HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-04-23DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
April 23, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C. J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: 1
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Acting Building Commissioner,
Building Division
Applicants Attending: Hector Street Subdivision
Mary Weber, Audrey Edelman RealtyUSA
Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project)
Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates;
David Lubin, Owner/Applicant
700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects;
Kate Krueger, John Snyder, John Snyder Architects;
Bruce Lane, Purity Ice Cream;
Steve Rowe, T.G. Miller, P.C.
Klarman Hall (Goldwin Smith Hall Addition)
Mark C. Deshong, Architect, Koetter Kim & Associates,
Inc.;
Gary Wilhelm, Senior Project Manager, Cornell University
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Enterprise Rent-A-Car (New Car Rental Facility)
Edward Keplinger, Keplinger Freeman Associates, LLC;
Bruce Lane, Purity Ice Cream
Phillip Snyder, Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya recommended moving discussion of agenda item “7. Old Business” to the beginning
of the meeting. No objections were raised.
2. Privilege of the Floor
None.
3. New Business
A. Proposal to Amend §258, Rental Housing, to Establish Required Minimum
Notification Period
Cornish remarked that, while the proposal was not initiated by the Planning Division, her
understanding is that many student rental housing residents are unnecessarily pressured to
sign leases prematurely, shortly after the beginning of the academic year. The proposal
would require a minimum 60 days of written notice from when the current lease period
begins, before a tenant can be asked to sign a new lease. Wilson added that the requirement
can be waived by mutual consent of both parties.
Acharya observed that a tenant signing a slew of documents at the beginning of a lease term
may very well not notice a waiver form inserted among them. Cornish remarked that is a
good point.
Blalock remarked the proposal is a step in the right direction, but he wonders if it could not
go even further. While the 60-day notification period is a good start, perhaps it would be
better to require outright that leases cannot begin before x period of time before the start of
the lease.
B. Proposal to Establish Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) & Re-Zone
Portions of R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, U-1, & B-2b Zoning Districts in Collegetown
Area to Collegetown Residential (CR) & Mixed-Use (MU)
Wilson noted the Board should have received an updated version of the proposal it originally
reviewed at its April 2013 meeting.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Wilson noted the changes include: changes to floor-to-floor heights; added language at the
beginning of the document to clarify that alterations to locally-designated landmark
properties need to be approved by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC),
regardless of zoning; and the elimination of the need to provide double the minimum lot area
(if certain requirements are met) to construct an additional structure in the MU-2 Zone.
Board members reviewed Randall’s previously submitted written comments. Randall
indicated her biggest concern is with the minimum lot sizes; but she would also prefer to see
more ‘connectivity’ standards for preserving and promoting a walkable urban environment.
Randall also noted the City should not be encouraging unnecessary redevelopment in the
Collegetown area to conform to the proposed requirements.
Niechwiadowicz noted that, while new housing stock meets energy-efficiency standards, the
efficiency of older structures can certainly be increased with retrofitting. It really depends on
whether the owner feels there is a cost benefit to it. Furthermore, many new buildings would
not necessarily have to conform to the most rigorous portions of the code; there is a risk
analysis process that takes place first. It would ultimately be up to Common Council to
decide how to strike that balance. Niechwiadowicz added that it could be argued that some
older houses are relatively safe, while some newer houses are relatively unsafe.
Schroeder indicated there is a strong environmental argument for the re-use of existing
structures. Niechwiadowicz agreed.
Schroeder remarked that a particularly worthwhile aspect of the 2009 Collegetown Urban
Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines was the strong presence of the 400 block of College
Avenue that it promoted (as opposed to the weaker form of the 300 block). To meet the
spirit of the Collegetown plan, there should be a step-back on the 400 block, which would
allow a building up to 80 feet high on the 400 block, while preserving the views.
Cornish responded she would really need to examine the stepback dimensions and determine
what would be reasonable, to minimize the use of valuable space.
Schroeder also expressed concern with the green space requirement in mixed-use zones. He
would prefer not to interfere with the existing street wall. For example, perhaps it would
make more sense to make the space in front of the Schwartz Center for the Performing Arts a
genuine public park, as opposed to disparate smaller green spaces, here and there.
Wilson responded that Schroeder’s first concern could be most readily addressed by design
guidelines. In terms of the green space requirement, it is not required in the proposed MU-2
Zoning District, while in the MU-1 Zoning District, it is only 10 feet.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Regarding the next steps associated with the proposal, Wilson indicated the intent was to
present recommendations on the comments received-to-date at the May 2013 Planning and
Economic Development Committee (P&EDC) meeting and make some initial decisions on
how to address some of these issues, before proceeding with the final document design.
Wilson went on to note that there was a provision in the prior version of the document that
required a certain percentage of a building to be side-stepped back. This requirement has
now been removed from the MU-2 Zoning District, since there was no need for it in that
zone and it would have limited the way buildings could be designed.
Acharya asked if there were any other comments. No more comments were expressed.
C. Proposal to Amend §325-3 B., Definitions and Word Usage, to Add Definition of
“Green Space”
Wilson indicated this proposal would apply city-wide. It was initiated because the City
currently does not have a green space definition in the zoning code and, over the years,
neighborhoods have experienced a measurable deterioration of green space. While the City
has a few means of controlling the amount of green space, it does not have any direct means
of controlling it, so a definition was needed. The definition includes both a general and a
composite component.
