Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-11-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning and Development Board Minutes November 22, 2011 Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Snyder; Meghan Thoreau Board Members Absent: Bob Boothroyd Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning and Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning and Development Applicants Attending: Fairfield Inn Larry Fabbroni, Sr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Larry Fabbroni, Jr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Ajay Patel, Developer & Property Manager Collegetown Terrace Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP; Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects; Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect Computer & Information Sciences Building John Keefe, Capital Projects & Planning, Cornell University; Scott Lee, mOrphosis Architects, Inc.; Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University; Andrew Magré, Associate University Architect, Cornell University City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant Rick Gell, O’Brien & Gere, Engineers; Jesse Guyer, O’Brien & Gere, Engineers; Steve Eckler, O’Brien & Gere, Engineers; Bill Gray, Ithaca Superintendent of Public Works 208 Delaware Avenue George Avramis, Owner 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 W. Seneca Street (Breckenridge Apartments) Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS); Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects, Inc.; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP Holiday Inn Expansion – Sketch Plan David Hart, Hart Hotels, Inc. James Boy, RSB Architects (Roberts, Shackleton, & Boy) Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Schroeder suggested adding an agenda item to discuss current Board member terms of office and also suggested moving the Board’s review of Zoning Appeal #2864 for a sign variance for the Collegetown Terrace project to immediately follow the discussion of the project under Site Plan Review. No objections were raised. 2. Privilege of the Floor No members of the public stepped forward to speak. 3. Subdivision Review A. Subdivision Review, Lot Consolidation & Subdivision, 620-628 Spencer Road & 357-359 Elmira Road, (City of Ithaca Tax Parcels: 129.-1-1, 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8, 129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-7.2 & 129.-1-10.2), Bill Manos, Applicant/Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the following tax parcels: 129.-1-9, equaling 15,864.3 SF (.364 acres), frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-8, equaling 15,179 SF (.349 acres), frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-7.2, equaling 13,146.3 SF (.302 acres), with no street frontage; 129.-1-6.2, equaling 34,875.1SF (.801 acres) containing an existing residence and with frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-1, equaling 58,365.4 SF (1.340 acres), containing an existing restaurant and with frontage on Elmira Road; and 129.-1-10.2, equaling 31,892.8 SF (.732 acres), containing an existing retail building and with frontage on Elmira Road. The applicant proposes to create the following 3 new parcels: Parcel 1 (Fairfield Inn Building Site), equaling 76,953.3 SF (1.77 acres) with 185 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and 201 feet of frontage on Spencer Road; Parcel 2, equaling 70,840.4 SF (1.63 acres) with 481 feet of frontage on Elmira Road; and Parcel 3 (current residence), equaling 21,529.3 SF (.494 acres) with 94 feet of frontage on Spencer Road. The parcels are in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts. The SW-2 Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and the R-2a Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and 45 feet of street frontage for a single-family 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD detached dwelling. This consolidation and subdivision was a condition of Site Plan Approval for the Fairfield Inn project, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on July 26, 2011. This action is consistent with that determination and does not require further environmental review. Fabbroni referred the Board to the submitted subdivision drawing (“Final Subdivision Plat”), illustrating how the six existing parcels would be consolidated into three new parcels, the largest being the Fairfield Inn’s. Schroeder remarked that the Project Review Committee (PRC) did not have a problem with the consolidation. Thoreau asked if the utility easement would be relocated, to which Fabbroni replied that the NYSEG utility easement site is actually not currently being used and NYSEG is being asked to consider abandoning the easement. The Board of Public Works (BPW) will also be asked to accept relocated stormwater and sewer lines. Schroeder indicated no separate environmental review would be conducted as a part of the subdivision application, as it was already conducted for Site Plan Review. Public Hearing: On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. Penny Gerhart, 602 Spencer Road, indicated her primary concern relates to the overall appearance of the site and its aesthetic relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. She remarked that several years ago three duplexes were constructed at 650 Spencer Road that led to the unfortunate destruction of a beautiful Norway spruce tree, among other things. Ms. Gerhart noted she remains skeptical about the applicant’s statements that the site will be beautified. She would like some kind of additional assurance that it will be. Schroeder remarked he would ensure Ms. Gerhart’s concerns are addressed after the Public Hearing. There being no other public comments, on a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. At this juncture, Fabbroni noted that he had provided Ms. Gerhart with the project landscape plan. He remarked that the subdivision splitting the Fairfield Inn from the side parcel follows the tree line and all the trees along the farm hedge row will be preserved. A park-like area will also be situated along the buffer strip, south of the hotel, and all the trees along the western side of the lot will be saved. 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder added that the most significant and mature trees on the site will also be preserved. The buffer area will include preserved existing trees and new tree plantings. Cornish remarked that Ms. Gerhart had asked how she could be assured the proposed aesthetic preservation measures would in fact be implemented. Cornish assured Ms. Gerhart that the applicant would not receive a Certificate of Occupancy, until all the requirements had been met. Adopted Preliminary Approval Resolution: On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Snyder: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision involving of City of Ithaca Tax Parcels, 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8, 129.-1-7.2, 129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-1, and 129.-1-10.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Bill Manos, applicant/owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to reconfigure the following tax parcels: 129.-1-9, equaling 15,864.3 SF (.364 acres), frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-8, equaling 15,179 SF (.349 acres), frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-7.2, equaling 13,146.3 SF (.302 acres), with no street frontage; 129.-1-6.2, equaling 34,875.1 SF (.801 acres) containing an existing residence and with frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-1, equaling 58,365.4 SF (1.340 acres), containing an existing restaurant and with frontage on Elmira Road; and 129.-1-10.2, equaling 31,892.8 SF (.732 acres), containing an existing retail building and with frontage on Elmira Road. The applicant proposes to create the following 3 new parcels: Parcel 1 (Fairfield Inn Building Site), equaling 76,953.3 SF (1.77 acres) with 185 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and 201 feet of frontage on Spencer Road; Parcel 2, equaling 70,840.4 SF (1.63 acres) with 481 feet of frontage on Elmira Road, and Parcel 3 (current residence), equaling 21,529.3 SF (.494 acres) with 94 feet of frontage on Spencer Road. The parcels are in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts. The SW-2 Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and the R-2a Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and 45 feet of street frontage for a single-family detached dwelling. This consolidation and subdivision was stated as a requirement in the Final Site Plan Approval resolution for the Fairfield Inn project, and WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of two or more additional buildable lots, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. This action was stated as a requirement in the Final Site Plan Approval resolution for the Fairfield Inn project, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on July 26, 2011. This action is consistent with that determination and does not require further environmental review, and 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified, in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C) (1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on November 22, 2011, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Board has on November 22, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a drawing entitled “Final Subdivision Plat Manos Properties,” prepared by Fabbroni Engineers and Surveyors and dated 10/20/11, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed consolidations and subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcels 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8, 129.