could probably finish this updating by the end of the year. Schroeder asked that this updating be done, if feasible. Schroeder brought up Propositions Two and Three that will appear on City ballots at the November election. He said that he thought the Planning Board may be minimally affected by one of the propositions that would eliminate the Board’s theoretical (but actually non-existent) power to approve new directors of the Planning Department. B. Director of Planning and Development No report. C. Board of Public Works Liaison A written report was included in the agenda mailing. 7. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder, the minutes of the September 27, 2011 meeting were approved by the Board. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None 8. Adjournment On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. 40