Acharya noted it looks reasonable to him. He asked if there were any other comments. No
more comments were expressed.
D. Proposal to Amend §325-3 B., Definitions and Word Usage, to Amend Definition
of “Building Height”
Wilson indicated this would be another change to the definitions in the city-wide code. It
would also add a new definition of “grade plane.” The definition is intended to address how
buildings are measured on sloping sites, which can be an issue of considerable concern. For
example, there have been instances of property owners mounding soil onto the side of a
building, in an effort to artificially lower the recorded height of the building and circumvent
City maximum height requirements.
Niechwiadowicz added that the new definition would relate the requirement to the lowest
point of the building, in order to generate an average for the grade around the building.
Elliott observed the proposal would most likely not prevent every attempt by property
owners to circumvent City maximum height requirements. Niechwiadowicz conceded that is
probably true.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4. Old Business
A. Proposal to Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements
Cornish indicated the proposal is being brought back for a working group to review, so the
Board will have additional opportunities to comment on it.
Acharya noted that the premise that fewer people will necessarily place less demand on
infrastructure, as stated under the “What are the impacts of minimum parking requirements?”
heading in Niechwiadowicz’s 3/13/13 e-mail, may not be entirely accurate. It was his
understanding that higher density actually places very little proportional additional demand
on infrastructure. Niechwiadowicz responded that, if one increases density, one does have to
bear certain additional infrastructure costs.
Acharya asked Niechwiadowicz about the underlying rationale for the statements in his e-
mail, where it mentions: (1) “[…] without the minimum parking requirements in zoning,
landlords can add bedrooms in their basements or other spaces in the building that had not
been used as bedrooms in the past in order to increase occupancy which translates to
increased income;” and (2) “More people in a building puts more people at risk if something
goes wrong in the building.” Niechwiadowicz responded that density can increase the risk to
people, in some instances (e.g., fire safety). As before, a determination needs to be made as
to what would be an acceptable risk.
Randall asked if the City could not pass more restrictive codes to compensate for those kinds
of concerns. Niechwiadowicz replied, no. The State requires an extraordinary degree of
evidence for local municipalities to justify making zoning more restrictive.
B. Proposal to Repeal Portions of §325-20, Off-Street Parking, in R-1 & R-2 Zoning
Districts
Acharya asked what the basis was for the decision to repeal the ordinance, rather than simply
removing the problematic portions. Niechwiadowicz responded that the conclusion was that
it would be a far more efficient, cleaner process to repeal it. The ordinance was not
completely evaluated for impacts, before its adoption, and it contained numerous
contradictions.
Schroeder explained that the Board had recommended certain changes to rear and side yard
parking requirements, which initiated the amendment, and maximum parking requirements
were subsequently added to it, as well, which were probably not well-thought out. Schroeder
indicated his concern with the current language is that it could be interpreted to mean that for
16 families one can only have 4 cars. If that maximum parking language were to remain, it
would need to be clarified (e.g., he thinks the maximum is problematic in the R-2 Zone).
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Niechwiadowicz noted the permitted uses on the Zoning District Regulations Chart also
contain some contradictions. He stressed that the problem is that it is an unenforceable
ordinance as it stands now, which is why a decision was made to return to the original
language and enact a cleaner, more enforceable ordinance.
No further comments were expressed.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Major Subdivision, Hector St., Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, Dorothy Sturtevant &
Marilyn Ryan, Applicants & Owners, Intent to Declare Lead Agency, Determination of
Environmental Significance, Public Hearing, & Consideration of Preliminary
Approval. The applicants have made the following revisions from a previous proposal,
submitted in August 2012: (1) elimination of previously proposed lot that would have
permanently blocked access from Campbell Avenue to Hector Street; and (2) reconfiguration
of proposed Lot 3, moving the property line away from the existing creek. The applicants
are proposing to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring
0.266 acres (11,569 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring
0.264 acres (11,497 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring
0.268 acres (11,4663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4,
measuring 3.863 acres with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street
frontage on Campbell Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a
minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet. 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.