-1-7.2, 129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-1, and 129.-1-10.2, located at 357-359 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 4. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments. Consideration of Approval for Architectural Details. The project will include the construction of 16 new buildings, and rehabilitation of one existing building at 901 East State Street, that will provide approximately 1,064 new bedrooms and 640 new parking spaces. The existing buildings on the project site currently include 637 bedrooms and 467 parking spaces; of these, 475 bedrooms and 361 parking spaces will be removed, leaving 162 existing bedrooms and 106 existing parking spaces. The combined proposed (new) and existing (to remain) bedrooms and parking spaces for the proposed project will result in a total of not-to-exceed 1,226 bedrooms and not-to-exceed 746 parking spaces. The proposed project will result in not-to-exceed 589 net additional bedrooms and not-to- exceed 279 net additional parking spaces (relative to existing conditions). The proposed project will result in a maximum building footprint of 175,001 gross square feet, comprising an estimated 628,642 gross square feet of residential space and 235,645 gross square feet of parking. The 16 new proposed buildings range in size and height from two to six stories; all but two of the proposed buildings are at least four stories tall. Proposed site development includes the demolition of roadways, and some 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD vegetation and landscaping on the project site. Of the total 16.4 acres of property, approximately 12.1 acres would be disturbed for construction. The environmental review for this project was completed on October 26, 2010, when the Planning and Development Board adopted the Findings of the Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant has been granted a lot line adjustment and a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Wolf indicated the applicant would now present the remaining architectural and landscaping details associated with the Board’s approval of Phase One of the project. Chimacoff walked through the architectural detail drawings, dated 11/22/11, that had been submitted. Regarding the “Buildings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3” drawing, Schroeder remarked that the details are considerably better than the ones that were originally proposed. Regarding the “Building 4.x” series drawings, Marcham asked if the window sash would be moveable, to which Chimacoff replied, yes, the bottom portion only. Schroeder thanked Chimacoff for the presentation and indicated Chimacoff should expect to receive a list of architectural detail concerns (e.g., consistency issues regarding the capital bases). As a result, the applicant will need to return before the Board one final time for approval of the architectural details. Ian Tyndell indicated he would briefly present some landscape plan refinements, made in response to some suggestions from the City Forestry Technician. Tyndell noted a series of identical trees will be planted along East State Street, but with one change to the upper-central portion of the site. Some plantings will be placed further out, closer to the street. Furthermore, there will no longer be any skinny maples. The applicant is now tentatively planning on planting London Plane trees instead (Gingko trees are also being considered). Tyndell remarked that river stone will now be used exclusively in the courtyards between Buildings 2.1 and 2.2, and Buildings 2.2 and 2.3. Schroeder asked if the railings that were added were still a part of the plan, to which Tyndell replied, yes, but only at the far end. Schroeder indicated the planned ornamental iron fencing is particularly nice and that the minutes should reflect it will be included. 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Cornish asked if the City Forestry Technician accepted the use of the Gingkos, to which Tyndell replied, yes. Cornish remarked the Board previously expressed concerns with Gingkos, given they are so slow-growing. She asked the applicant to address this concern, if at all possible. Rudan asked if the Gingkos would emit their characteristic odor, to which Tyndell replied, no, they would only plant male Gingko trees. Schroeder asked to see larger sycamores in the plan. Likewise, he would prefer larger- caliper London Plane trees. He agreed with Cornish that the Gingkos are too slow- growing. Schroeder asked the Board if there were any other remaining concerns about the proposed landscaping alterations. None was expressed. Schroeder noted he would like to reiterate that the London Plane trees should be of the larger-caliper variety. At this time, he indicated the Board is giving its approval of the trees and the spacing between the buildings. Chimacoff asked to receive any further questions, comments or recommendations from the Board in advance of the Board’s next meeting. APPEAL #2864 ― Sign Variance: Collegetown Terrace Apartments Appeal of Tom Nix on behalf of the owner Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLC for a sign variance from Section 272-6A (3) signs denoting the architects, engineers, and/or contractor and Section 272-6B(1), permitted square footage for building advertisement signs in a residential zone district, of the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has received a permit for the temporary placement of three signs placed along the East State Street corridor of the project that are positioned on separate parcels along the construction area. The permit for the temporary placement is good for 60 days and can be renewed for an additional 30 days. The applicant would like to keep the three signs for the duration of the first phase of the project which is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2012. The three signs consist of 2- 4’ x 10’ signs and 1- 4’ x 8’ sign for a total of 112 square feet denoting architects/contractors and building advertisement. The sign ordinance allows a maximum of 5 square feet per sign for signs denoting the architects, engineers, and/or contractor and 12 square feet per sign for building advertisement. The 2 - 4 x 10’ signs each exceed the allowable square footage of 17 square feet (5 + 12) by 23 square feet and the 4’ x 8’ sign exceeds the allowable square footage of 17 square feet by 15 square feet, required by the sign ordinance. Section 272-18 of the Sign Ordinance requires an area variance be granted for the additional square footage of the signs. Tom Nix indicated the applicant already has permits to erect and display three temporary signs for 60 days, with an additional optional 30 days upon renewal. Nix 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD noted that the applicant is simply asking the BZA to approve a variance to display the signs for a slightly longer period of time than ordinarily permitted, until July 2012. Nix noted one sign would be located at the corner of State Street and Quarry Street, another near the drop trailers, and the third at the front of 901 E. State Street. The signs would each be set back 10 feet from the property line, as required. Wolf observed the applicant is essentially consolidating the signage for the project. While the signs would admittedly be larger than ordinarily displayed, far fewer signs are being erected. Schroeder indicated the Project Review Committee (PRC) is not recommending approval of the appeal, since its member believe the appellant should comply with the size ordinance and can easily mount signs on the construction fence. Schroeder asked if any members of the public wished to speak at this time. No members of the public stepped forward to speak. Schroeder went on to note his primary concern is that the signs appear too much like commercial billboards and not signs one would ordinarily expect to find in a residential neighborhood. Rudan agreed. Wolf remarked that, compared to the size of the project site, the signs are modestly sized (4x10 feet) and are not as large as billboards. Acharya asked why the applicant believes such large signs are necessary. Nix replied that the ordinance allows for 5’x 9’ signs; however, one cannot showcase a project of this size in that amount of space. By rights, he stressed, the applicant would ordinarily be entitled to display 18 signs, for a total square footage that would have far exceeded the current proposal. Novarr indicated the signs have already been constructed and will definitely be erected, at least as temporary signs. Given the Board’s trepidations about them, Novarr proposed erecting them in late January 2012, at which point the Planning Board could examine them on-site. If the Board continues to find them objectionable at that time, it could indicate as much to the BZA. Schroeder remarked that the only action the Board is empowered to take is to make a recommendation to the BZA. If the applicant is content in delaying the appeal before the BZA until January 2012, that is acceptable. Novarr confirmed that is what the applicant would like to do. B. Computer & Information Sciences Building, 107 Hoy Road, Cornell University Campus, Cornell University Applicant & Owner – Declaration of Lead Agency 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD and Public Hearing. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with 103,000 gross SF on a 56,000 SF building site, located at the southeast corner of Hoy and Campus Roads, and the expansion of an existing motorcycle parking lot adjacent to Barton Hall to incorporate 3 accessible spaces. The building will have a steel structure and will be composed entirely of a curtain wall system with 50% clear glazing and 50% spandrel glass. The exterior of the curtain wall will be constructed of perforated stainless steel panels, folded along the exterior to provide a 3-dimensional surface, and allow for both daylight penetration and sun shading. Site work will require the demolition of the existing 51-car surface parking area, walkways, and vegetation, including 13 mature trees, and the construction of a drop-off & delivery area, with a curb cut on Hoy Road, to the south of the building, sidewalks along Hoy and Campus Roads, a pull-off area on Campus Road, an entry plaza, landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §175-4 B.(1)(b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4(b)(6)(iv) and is subject to environmental review. Keefe indicated the applicant would address the concerns that had previously been expressed by the Board. Keefe noted that the trees on the north side of the site will need to be removed, as a result of setback and cutback requirements; however, the remaining trees would be preserved. Schroeder asked why trees were not being planted along the south lawn, to which Lee replied that the intent is to maintain the south lawn as an open area, for special events. Keefe indicated that virtually everything has been removed from the roof and placed in the basement. He noted the roof will be as devoid of technical installations as possible, except for some skylights and a required exhaust fan (4-5 feet high). The ground floor will contain 106-seat auditorium, a Master’s degree student area, and an undergraduate student area. The first floor will contain the main entrance and the primary administrative area (including the Dean’s Office, Information Technology, Student Services, and a large conference room). The second through fourth floors will all be very similar to each other, including a double-loaded corridor, combinations of offices and computer labs, large laboratories, and spaces for Ph.D. students. The fourth floor will include a large systems laboratory. Regarding the strata hardscape, Keefe remarked the applicant explored a variety of Planning Board recommendations, including a larger sidewalk, a setback of 2.5 feet, and a bench-like impediment to discourage people from using it inappropriately. The pre-cast elements have also been lowered (for a clearer view into the front space). 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Keefe remarked the Hoy Field pillars have now been moved to the south walkway and will serve as a gateway, as previously suggested by the Board. Schroeder remarked he thinks that is a wonderful adjustment, perpetuating the stones’ historical role, while serving as a connection to the engineering quad. He suggested, however, that the pillars also be made more transverse to the sidewalk, at less of an odd angle. Lee responded that the curvature of the pillars is necessitated by the existing steepness of the slope, but that he would see what he can do to address that. Lee walked through the details of the building materials. He noted the upper panels would be a shade of amber, complementing the color scheme of the interior atrium. Keefe indicated the majority of the bike racks would be located in the large covered entry area, with some additional racks on the east side of the building. Schroeder asked if both bike wheels would connect to the planned bike racks, to which Lee replied, yes. Keefe noted there would three pre-cast benches: two on the grass pad and one in the concrete area. The benches will feature decorative downlighting. As for lighting, Lee indicated there will be no light poles, per se. Instead, the lighting would be dispersed around the entire building perimeter, providing enough illumination to ensure safety for walking. Concrete benches with integrated lighting elements would be situated along the stairs and railings. Marcham asked if the path to the parking lot would be lit, to which Lee replied, yes, with accent lights and ambient lighting. Rudan thanked the applicant for the additional perspective renderings, as well as the addition of the bench-like wall near the strata hardscape. She expressed concern with the entrance perspective. It appears to be what she might call a little ‘anti-social’, with too few windows to permit people to see in and out of the atrium. As it appears now, it would seem to cut off a significant amount of visual interaction. Lee responded that there is some at least some glass that comes in from the north side and he noted the concrete wall varies from 5 feet to 0 feet above floor-level. Marcham cautioned that the virburnum trilobum listed on the landscape plan may suffer from a beetle problem and she recommended the applicant consult with other Cornell staff about it. Schroeder asked if there were any additional comments or questions. None was offered. Schroeder thanked the applicant and remarked the project is beautifully designed. 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Adopted Final Approval Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the Computer and Information Sciences (CIS) Building on Cornell University Campus in the City of Ithaca by Cornell University, applicant/owner, and 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 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: 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 September 20, 2011, 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 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: on October 25, 2011, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined 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 WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on October 25, 2011 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 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on November 22, 2011 review and accept new and revised drawings entitled: “Site Demolition Plan (C-002.0),” “Landscape Planting Plan (L- 101.0),” “Floor Plan – Basement / EL -22’-11” (A-100.0),” “Floor Plan – Ground Floor / EL - 6’-0” (A-101.0),” “Floor Plan – First Floor / EL +8’-0” (A-102.0),” “Floor Plan – Second Floor / EL +21’-0” (A-103.0),” “Floor Plan – Third Floor / EL +34’-0” (A-104.0),” “Floor Plan – Fourth Floor / EL +47’-0” (A-105.0),” “Roof Plan / EL +59’-4” T.O. Steel (A-106.0),” “Site Plan (A-021.0),” and “Exterior Furniture and Lighting (A-022.1),” all dated 9/28/11, in a booklet (also including other information) titled “Computing and Information Science Building 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Final Site Plan Review,” and prepared by mOrphosis Architects, Inc.; and other application materials; and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, finds the applicant has satisfied conditions “i.,” “ii.,” “iii.,” “iv.,” and partially satisfied “vi.,” now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the CIS Building, to be located on the Cornell University Campus, subject to the following conditions: i. Approval in writing from the City Storm Water Management Officer that the project meets City standards for storm water management, and ii. Submission of site details showing all proposed exterior signage and bike rack design on entry plaza, and iii. To the extent feasible, adjust the alignment of the row of Hoy Field stone pillars (now relocated as shown in drawing A-021.0 in the “Computing and Information Science Building Final Site Plan Review” booklet), so that this row is perpendicular, rather than angled, with respect to the sidewalk extending east from Phillips Hall on the other side of Hoy Road; the intent, here, is to strengthen the visual relationship between the CIS Building site and the Engineering Quad, and iv. Bike racks shall be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and v. 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, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd C. City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant, 202 Water Street, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. Phase 1 of the project is the rebuilding of the water plant located on Water Street. It includes the sequenced demolition of the existing 11,000± square foot (sf) water treatment plant (WTP) (20,000± sf gross); the construction of a 17,070± sf, 6 million gallon per day (gpd) WTP (31,880± sf gross), construction of a 300± sf metering/flow regulator structure (300± sf gross) associated with the emergency interconnect with the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission water supply, construction/reconstruction of ancillary site elements, including stormwater management facilities, access/egress, parking, signage, fencing, lighting, and landscaping. Treatment elements, including rapid mixing, flocculation, clarification, filtration, and chemical feed systems, will be located within the building footprint. The existing high-lift pumping station and underground clearwells will be retained. Phase 2 is the rebuilding of the water treatment residuals-handling facility located on Giles Street. It includes demolition of the two existing uncovered drying beds 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (37,400± sf), construction of three new covered freeze-dry beds (44,000± sf) with an underdrain system, and construction/reconstruction of ancillary site elements, including stormwater management, access/egress, signage, fencing, lighting, and landscaping. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Board of Public Works, acting as Lead Agency, completed environmental review and adopted Findings in July 2009. Gell recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting that the City concluded its survey of alternatives for the site in 2009 and decided to move forward with the reconstruction of the water plant, beginning with the environmental review in 2009. Gell noted the current proposed project application reflects comments received at the October 12, 2011 public meeting. Gell indicated that one of the principal public concerns that was raised involved preserving public access through the site, which Gell indicated would regrettably most likely not be possible, given the kinds of security issues associated with the project. Schroeder asked why public access would pose a security concern if it would only lie outside the fence. Eckler replied that the fence is at the property line and that it would be a liability issue. The primary issue is a health department concern, as informed by the Ten States Standards. Gell went on to note that the antenna has been moved back to its current location. The applicant also received a lot of comments about the landscaping, so the plan was adjusted to include a buffer between the building and adjoining properties. The lighting has also been adjusted to be less visible from the neighborhood. Gell noted the applicant consulted with the PRC and intends on addressing the committee’s comments; however, the current plans do not yet reflect those comments. Gell clarified that the applicant is appearing before the Board today only for Phase One approval. Phase Two, associated with the Giles Street facility, will be addressed later. Gell noted the new building will fill the existing building’s footprint, with parking on the north side. The site will also feature an interconnection water valve facility on Water Street, allowing the City to regulate water received from Bolton Point. Acharya indicated Water Street definitely seems to need a sidewalk leading up to State Street and he wondered if this had been brought up at any point. Schroeder responded that the PRC did in fact bring up the sidewalk issue, but that the issue is complicated by the fact that it would involve private property, if it were to lead all the way to State Street. He remarked that the Board might consider asking the BPW to examine adding sidewalks up to Treva Avenue. 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Since the project is located in a residential area, Acharya suggested the overall design be as holistic as possible, in terms of what it seeks to achieve. Gell noted that landscaping will be employed to buffer the view of the facility from the neighborhood and will include native plants that require little maintenance. Schroeder remarked that it would be helpful to have a clearer three-dimensional representation of the roof. To address lighting spillage concerns, Gell noted, the building’s glass will be tinted to reduce lighting coming from inside. Schroeder asked about the brick, to which Gell replied that the applicant plans on replacing the brick to make it appear more uniform and updated. Schroeder asked the applicant to provide building elevations with individually labeled materials. Gell noted the blocks will be smooth-faced, with vertical banding in between the windows. Random patterns will be employed on most of the building, but with more uniformly consistent patterns in the rear. Snyder asked about the use of brick, to which Gell replied there would be brick in the vertical banding, while the rest would be composed of concrete. Snyder responded that those kinds of details do not appear to be included in the application. Gell indicated that they would be added. Thoreau inquired into the use of porous paving materials. Gell replied that the applicant expects to see heavy truck traffic, along a steep grade, so it is concerned with the durability of porous paving materials. There is no current plan to use porous paving materials. Thoreau responded that porous paving materials exist that are specifically designed to be durable. Gell indicated the applicant would investigate the issue further. Schroeder noted the drawings need a connection between the front entry steps and the parking area, which Gell agreed to include. Schroeder indicated he would like to see a public pathway and suggested perhaps a tongue of asphalt could be moved back, so there could be a pathway just outside the fence. Eckler noted this could certainly be re-examined. He stressed, however, that the applicant remains concerned with security-related issues associated with the site. Post 9/11 guidelines, for example, generally require fully securing public utility sites such as this. Eckler noted the applicant asked the public health department and they were adamant the site be thoroughly secured. Gray indicated the design team would 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD look into the public pathway issue. Schroeder remarked that would be very helpful, especially in light of the many concerns expressed at the public meeting about it. Schroeder remarked that the stairs leading up to the loading dock do not appear on the site plan. Gell indicated those would be added. Acharya remarked that several comments were made at the public meeting regarding the use of solar panels. Gell confirmed the applicant still intends on incorporating solar panels into the building at some stage in the process. Schroeder noted it would helpful to have the trees designated for removal and preservation illustrated on the landscape plan. In addition, the drawings do not clearly identify the wall surface treatment which will be used. Gell replied that the applicant has not yet decided on the final set of building materials. Eckler indicated the applicant would follow up on the issue. Schroeder remarked it would also be helpful to see the details of the landscaping around the building, running up to the hill. Snyder added that a visual simulation of some kind would be helpful, as well. Schroeder praised the building architecture, although he indicated some further architectural integration may be needed. He requested a floor plan of the entire building, which Gell agreed to provide. Snyder inquired into the fence height, to which Eckler replied it would be decided upon by the next meeting. The applicant has been looking into two different kinds of 8-foot-high fencing. Schroeder noted he would like to see an actual physical sample of the window glazing material, as well as some documentation of its filtering properties, which Gell agreed to provide. Schroeder remarked he would like to see more labeling of the light fixtures going behind the window, which Eckler agreed to provide. Public Hearing: On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. Michael Engle, 973 E. State Street, noted there is just one piece of property between him and the water plant. He believes it would be a good idea to put a sidewalk on the east side of Water Street. Engle noted he is pleased to see the stormwater management 16 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD portion of the plan. He suggested adding a growth of oak trees in front of the fence, which would both represent a positive addition for the local wildlife and serve as a good carbon offset, while engaging the surrounding neighbors in the maintenance of that area. Joseph Meeks, 201 Water Street, noted he has lived across from the water plant for 35 years. He noted he does not believe security is a significant concern and he supports the installation of a sidewalk to Treva Avenue. He remarked that the water plant alley is constantly being used, so a sidewalk there would make things substantially easier. He would like to preserve the alley, if possible. No one wants to walk down Water Street. Scott Doyle, 104 Treva Avenue, remarked that the City and the consultants have done a wonderful job. He would definitely like to see some pedestrian improvements along Water Street. As noted in his written comments to the Board, pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles regularly use Water Street to access East Hill and South Hills, as well as the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. Dan Hoffman, 306 Giles Street, indicated he is primarily concerned with the interconnection valve building. Although he knows suggestions have been made to design the building to be more compatible with its surroundings, the building as illustrated in the application appears very conventional and uninspired-looking. He would prefer something considerably more fanciful than what has been proposed, adding that it would also be good to have a green roof, with more trees and shrubs. Hoffman went on to note he is concerned with the parking area in front of the interconnection building. He believes it should be better screened. Jacquie Magagnosc, 108 Water Street, noted she is very concerned her backyard would become a pedestrian thoroughfare if a sidewalk is installed. Installing a sidewalk would also require some traffic calming measures. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Marcham, seconded by Acharya, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Acharya indicated he would like the language of the Board’s resolution to reflect that the Board is strongly urging a sidewalk be installed along the City-owned portion of Water Street. Gray replied that the design team would certainly explore the issue, but he cautioned that the slope is quite steep. Acharya asked if a sidewalk would not in fact be required if the applicant were a private property owner, to which Schroeder replied, yes, if at all possible. It would certainly be consistent with what the Board has previously decided on a repeated basis. 