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