Mary Weber, representing the applicants, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
subdivision.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2,
by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicants have made the following revisions from a previous proposal,
submitted in August 2012: (1) elimination of previously proposed lot that would have
permanently blocked access from Campbell Avenue to Hector Street; and (2) reconfiguration of
proposed Lot 3, moving the property line away from the existing creek. The applicants are
proposing to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres
(11,569 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres
(11,497 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres
(11,663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres
with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell
Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF,
and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of subdivision approval for City of
Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2,
by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicants have made the following revisions from a previous proposal,
submitted in August 2012: (1) elimination of previously proposed lot that would have
permanently blocked access from Campbell Avenue to Hector Street; and (2) reconfiguration of
proposed Lot 3, moving the property line away from the existing creek. The applicants are
proposing to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres
(11,569SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres
(11,497 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres
(11,663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres
with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell
Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF,
and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and requires environmental review,
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 Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April 23, 2013
review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF),
Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; a plan entitled “Survey Map
Showing Portion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 10/11/12, with a revision date of 4/1/13, and
prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and additional application materials, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County, the Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested parties
have been given the opportunity to review the information for this project and the Planning Board
has considered any comments received, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby determines that the
proposed subdivision for the above-referenced action will result in no significant impact on the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the requirements contained in Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Schroeder seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Preliminary Major Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2,
by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and
WHEREAS: the applicants have made the following revisions from a previous proposal,
submitted in August 2012: (1) elimination of previously proposed lot that would have
permanently blocked access from Campbell Avenue to Hector Street; and (2) reconfiguration of
proposed Lot 3, moving the property line away from the existing creek. The applicants are
proposing to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres
(11,569SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres
(11,497 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres
(11,4663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres
with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell
Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF,
and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, 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: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified
in accordance with Chapter 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 April 23,
2013, and
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April 23, 2013
review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF),
Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; a plan entitled “Survey Map
Showing Portion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 10/11/12, with a revision date of 4/1/13, and
prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and additional application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on April 23, 2013 make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County, the Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested parties
have been given the opportunity to review the information for this project and the Planning Board
has considered any comments received, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
3. Site Plan Review
A. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135, & 137-139 E. State St. on
the Commons, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Adoption of
FEAF, Part 2. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 11-story (including
roof space), mixed-use building of approximately 151,000 GSF. The project will include one
story (11,555 SF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (51,185 SF) of upper-story office, and
six stories of residential (up to 46 units). The residential tower has been redesigned from
previous submissions. It is set back 62’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade with
two one-story step-backs. The building will have two main entrances, on the Commons and
Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The applicant proposes an exterior
bridge connecting the third floor to the Green Street parking garage. In addition to typical
rooftop mechanical elements, the top of the tower will include a glassed-in multipurpose
room for use by building office and residential tenants, as well as a small fitness room and a
west-facing terrace. The applicant proposes to work with the City to reconfigure the service
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
functions at the rear of the building, including trash/recycling storage and pick-up and
deliveries. The project is on the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires an area variance for
height. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1)(h)[4], B. (1)(k) and B. (1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act 617.4 (b)(9) and is subject to environmental review. The project may require a
State Building Code Variance.
Whitham indicated the applicant will go before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) after the
outcome of the Downtown CBD Rezoning Ordinance amendment proposal is determined (a
1-2 month delay). He indicated the applicant made a few changes to the site plan, since the
Board last reviewed the project. The applicant also had several productive meetings with
City staff to work out how the site adjacent to the Green Street garage should be configured,
given that the City is actively seeking to change how it handles the trash and recycling in that
area.
Jones-Rounds noted that the changes represent a considerable improvement. The project
seems less obtrusive. Schroeder agreed, noting it looks more like an urban landscape than
before.
Whitham noted the applicant is working on identifying all the materials, colors, etc., which
will be presented at the next meeting. Schroeder responded that he does not like the grey
metal that appears in the articulated rectangles on the current version of the plan. Whitham
replied the applicant could look into that.
Whitham indicated that the applicant received the letters from both the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the City Historic Preservation Planner; and it will be
prepared to respond to them, the next time it appears before the Board.
Elliott observed there is considerable historic character on the Commons and he wonders if
there might be a way to maintain the façade and general historic fabric of the buildings. He
questioned the decision to remove the façade entirely. Whitham responded he would address
those kinds of concerns, as well.
Schroeder remarked that the three buildings are some of the least important structures in the
historic district (although the Race Building’s second story is worth preserving). There is an
argument to be made for tearing them down, although that argument needs to be convincing.
Whitham remarked the applicant will provide the Board with all the different pieces of
information necessary to finalize the FEAF, Part 3 (e.g., shadow studies, staging,
construction, materials, proposed parking garage alterations, etc.).
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or
involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts Only – See
Part 3.
Yes No
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Due to proposed 11-story height,
project will be visible from many points in the city.
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for
the National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Other impacts (if any): Proposal to tear down three
buildings within the National Register Historic District
and replace with new building rising (in part) to 11
stories in height. See Part 3.
Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: Construction impacts and concerns
expressed by the City Transportation Engineer― See
Part 3. Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts Only.
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction impacts during
demolition and potential impact to public services under
Green Street Garage ― See Part 3. Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional
community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any): Potential impacts on public
services under Green Street parking garage.
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
Schroeder stressed again that it will be crucially important to present a well-conceived
rationale for tearing the three buildings down.
B. Purity Ice Cream, Mixed-Use Project, 700 Cascadilla St., Bruce Lane, Applicant &
Owner. Adoption of FEAF Part 2. The applicant will provide new drawings at the
meeting. The applicant is proposing to expand its ground-floor operations, add four stories
to the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a
footprint of 7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will include 20-24 one- and
two-bedroom residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of rental office space. The
Purity Ice Cream store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new
addition with a kitchen, seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail
space, lobby, and ancillary space for residents. The major structural system will be a steel
frame, with friction piles and concrete grade beams as the anticipated foundation system.
The project will employ a brick cavity wall on the north façade, while the south façade will
be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. Site work and exterior
improvements include outside seating, sidewalk improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-
space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton St. The off-site parking areas are located
at 520 Esty St. and 619 Cascadilla St. The Esty St. parking area has 29 spaces with ingress
on N. Fulton St. and egress on Esty St. The parking lot at 619 Cascadilla St. will have 11
parking spaces with ingress and egress on Cascadilla St., and egress on N. Meadow St. The
project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. This is a Type I Action under the City
of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1). (k) and an Unlisted
Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review.
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The project requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut and other proposed
work in the State right-of-way.