17 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Cornish asked if the design team reviewed the City Forestry Technician’s written comments, to which Gray replied, yes. Gray noted, however, that the project has not progressed to the level of detail that would enable the applicant to address the vast majority of those comments, at this time. Cornish remarked that was fine and that the issue can be revisited at a later date. Adopted Phase 1 Preliminary Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the rebuilding of the City Water Treatment Plant, located at 202 Water Street, by the City of Ithaca, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: Phase 1 of the project is the rebuilding of the water treatment plant located on Water Street. It includes: the sequenced demolition of the existing 11,000± square foot (sf) water treatment plant (WTP) (20,000± sf gross); the construction of a 17,070± sf, 6 million gallon per day (gpd) WTP (31,880± sf gross); construction of a 300± sf metering/flow regulator structure (300± sf gross), associated with the emergency interconnect with the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission water supply; construction/reconstruction of ancillary site elements, including stormwater management facilities, access/egress, parking, signage, fencing, lighting, and landscaping. Treatment elements, including rapid mixing, flocculation, clarification, filtration, and chemical feed systems, will be located within the building footprint. The existing high-lift pumping station and underground clearwells will be retained. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Board of Public Works, acting as Lead Agency, completed environmental review and adopted Findings in July 2009, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276- 6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on November 22, 2011, and WHEREAS: the Board has on November 22, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate: plans entitled “Existing Site and Demolition Plan (G-107),” “Site Layout Plan (G-108),” “Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (G-109),” “WTP Site Utility Plan (G-110),” “Site Grading and Drainage Plan (G-111),” “Landscape Plan,” “Partial Landscape Plans,” and “Photometric Plan (G-108),” all dated November 7, 2011 and prepared by O’Brien and Gere, Inc.; and other application materials, and 18 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Planning Board has used the Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site plan, and in considering conditions that should be applied to any approval thereof, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to Phase 1 of the City Water Plant Rebuilding, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of catalog cut-sheets of interior (e.g., ceiling lighting) and exterior lighting (including lighting on south side of building), in order to confirm that light spillage will be minimized, and ii. Submission of catalog cut-sheets and material samples of window types and glazing, and iii. Applicant to provide documentation that the proposed glazing for the windows minimizes light spillage from the building, and iv. Submission of building material samples and of building elevations with the intended materials clearly labeled on the drawings, and v. Submission of revised “Site Layout Plan (G-108),” showing curbing along edges of driveway and parking areas, sidewalk along Water Street, sidewalk connecting parking area sidewalk to building entrance on East State Street side of building, and intended stairs at loading dock on Water Street side of building, and vi. Submission of revised architectural drawings showing floor plan, three-dimensional image of roof forms, and revised drawings for the Interconnection Valve Building (see below), and vii. Reconsideration of the design of the Interconnection Valve Building to better integrate it with the architecture and landscape of the site as a whole; possible ideas include using façade treatments harmonizing with the main water plant building, setting the Interconnection Valve Building and its paved area back from the street to provide room for a sidewalk and/or vegetative screening along the street, and adding a green roof, and viii. Submission of new plan showing existing trees to be retained (including naturally wooded areas at the site’s periphery) and existing trees to be removed; the naturally wooded areas to be retained at the site’s periphery can simply be outlined and labeled as such, and ix. Submission of revised “Landscape Plan” and “Partial Landscape Plans,” adding native woodland trees in the general area between the north parking lot and the private properties along East State Street, adding landscaping around the proposed Interconnection Valve Building to better integrate it with its site, and addressing comments expressed by the City Forestry Technician in her November 22, 2011 e-mail, and x. Submission and approval of proposed decorative fencing type and chain-link fencing color, and xi. Investigate potential for adding porous pavement to site plan, and 19 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD xii. Seek to accommodate a pedestrian pathway (outside the perimeter security fence) that would link the mid-block pathway, off East State Street, to Water Street, and xiii. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and xiv. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board urges the Board of Public Works to develop an overall plan for providing sidewalks along the entire length of Water Street. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd D. Site Landscaping & Shed, 208 Delaware Avenue, Maria Avramis, Applicant & Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant proposes to install new sidewalks, a patio with retaining wall, two parking spaces, a new retaining wall along the south property line, a 14’x20’ shed with concrete pad, and landscaping, including a green retention area. The lot was previously cleared of vegetation. This project is subject to site plan review as part of a Stipulated Settlement between the City and the applicant. The project is in the R-1b Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. City Attorney Dan Hoffman remarked recent litigation had taken place concerning both the applicant’s 208 Delaware Avenue and 137-139 Hudson Street properties, regarding certain decisions made by City departments/agencies. The Hudson Street litigation went to the Supreme Court of Tompkins County, which did not uphold the BZA and Planning Board positions on the property. That case has now been appealed to the Appellate Division, temporarily staying any further action until the outcome of the appeal is known. Regarding 208 Delaware Avenue, since the application is not asking for more than the two permitted grandfathered parking spaces, Hoffman indicated the Planning Board is free to make a decision on the project at this time. Given the new information received from the City Attorney regarding the application, Avramis indicated he would like to ask the Board to postpone further consideration of the project application until its December 2011 meeting. No objections were raised. E. Breckenridge Apartments, 100 W. Seneca Street (Women’s Community Building), Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Applicant & Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Modified Approval. The applicant is requesting 20 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD modifications to the site plan, approved on February 9, 2010. The modifications include the removal of the basement, two ground-floor apartments, and three parking spaces. Mechanical equipment and tenant storage, previously located in the basement, are relocated to the ground floor. The residents’ community room has been relocated to a more prominent location at the corner of N. Cayuga and W. Seneca streets. The applicant is also requesting modifications to the landscape plan, the addition of a concrete sidewalk along Seneca Street, and one additional bike rack. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B (1),(h)(4) & (k) and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (9), for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on February 9, 2009. This action is consistent with that determination and does not require further environmental review. Reynolds recapitulated the salient details of the project. He noted that some of the funding that had originally been anticipated was not granted, so the project has been modified as a result. Hugo presented a general overview of the changes made to the project. When the applicant last presented the project to the Board, some apartments were located on the ground floor. These units have now been removed from the project plan. Hugo observed that some concerns had been expressed with the ground-floor apartments at the time of the original application, so this particular modification actually addresses those concerns. Hugo went on to note that the building’s community space now hugs the street corner, while the entry has shifted slightly west. Hugo also noted the building will now include some office space, which will be leased. The applicant has also eliminated the basement, as it would have been particularly costly to construct. Hugo noted the mechanicals have been moved to the less public spaces on the ground floor and some residential storage units will be installed in the back of the building. Hugo indicated the applicant still needs to provide the Board with final elevations and material samples (although the elevations remain virtually unchanged from the original submission). Hugo walked through some of the highlights of the site plan changes, listed below: • three parking spaces have been removed, now totaling 17 (there are no minimum parking requirements for the site) • number of bike