Snyder recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a mixed-use housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street (Purity
Ice Cream) by Bruce Lane, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand its ground-floor operations, add four stories to
the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a footprint
of 7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will include 20-24 one- and two-bedroom
residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream
store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new addition with a kitchen,
seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary
space for residents. The major structural system will be a steel frame, with friction piles and
concrete grade beams as the anticipated foundation system. The project will employ a brick
cavity wall on the north façade, while the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite
metal panel cladding system. Site work and exterior improvements include outside seating,
sidewalk improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N.
Fulton St. The off-site parking areas are located at 520 Esty St. and 619 Cascadilla St. The Esty
St. parking area has 29 spaces with ingress on N. Fulton St. and egress on Esty St. The parking
lot at 619 Cascadilla St. will have 11 parking spaces with ingress and egress on Cascadilla St.,
and egress on N. Meadow St. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. The
project requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut and other proposed work in
the State right-of-way, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1). (k). an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review, and
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Transportation, an
involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead
Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation has consented to the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this
resolution, declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed mixed-use
housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall
Opposed: Schroeder
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
Snyder walked through a presentation of the revised project.
Rowe indicated the applicant has been communicating with the State DOT and shown it the
early plans. DOT appears to be satisfied. The applicant will simply need to apply for
highway permits, including a drainage study that shows the project would reduce run-off
going into the DOT stormwater management system.
Schroeder asked if the applicant could screen the NYSEG transformer. Snyder replied he
would look into it. Rowe noted that a certain amount of clear space needs to be maintained
around NYSEG utilities.
Snyder indicated the project will include rooftop ventilation from kitchen, but this will have
a low-profile hood. The applicant is also exploring solar energy collection possibilities.
Snyder noted the predominant building material will be brick, in harmony with the existing
Purity Ice Cream building, with an anodized window system, metal panel insets, and zinc
metal panel spandrels, as well as a mitred glass curtain wall, wrapped around corner. The
project will also include solar arbors and bicycle locker parking for residents.
Cornish observed that the entrance drive’s orientation to the parking lot looks peculiar.
Rowe conceded that may be the case, but stressed that the drive would only be one-way
(with one-way, “Do Not Enter” signage). Elliott suggested adding landscaping to emphasize
the one-way orientation. Rowe responded the applicant is actually trying to avoid modifying
the curbcuts. Schroeder agreed with Elliott that additional landscaping would help prevent
accidents.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornish noted that the paint lines would need to be extended out onto the street. Rowe
replied they would certainly look into that.
Snyder explained that the overall objective was to maximize parking (as the applicant was
instructed to do by the Board), but the applicant will look into the safety issues associated
with that entrance.
Snyder displayed the solar arbor illustrations. Lane explained that they would generate
power, which would flow into the grid. The arbors also come with lighting options, which
would remove the need to install additional light poles.
Snyder indicated that fencing and hedging would surround the Cascadilla Street parking lot.
Nicholas reported that both the Building Division and the City Director of Zoning
Administration have determined that the Cascadilla Street parking lot will not require a use
variance.
Rowe reported that, while the City Transportation Engineer indicated he would like to see a
one-way drive onto North Meadow Street, the State DOT indicated it would like to see the
North Meadow curbcut removed. The City Transportation Engineer Logue has written to the
DOT to resolve the conflict.
Blalock observed that Meadow Street is very busy, but the site design appears to encourage
families to cross the street. He asked if the ample parking available at the nearby ID Booth
store could not be used somehow, to help address this issue. Lane replied that the ID Booth
owners have expressed absolutely no interest in selling some of their land or agreeing to a
long-term lease.
Schroeder asked for an explanation of why more parking spaces could not be placed on the
main portion of the site. Lane replied there are currently 21 spaces on that portion of the site,
which will have been reduced to 17. The lot configuration is simply too chaotic to add more
parking, since customers inevitably end up creating their own traffic patterns. Snyder
reassured Schroeder that the applicant did examine the issue in considerable detail.
Schroeder insisted more options could be explored. Snyder replied the applicant would
certainly be happy do that.
Acharya observed there is a City-owned parking lot between Court and Esty Streets, which is
extremely underutilized. Snyder responded that that parking lot is too far ― the
recommended distance that retail parking should be to a retail establishment is 400 feet.
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder indicated he likes the project, but would prefer not to institutionalize a parking lot
at the transition to an already fragile neighborhood. Jones-Rounds agreed.
Krueger submitted that the landscaping features should help mitigate some of the Board
concerns. Lane agreed, noting that he is intent on creating exceptional landscaping for the
project, connecting it to the neighborhood.
Elliott suggested installing an aesthetically pleasing and harmonious sound wall to protect
the neighborhood. Elliott also asked if Snyder would triple-glaze the pointed glass curtain
wall. Snyder replied he could explore that option. Elliott went on to observe that the curtain
wall encloses the principal social space of the apartments; he is concerned with noise
penetrating the glass. Snyder replied that all the glass on that side of the building would be
laminated, which should help.
Cornish noted that a common concern with glass buildings is the interior screening system.
Snyder replied that each of the walls would feature a different color, along with screening.
Schroeder indicated he is intrigued with the sound attenuation barrier Elliott mentioned.
Cornish remarked she fears it would risk creating a walled-in neighborhood. Elliott
suggested it could be the same height as a standard lattice fence, but with more mass.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally Yes No
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
within 3 feet of existing ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Need information about
foundation type.
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Project will require a SWPPP
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts Only- Near
residential area
Yes No
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
31
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or
natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Project site is in a highly visible
location. Parking lots require screening. Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
32
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
33
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: Project requires a DOT permit and review
by City Transportation Engineer. Traffic counts are
needed to evaluate any potential impact. Applicant
needs to address concerns of City Transportation
Engineer.
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
34
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any) Construction Impacts Only – near
residential area.
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
35
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional
community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
36
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any): Proposed parking lot on the
corner of Cascadilla and North Meadow Streets is
contrary to the West End Urban Design Plan (1999), with
potential negative impacts on adjacent Cascadilla Street
neighborhood.
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
Snyder noted he would submit the revised drawings, soil report, and landscape design to the
Board.
C. Klarman Hall, 232 East Ave., Cornell University Campus, Cornell University,
Applicant & Owner. Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant
proposes to construct a 67,511 SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear of Goldwin Smith Hall,
as well as add dormers and re-roof the building. Klarman Hall will contain classrooms,
office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space. The two
buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of the
hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both
for exterior walls and the roof, and includes green rooves and multiple outdoor terraces on
several levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of
the sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area
behind Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area
between Goldwin Smith and Lincoln Halls. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4(b.)(9), and requires environmental review. The
project is in the U-1 Zoning District and the Arts Quad Historic District and requires a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).
DeShong walked through a presentation of the project.
37
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder asked if the wall facing East Avenue would be stone veneer. DeShong replied,
yes. Schroeder suggested doing a relief sculpture in stone, facing East Avenue, which would
be a perfect place for that kind of adornment.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to construct a 67,511-SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear of Goldwin
Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re-roof the building. Klarman Hall will contain
classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space. The two
buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of the
hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both for
exterior walls and the roof, and includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several
levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the
sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and Lincoln Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and the Arts
Quad Historic District and received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) on 4/9/13. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b.) (9).
IMPACT ON LAND
Klarman Hall is scheduled to begin construction in Fall 2013 and will require approximately 28
months to complete. Enabling work, planned for June 2013, will consist of site utility relocations
and installation of air-handling equipment and duct work, to provide ventilation. The enabling
work and the slate roof replacement work of the Goldwin Smith roof will be completed prior to
the start of classes in Fall 2013.
The existing lawn and landscaped areas in this immediate vicinity will be disturbed by the staging
and construction process. The construction will require permanent removal of all landscaping
within the construction and staging area, including several mature trees.
The project includes significant subsurface work, requiring heavy excavation and possibly
blasting the underlying rock with the overburden still in place. Approximately 38,000 cubic
yards of existing site soils and rock will be removed. Foundations will require shoring piles and
lagging.
38
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
Excavation shall be done in accordance with approved construction practices, according to the
contract documents. Any blasting will be performed in a safe manner with appropriate protocols.
Demolished materials, cleared vegetation, excess topsoil, and excess excavation material shall
become the property of the contractor and shall be disposed of off-site in a legal manner, in
accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.
New landscaping will be installed at the conclusion of work to replace disturbed areas. Trees and
lawn areas not within the construction staging area will be protected from construction traffic or
impact. The staging area adjacent to the site will be re-landscaped upon completion of the
project, in accordance with the landscaping plan included in the site plan approval package.
IMPACT ON WATER
No impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
The disturbed area is approximately 1.9 acres. Per local and state requirements, a formal Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been submitted to the City Stormwater
Management Officer (SMO) to address both construction erosion-control requirements and post-
construction water quality and quantity (rate of flow) controls.
No impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Project construction will begin in Summer 2013 and is expected to last approximately 28 months.
Project development requires excavation of approximately 38,000 cubic yards of existing site
soils which may include blasting, as well as the removal of lawn areas, mature trees, and
walkways.
Construction and site preparation activities will create the potential for increased airborne dust
and dirt particles. The amount of construction-generated dust depends on several factors,
including soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and sun,
weather-related factors, and construction practices.
The applicant should be required to use the following dust-control measures, as needed, during
construction:
• Misting or fog-spraying site to minimize dust.
• Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.
• Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
• Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
• Requiring trucks to be covered.
39
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
The site selected for Klarman Hall is a highly-developed area. Any impact to plants and animals
is restricted to the loss of approximately one acre of existing planted trees, vegetation, and lawn
within the project area, and the associated loss of the minor local habitats they provide.
Existing trees and shrubs within the construction area are a mix of tree lilacs and crab apples, plus
a small group of tall evergreen trees. The maples and elms along East Avenue were planted two
years ago and will be moved to other locations on campus or stored for later use. The trees
removed from the staging area include eight accolade cherry trees, which may be relocated, and a
white pine and a larger specimen tree, which it is not possible to relocate.
After construction is complete, a full landscape plan will be implemented, including the
restoration of the staging area between Goldwin Smith and Lincoln Halls.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
Where feasible, the applicant intends to salvage plants (including trees). The Grounds
Department will transport salvageable plants to the plant storage area on Palm Road for re-use, or
directly to other re-use sites. In addition, several mature trees of significant value will be
protected throughout the work to support their survival during the construction project.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The proposed Klarman Hall will occupy a site adjacent to Goldwin Smith Hall, within a long-
developed and highly visible area of campus along East Avenue. Due to its low profile, as well
as its location ― mainly contained within the U-shape of Goldwin Smith Hall ― the building
will not be visible from the Arts Quad, and will be primarily visible across, and from limited
points along, East Avenue.