racks has been increased, including room for 18 covered bikes (required for LEED certification) and two more bike racks on the sidewalks • project now incorporates rounded-out corner curb (pending DoT, BPW, and City approval) and a TCAT bus stop • generator has been added to the rear area, slightly reducing the amount of green space in one corner 21 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • NYSEG easement and power line will run along the east property line, so the applicant will most likely not be able to preserve the Arborvitae originally proposed for that location Schroeder asked why NYSEG requires an overhead power line for the site, to which Reynolds replied it does not want any utilities running under the building at all. Wolf added that some vines may be added to that location, as partial recompense for the loss of the Arborvitae. Schroeder noted that the PRC has asked the applicant to: 1. address the fact that the view is too open to the mechanical area 2. investigate the possibility of installing a bench in the green area, to serve as a more private sitting area 3. provide more definitive and detailed plans for the rooftop mechanicals, focusing particularly on their aesthetic impacts Snyder asked what kind of visuals would be provided. It would be helpful to see some three-dimensional renderings of the finished building, at least from the corner perspective. Hugo replied he thinks he should be able to provide those. Thoreau remarked she would like the building to feature at least a few porches. She believes it is important for residents to have that additional relationship with the street and the neighborhood; and it would be particularly nice for low-moderate income units, such as these. Reynolds replied the applicant could certainly investigate adding some porches; however, he believes it would be cost-prohibitive for a project like this. Moreover, Reynolds noted, having only a few porches on the building would probably not be realistic, since the funders would likely want a porch for every unit, which would simply not be feasible. Hugo suggested a compromise, resembling what was done for the Gateway building, might be more feasible. That property incorporates some sliding doors with railings on the exterior of some of the units. Public Hearing: On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder, and unanimously approved, Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. There being public comments, on a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Adopted Modified Approval Resolution: 22 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Thoreau: Schroeder suggested adding some conditions to the resolution, making sure to clarify which of the original conditions approved for the 2009 resolution have been satisfied and which had not. WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for modified site plan approval for the Breckenridge Place project, located at 100 West Seneca Street, by Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, applicant for owner, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting modifications to the site plan, approved on February 9, 2010, and WHEREAS: the modifications include the removal of the basement, two ground-floor apartments, and three parking spaces. Mechanical equipment and tenant storage, previously located in the basement, are relocated to the ground floor. The residence community room has been relocated to a more prominent location at the corner of North Cayuga and West Seneca Streets. The applicant is also requesting modifications to the landscape plan, the addition of pavement along the concrete sidewalk on Seneca Street, and one additional bike rack. The project is in the CDB-60 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B (1),(h)(4) & (k) and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (9), for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on February 9, 2009. This action is consistent with that determination and does not require further environmental review, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276- 6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on November 22, 2011, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on February 9, 2010 grant preliminary and final site plan approval to Breckenridge Place (then called “the proposed apartment building to be located at 100 West Seneca Street in the City of Ithaca”), subject to the following conditions: i. Final building elevations, including building materials, must be approved by the Planning and Development Board, before issuance of a building permit, and 23 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ii. Submission of documentation showing either that (1) rooftop mechanicals will not be visible, or (2) if visible, that they be arranged and/or screened so they appear to be architecturally integrated into the overall building design, and iii. Submission of revised landscape plan showing corrected key, plantings for green trellises, and plantings for green roof on overhang over first floor, and iv. Submission of lighting, signage, sun screens, and site furnishing details, and v. Contingent upon BPW and NYSDOT approval, submission of revised drawings showing the bump-out at the corner of Seneca and Cayuga Streets as an element of the project and not as an alternate, and vi. Submission of revised “Automobile Sight Lines (AP303)” drawing, showing building footprint moved two feet north, to be consistent with the other project drawings, and vii. Submission of revised drawings showing sidewalk paving in the tree lawn strip as stamped or colored concrete, and viii. Submission of revised drawings showing additional bike racks on the Seneca Street side of the building, and ix. Submission of revised “Site Plan (002)” drawing, showing a label on the trash compactor room and restricting the use of the parking space adjacent to this compactor, and x. That noise-producing construction be limited to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and xi. Bike racks shall meet City of Ithaca specifications and be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on November 22, 2011 review and accept revised drawings entitled “Site Plan (002)” and “Exterior Elevations (AP201 & 202),” all dated 11/10/11 and prepared by Holt Architects, Inc. and Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, LLP, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that applicant has satisfied above conditions “v.” and “viii.” and that above condition “ix.” is no longer relevant to the revised project drawings, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant modified site plan approval to the proposed Breckenridge Place project to be located at 100 West Seneca Street in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: Conditions still outstanding from the February 9, 2010 preliminary and final site plan review approval resolution: 24 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD i. Final building elevations, including building materials, must be approved by the Planning and Development Board, before issuance of a building permit, and ii. Submission of documentation showing either that (1) rooftop mechanicals will not be visible, or (2) if visible, that they be arranged and/or screened so they appear to be architecturally integrated into the overall building design, and iii. Submission of revised landscape plan showing corrected key, plantings for green trellises, and plantings for green roof on overhang over first floor, and iv. Submission of lighting, signage, sun screens, and site furnishing details, and v. Submission of revised “Automobile Sight Lines (AP303)” drawing, showing building footprint moved two feet north, to be consistent with the other project drawings, and vi. Submission of revised drawings, showing sidewalk paving in the tree lawn strip as stamped or colored concrete, and vii. That noise-producing construction be limited to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and viii. Bike racks shall meet City of Ithaca specifications and be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and Additional or augmented conditions of November 22, 2011 modified site plan approval (but continuing the above numbering sequence): ix. Submission of final landscape plan (to be approved by Project Review Committee), including revision showing taller evergreen shrubs in front of generator and transformer pad, and x. Submission of final utility plan, and xi. Applicant to investigate adding a bench along the internal site sidewalk leading to North Cayuga Street, and xii. Applicant to investigate appropriate landscape treatment (to be approved by Project Review Committee) for NYSEG easement along west property line, and xiii. Submission of revised site plan (to be approved by Project Review Committee), showing continuous stamped concrete along edges of West Seneca Street and North Cayuga Street, and xiv. Submission of plan and elevations (to be approved by the Planning Board) of final proposal for positioning and screening of rooftop mechanicals. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder 25 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Absent: Boothroyd F. Holiday Inn Expansion – Sketch Plan Hart indicated that the project would include demolition, renovation, and new construction on the site, beginning in approximately one year, with 15 months anticipated for completion. The building was originally constructed in 1972 as a Ramada Hotel. The tower was added in 1984. The plan is to demolish the three guest wings and renovate the commercial building that currently houses the fitness center, pool, lobby, basement, 18 guest rooms, and a meeting space. The building would be closed in November 2012 for 90-120 days of demolition and initial construction. Given that the site features poor soil, construction of an understructure will be required. The hotel would re-open with 90 rooms and the commercial building. The north side of the new building would not include any guest rooms at all, but would be exclusively devoted to meeting spaces. Hart noted that one of the primary drivers of the project is that the current building only has a few years of active use remaining before becoming obsolete. In addition, there is a significant amount of pent-up demand for meeting space in the region. The current building features only 3,000 square feet of meeting space, while the new building would feature 15,000 square feet. Hart observed that Ithaca hotels currently benefit from a significant occupancy rate over the weekends, but suffer from a Sunday- Monday occupancy rate below 50%. Although this is primarily because of an overall dearth of incoming business travelers, Ithaca also lags behind other cities in terms of being able to actively bring larger groups of visitors into the city to stage big meetings and conferences. The anticipated increase in conference and meeting participants resulting from the project would be expected to spur business in the downtown area. Hart proceeded to show a variety of draft renderings. He noted the current intention is to have a rooftop entertainment zone, which would include both enclosed spaces and open-air spaces, with views of Cayuga Lake in the northwest corner. This kind of entertainment zone has proven very popular in other cities. Cornish asked what timeline the applicant envisioned for its site plan review application, to which Hart replied that he currently intends to appear before the Board at its January 24, 2012 meeting. Hart noted the project would be adding just a few parking spaces to the current number; he hopes to use some parking spaces in the Cayuga Garage, as well. 26 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder remarked it sounds like a wonderful project. He knows that, for years, there has been a great deal of interest in a project like this. Cornish asked if a variance would be required, to which Hart replied, no. Snyder asked if the applicant had considered locating a taller building at the corner of Cayuga Street and Clinton Street. Currently, it is essentially one large parking lot. Hart replied, no. The building design needs to be as compact and concentric as possible, to locate all the services and facilities as close together as possible. Certainly, Hart noted, some creative landscaping might address some of Snyder’s concerns and he would be happy to explore the issue further. G. Means Restriction on Seven Bridges — Public Hearing and Consideration of a Determination of Environmental Significance Magré indicated the project application is being submitted for environmental review, today. He made a brief presentation of each bridge’s updated design, including some slides of the training simulator at the ropes training tower. Schroeder noted that the November 8, 2011 memorandum from the applicant contains updated project descriptions which will need to be incorporated into the FEAF Part 3’s. In addition, the Part 3s should be updated with the new maintenance information, as well as language describing the evolution of the project from the project’s inception. Referring to Section 19 of the Part 2 forms (“Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action?”), Thoreau suggested the check-box be checked under the “Potential Large Impact” column, on the “Objections to proposed action from within the community” row. The “No” box under the “Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change?” heading should also be checked in the same row. (The “Yes” box to the right of the heading had been checked, but none of the entries below it.) Public Hearing: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Adopted FEAF, Part 2s: On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder: 27 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Each of the seven FEAF Part 2s for the Means Restriction on Seven Bridges project was unanimously approved, as recorded below. The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd Adopted FEAF, Part 3s: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: Each of the seven FEAF Part 3s for the Means Restriction on Seven Bridges project was unanimously approved, as recorded below. The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 1. Means Restriction on Stewart Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek, Stewart Avenue over Fall Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca, Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets, supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the bridge. Eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-walls will be attached to the north and south sides of the panel system and will be located below bridge- deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is comprised of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine- grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch) attached to a horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net and wing-walls will have a high-performance black coating to reduce visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be painted to match the existing bridge paint color. The project includes installation of sections of eight-foot high black chain- ink fencing at all abutments, thermal sensors located below bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, a new blue-light phone with a security camera located at the south east corner of the bridge, and signage. All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed and the existing stone wall located at the southeast corner will be repaired. 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 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. This project requires a Recreational River Permit and ILPC approval. 28 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Thoreau asked if any studies had been conducted or consulted regarding the potential impact to birds and bats, to which Magré replied that the applicant had discussed the issue with the operators of five Swiss bridges and they indicated there had never experienced any problems. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Thoreau: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 2. Means Restriction on Stewart Ave. Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, Stewart Avenue over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca, Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the bridge. Eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-walls will be attached to the north and south sides of the panel system and will be located below bridge-deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system comprises 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch) attached to a horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net and wing-walls will have a high-performance black coating in order to reduce visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be painted to match the existing bridge paint color. The project includes installation of black chain-link fencing at bridge abutments, thermal sensors located below bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, a new security camera located on an existing blue-light pole at the south west corner of the bridge, and signage. All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed. This project is in the U-1 and R-3a Zoning Districts. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder 29 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Absent: Boothroyd 3. Means Restriction on Thurston Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek, Thurston Avenue over Fall Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca, Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets, supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the bridge. Eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-walls will be attached to the north and south sides of the panel system and will be located below bridge-deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is comprised of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch) attached to a horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The nets and wing-walls will have a high-performance black coating to reduce visibility, and the galvanized steel struts will be painted to match the existing bridge paint color. The project includes the installation of new black chain-link fencing at the bridge abutments. All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed from the bridge and abutments and informational plaques that were removed and stored when the temporary fencing was installed will be put back in their original locations. The project also includes installation of thermal sensors located below bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, a new security camera located on the existing blue-light pole at the southeast corner of the bridge, and signage. 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 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. This project requires ILPC approval and a Recreational River Permit. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 4. Means Restriction on Suspension Bridge over Fall Creek, Cornell University between University Ave. & Fall Creek Drive over Fall Creek, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises a stainless steel mesh sewn into the existing suspension cable of the bridge. The mesh begins as a high vertical curtain, encloses briefly overhead at the 30 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD mid-span of the bridge, and opens again as one traverses to either end of the bridge. The cable mesh is made of 2 millimeter (0.08 inch) marine-grade stainless steel with a 60 millimeter grid (2.4 inch) and will have a high-performance black coating to minimize visibility. The project also includes removal of the existing guardrail, the installation of a security camera on the existing blue-light phone at the south end of the bridge, a new blue-light with a security camera at the north side of the bridge, and signage. This project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. This project requires ILPC approval. Rudan remarked that when Board members visited the site there appeared to be a particularly wet and muddy area near the bridge. She recommends the applicant address this at some point prior to final approval. Magré responded he had already contacted Cornell Maintenance Manager Jim Gibbs regarding the issue, so the problem should be resolved shortly. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Snyder: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 5. Means Restriction on Beebe Dam Footbridge over Fall Creek, Cornell University Campus between Forest Home Drive & Cradit Farm Drive, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets, supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the bridge. An eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-wall will be attached to the northwest side of the panel system and will be located below bridge deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system comprises 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch) attached to a horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net and wing-wall will have a high- performance black coating in order to reduce its visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be painted black. The project includes installation of black chain-link fencing at bridge abutments. The project also includes installation of thermal sensors located below the bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, a new blue- light phone with a security camera located at the northeast corner of the bridge, 31 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD and signage. This project is in the U-1 Zoning district. It is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This project requires a Recreational River Permit. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 6. Means Restriction on Stone Arch Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, College Avenue over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. The proposed means restriction comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets attached to the stone face of the bridge and a support cable, fifteen feet out from the side of the bridge, which spans the gorge from north to south and is supported by anchor points along the embankments of the gorge. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is comprised of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch). All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed. The project includes installation of thermal sensors located below bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, a new security cameras located on existing blue-light poles at the southwest and northeast corners of the bridge, and signage. This project is in the U-1 Zoning district. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd 32 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7. Means Restriction on Trolley Footbridge over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University between Oak Avenue & Hollister Drive over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. The proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the bridge. The proposed mesh nets will be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system comprises 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 200 millimeter grid (7.9 inch) attached to a horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net will have a high- performance black coating in order to reduce visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be painted black. All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed from the bridge. The project includes installation of thermal sensors located below bridge-deck level on each side of the bridge, new security cameras located on existing blue-light poles at the southwest and northeast corners of the bridge, and signage. This project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Adopted CEQR Resolution: On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Acharya: The text of the document can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: Boothroyd Schroeder thanked the applicant for all his hard work on the project. 5. Zoning Appeals APPEAL #2863 ― Area Variance: 527-529 W. State Street Appeal of Brian Buttner on behalf of the owner John Gorsky for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 16, minimum building height of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,304 square foot addition to the rear of the building known as Cornell Laundry, located at 527-29 W. State Street. The proposed addition will be accessed from W. Green Street and be used for packing/shipping and soiled linen returns. The existing one-story building is approximately 18 feet in height and the applicant would like to construct the addition as a one-story building, which best suits the operational needs of the business. The 18’-high, 1-story addition is deficient 7’ in height and lacks 1 story of the required 25’ height and 2-story requirement of the zoning ordinance. 33 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD The owner is in the process of consolidating four lots and, once consolidated, the parcel will be located in three zone districts: the WEDZ-1a, B-2c, and B-2d in which the proposed use is permitted. However, the proposed addition is located in the B-2d zone district which requires a two-story minimum height. Section 325-38 of the zoning ordinance requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal. The Board recommends approval, provided any neighborhood concerns have been addressed. Thoreau expressed her opposition to the Board’s recommendation. She noted that she believes the zoning ordinance requirements are fairly rudimentary and she does not see a justification for an ordinance in this case. 34 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6. New Business A. Planning Board Training — November 29th Cornish noted that Senior Planner Nicholas would be conducting a couple of webinars for those Board members needing to fulfill their annual training requirement. Thoreau remarked she had already fulfilled her own training requirement. A. Planning Board Terms Schroeder indicated that BPW Liaison Acharya’s term will expire at the end of the year. The incoming Mayor will need to re-appoint him or appoint his successor. Acharya expressed his willingness to serve another term. Snyder expressed his willingness to serve another term. Schroeder expressed his willingness to serve another term and noted he had spoken with the Mayor and the intent is for the Mayor and Mayor-Elect to make some joint appointments by the end of the month. 7. Old Business A. Project Review Committee Rotation Rudan volunteered to attend future Project Review Committee meetings on a permanent basis. 8. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Jesse Polenberg Case Schroeder indicated the Jesse Polenberg Article 78 legal case has been dismissed on a procedural basis, but that the judge indicated the case would also have failed on its merits. Proposed Parking Ordinance Revisions Schroeder noted that the proposed parking ordinance revisions had been removed from the next Planning & Economic Development Committee agenda. He remarked that the Building Commissioner had suggested renumbering the entire ordinance; however, this would have cost the City approximately $10,000. As a result, it was decided to move forward with the proposed revisions without any renumbering. 35 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD B. Director of Planning & Development Commons Upgrade & Repair Project Cornish noted the public meeting for the project will take place on December 5, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Tompkins County Public Library. The consultants will also host a separate meeting for Common Council, Planning Board, and the BPW prior to the public meeting, on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. in the Second Floor Conference Room, City Hall. The consultants will present an update on the project, discuss the outstanding issues that still need to be decided, and explain the next steps. They will also solicit feedback on some palettes of materials C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison A written report was submitted. Acharya noted all of the proposed BPW charter changes were passed, representing a substantial revision to its charter. He noted it should help make the BPW better informed about planning issues. Cornish suggested it might be helpful to convene a joint meeting with the BPW and Planning Board. Rudan remarked there should definitely be more communication between the various City boars and committees.   9. Approval of Minutes ― September 27, 2011 On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder, the September 27, 2011 Meeting Minutes were unanimously approved. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Thoreau, Schroeder, Snyder Absent: None 10. Adjournment On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. 36