The addition of a respectfully-designed new building frontage and entrance along East Avenue
will improve the appearance of the East Avenue streetscape.
The Lead Agency has noted the following additional potential impacts to aesthetic resources:
• The project includes the conversion of the hemicycle windows into doorways. The finishes
of the lower doorway should be done in a manner that complements surface conditions of the
existing stonework. The applicant has verbally stated that it will finish the lower portion in
stucco, pre-cast concrete, or sandstone.
40
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• The exterior of the proposed building includes large expanses of stone veneer. The finish of
the veneer appears to be uniformly smooth in the renderings and elevations provided by the
applicant. To harmonize with the existing building, the finish of the veneer should be varied,
particularly on walls facing East Avenue.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The proposed project is located within the locally-designated Cornell University Arts Quadrangle
Historic District and is adjacent to Goldwin Smith Hall (1904), a contributing resource to that
historic district. The project is subject to review and approval by the ILPC, and received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the ILPC on 4/9/13.
The height of Klarman Hall is kept low to allow the eave of Goldwin Smith Hall to be seen; and
the building is kept distinct and separate from Goldwin Smith Hall on the north and south. The
connection to Goldwin Smith Hall is glass, allowing the historic materials elevations to remain
visible and understandable. As with the Koetter Kim-designed Physical Sciences Building across
the street, the applicant expects the new construction to create new views and offer perspectives
which will allow a greater appreciation of the historic stone masonry of Goldwin Smith Hall.
The applicant has submitted a historic preservation report entitled “New Humanities Building
Project Historic Preservation Report—Design Development Phase,” prepared by EHT Traceries,
Inc., for Koetter Kim & Associates. The report makes the following recommendations, all of
which are addressed by the proposed design:
• The design of the new humanities building should not require any demolition that alters the
Goldwin Smith Hall footprint.
• The architecture of the new humanities building should be distinguishable from, yet
complementary to, Goldwin Smith Hall. The replication of any architectural detailing or
stylistic detailing of Goldwin Smith Hall on the new humanities building is not recommended
on the new building.
• Because of the significance of Goldwin Smith Hall, the new humanities building should
appear secondary to the historic building.
The masonry patterns of the stone-clad portion of Klarman Hall will, in appropriate places,
include both rougher (sandblasted) and smoother stone finishes, to reference (without imitating)
the interplay of rougher and smoother stone finishes on Goldwin Smith Hall.
The applicant has also submitted Appendix A, Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment, by the
Public Archeological Facility at the State University of New York at Binghamton. The
construction area is part of an area of previous construction, Goldwin Smith Hall and Dairy
building (the latter having been incorporated into Goldwin Smith Hall), including, as referenced
in the report, “[…] a complex network of buried utilities.” The conclusion of this report is that no
archeological survey is recommended.
41
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The Lead Agency has noted the following additional potential impacts to historic resources:
• The project includes the conversion of the hemicycle windows into doorways. The finishes
of the lower doorway should be done in a manner that complements surface conditions of the
existing stonework. The applicant has verbally stated that it will finish the lower portion in
stucco, pre-cast concrete, or sandstone.
• The exterior of the proposed building includes large expanses of stone veneer. The finish of
the veneer appears to be uniformly smooth in the renderings and elevations provided by the
applicant. To harmonize it with the existing building, the finish of the veneer should be
varied, particularly on walls facing East Avenue.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Construction Impacts:
Klarman Hall construction is scheduled to commence mid-June 2013 and last approximately 28
months. The project will impact traffic most significantly for approximately the first 14 months
of construction, during excavation and construction of the underground building structure.
Excavation will result in approximately 10 truck trips per hour (5 trucks coming and 5 trucks
leaving). After the excavation is complete (towards the end of the 6-month period),
approximately 15 trips per day will occur with backfill materials. Excavation and backfill trucks
will access the site via an on-site temporary haul road. It is anticipated the haul trucks will travel
from East Avenue to Tower Road, and then onto Route 366, or East Avenue to Cradit Farm Drive
to Pleasant Grove Road, and then onto State Route 13. Flagmen will be utilized to manage the
traffic on East Avenue during the excavation and backfill of the site, as needed.
Construction activities will be supported throughout the 28-month project with daily deliveries of
materials, supplies, and miscellaneous services. It is anticipated this traffic will fluctuate between
5 and 20 construction deliveries per day. The majority of the construction deliveries will occur
during off-peak hours; however, it is estimated several deliveries per day could be made during
peak commuting times. While this increase in trips is considered minimal, it is recognized that
truck traffic typically requires more time and space for maneuvering, and minor increases in
delay can be expected. Any oversized loads and/or multiple truck deliveries will be scheduled for
special delivery times, so as not to coincide with periods of peak traffic. Project staging will
include a designated truck pull-off area to minimize these impacts.
The sidewalk along East Avenue adjacent to the project site will be closed for the duration of the
construction. The sidewalk will be closed at the start of the enabling work in mid-June 2013. It
will not re-open until the project is substantially complete in November 2015.
42
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The applicant intends to notify pedestrians of the closing with signage beginning in May 2013.
Southbound pedestrians on East Avenue will be diverted to the Arts Quad or the walkway on the
east side of East Avenue. A crosswalk at the north, opposite the front entrance of Lincoln Hall,
will be constructed. A fence will be installed along East Avenue to dissuade pedestrians from
crossing East Avenue between the provided crosswalks. The crosswalk at the south will be out-
of-service for limited periods of time during the Summer enabling project, when work around the
stairs is underway. The applicant intends to provide a temporary crosswalk, designated during
these times. Northbound pedestrians will be detoured to the east side of East Avenue at the
Tower Road East Avenue intersection and to the Arts Quad, as they approach the south crosswalk
at Goldwin Smith Hall.
The applicant has provided a traffic impacts evaluation study from Creighton Manning Engineers
of Albany, NY. The construction impacts to traffic were not considered significant by the traffic
engineer, as the additional truck traffic is less than 1% over existing traffic volume. In order to
accomplish the construction of the building, it seems likely the temporary closing of one lane of
East Avenue for approximately 14 months will be necessary. The project has investigated
options to permit two-way traffic with reduced lane widths. This scenario would provide two 10-
foot lanes with no bike lanes. Discussions with the project’s pre-construction services consultant,
LeChase Construction, LLC of Rochester, NY, has indicated the construction of the building is
not deemed to be possible in a safe manner without access around the excavation site. Two ten-
foot lanes and fencing would only provide 8 or 9 feet of available area, which would not provide
for the safe operation of the needed heavy equipment, nor the width for the footprint for the
needed cranes. The only viable option is to close the southbound lane of East Avenue. All other
boundaries of the site are adjacent to an existing occupied building (Goldwin Smith Hall).
Access for cranes, concrete pumps, and materials delivery cannot be safely accomplished without
space along East Avenue. Lacking two-way traffic, the options which create the least impact on
the surrounding intersections are one-way traffic north or one-way traffic south.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
• Flagmen will be utilized to manage the traffic on East Ave. during the excavation and backfill
of the site, as needed.
• Project staging will include a designated truck pull-off area to minimize delivery impacts.
• Cornell Facility Services will also coordinate with City officials to minimize cumulative
impacts from any other concurrent projects in the area, such as proposed safety improvements
on the nearby bridges over Cascadilla Creek, to minimize pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
impacts. This will include coordination of major deliveries, temporary lane closures, location
of pedestrian detours and crossings, and other construction impacts.
• Pedestrian access plan with signage and detours.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impacts anticipated.
43
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Klarman Hall is scheduled to begin construction in Fall 2013 and will require approximately 28
months to complete. Site work is expected to include sub-surface blasting prior to the removal of
all soil, as well as drilling for the installation of piles, and lagging to act as shoring. Noise
resulting from normal construction practices is inevitable and will impact the surrounding
buildings, including: Baker Laboratory, Physical Sciences Building, Clark Hall, Rockefeller Hall,
and Lincoln Hall, for a large percentage of the duration of construction. The construction
contract requires all work be in accordance with applicable local noise ordinances, including
work-hour restrictions.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
The applicant will work closely with the contractor to implement the following Best Management
Practices (BMP) for noise-reduction, as listed by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to the maximum practicable extent:
• Source reduction by using mufflers, dampeners, and electric motors, instead of air
compressors.
• Use of equipment inside the building to dampen noise.
Construction noise is unavoidable, but temporary. Impacts are neither expected to extend beyond
the campus limits, nor last beyond the construction period.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The proposed Klarman Hall will occupy a site adjacent to Goldwin Smith Hall, within a long-
developed area of campus along East Avenue.
No significant impacts anticipated.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
No public comments have been received for this project, as of the latest publication date.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
44
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Klarman Hall to be located at 232 East Avenue by Cornell University,
applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 67,511 SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear
of Goldwin Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re-roof the building. Klarman Hall will
contain classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space.
The two buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of
the hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both
for exterior walls and the roof, and includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several
levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the
sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and Lincoln Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and the Arts
Quad Historic District. The project has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
§617.4(b.)(9), and requires environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: on March 26, 2013, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the
agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead Agency
for this project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April
23, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled: “C-
102 – Utilities Demolition Plan,” “C-103 – Existing Grading & Bedrock,” “C-301 – New
Electric Plan,” “C-302 – Enabling Project 2013 New Electric Profiles,” “C-501 – New Fire
Water Plan,” “C-502 – New Fire Water Section,” “C-601 – New Storm Plan,” “C-602 – New
Storm Section,” “L3.00 – Annotated Layout and Site Furnishings Plan, Ground Floor,” “L3.01
– Annotated Layout and Site Furnishings Plan, First Floor,” “L3.02 – Annotated Layout and
Site Furnishings Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.03 – Annotated Layout and Site Furnishings Plan,
Second Floor,” “L3.04 – Annotated Layout and Site Furnishings Plan, Third Floor,” “L3.10 –
Grading Plan, Ground Floor,” “L3.11 – Grading Plan, First Floor,” “L3.12 – Grading Plan,
Second Floor,” “L3.13 – Grading Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.14 – Grading Plan, Third Floor,”
“L3.20 – Soils Plan, Ground Floor,” “L3.21 – Soils Plan, First Floor,”
45
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
“L3.22 – Soils Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.23 – Soils Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.24 – Soils Plan,
Third Floor,” “L3.30 – Materials Plan, Ground Floor,” “L3.31 – Materials Plan, First Floor,”
“L3.32 – Materials Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.33 – Materials Plan, Second Floor,” “L3.34 –
Materials Plan, Third Floor,” “L3.50 – Planting Plan, Tree and Shrub, Ground Floor,”
“L3.51 – Planting Plan, Tree and Shrub, First Floor,” “L3.52 – Planting Plan, Tree and
Shrub, Second Floor,” “L3.53 – Planting Plan, Tree and Shrub, Second Floor,” “L3.54 –
Planting Plan, Tree and Shrub, Third Floor,” “L3.60 – Planting Plan - Groundcover, Ground
Floor,” “L3.61 Planting Plan - Groundcover, First Floor,” “L3.62 – Planting Plan -
Groundcover, Second Floor,” “L3.63 – Planting Plan - Groundcover, Second Floor,” “L3.64
Planting Plan - Groundcover, Third Floor,” “L3.90 – Plant Schedule,” “L7.01 – Sections,”
“L7.02 – Sections,” “L8.00, L8.01, & L8.10 – Details,” “L8.30 – Details - Site Furnishings,”
“L9.00 – Soil Profiles,” “L9.10 & L9.11 – Planting Details,” “D-100 – Existing/Demolition
Site Plan,” “A-100 – Site Plan,” “A-101 – Overall Basement & Ground Floor Plans,” “A-102
– Overall First & Second Floor Plans,” “A-103 – Overall Third Floor & Roof Plans,” “A-301
– Building Sections (A, B, & L),” “A-302 – Building Sections (C & C1),” “A-303 –
Building Sections (D1 & E),” A-304 – Building Sections (G & F),” “A-305 – Building
Sections (H & J),” “A-306 – Building Sections (J1 & K),” “A-307 – Building Sections (N),”
“A-308 – Building Section (P),” “A-309 – Building Sections (Q),” “A-310 – Building
Sections (Q1),” “A-311 – Building Sections (R & S),” “A-312 – Building Sections (M),”
“A-401 - Exterior Elevations,” “A-402 – Exterior Elevations,” “A-403 – Exterior
Elevations,” “A-404 – Exterior Elevations,” “A-405 – Exterior Elevations,” “A-406 –
Exterior Elevations,” “A-407 – Exterior Elevations,” and “A-408 – Exterior Elevations,” “G-
000 – Cover Sheet and Drawing Index,” “D-101 – Roof Demolition Plan,” “D-200 – Existing
Eave Details,” “R-101 – Overall Roof Plan,” “R-102 – Roof Part Plan (1 of 7),” “R-103 –
Roof Part Plan (2 of 7),” “R-104 – Roof Part Plan (3 of 7),” “R-105 – Roof Part Plan (4 of 7),”
“R-106 – Roof Part Plan (5 of 7),” “R-107 – Roof Part Plan (6 of 7),” “R-108 – Roof Part Plan
(7 of 7),” “R-109 – SW Corner Valley Adjustment,” “R-110 – NW Corner Valley Adjustment,”
“R-201 – Sections and Details,” “R-402 – Eave Details,” “R-403 – South Shed Dormer Details,”
“R-404 – Misc. Roof Details,” “R-405 – Misc. Roof Details,” “R-406 – East Hip Dormer
Details,” “R-407 – Misc. Roof Details,” “R-408 – Shed Dormer At Louver Details,” all prepared
by Koetter Kim Associates, Inc., and all dated 10/22/12; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
46
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
D. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, New Car Rental Facility, 801 & 805 Cascadilla St. & 404
N. Fulton St., Enterprise Holdings, for Owner, Eat Dessert First, Inc. Declaration of
Lead Agency & Potential Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant
will provide new drawings at the meeting. The applicant is proposing to: build an 83-car
parking area (24 customer spaces & 59 rental car spaces), perform façade renovations, and
install lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities on the 1.29-acre project site. Site
development will require removal of all existing surface materials (e.g., gravel, paving, etc.),
and removal of approximately 0.2 acres of vegetation, including six trees. Two mature
poplars will be retained and protected during construction. The applicant proposes to use
two of the four existing curbcuts on N. Fulton Street. The applicant intends to remove and
stockpile topsoil for re-use on-site. The property is on three separate tax parcels in the
WEDZ-1a Zoning District. The applicant has applied for a Lot Line Adjustment for the rear
property line of 805 Cascadilla Street. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
and is subject to environmental review. The project will require a permit for work in the
State right-of-way.
Keplinger noted the plans have changed significantly and walked through an overview of the
project, highlighting the following updates/changes:
• Lot Line Adjustment is needed with 404 N. Fulton Street.
• Rest of building will have other occupants.
• Reduced parking spaces to 74 (50 in main lot & 24 in customer lot).
• Saved 3 very large trees
• Increased landscaping along N. Fulton Street considerably.
• Added curbing in parking lot areas to protect landscaping,
• Added new sidewalks and extended existing sidewalks,
• Added sidewalk and bike rack (11) to the rear of the building, including a canopy.
• Since site does not drain stormwater anywhere, run-off will be infiltrated into the
ground. (It will not connect to the City system.)
Acharya indicated he appreciates the applicant incorporating all the Planning Board’s
comments from its Project Review Committee meeting. Schroeder agreed.
Elliott observed that the street-facing façade does seem particularly welcoming for a retail
enterprise (e.g., it only has two doors). Keplinger replied one window is not shown on the
rendering.
Elliott remarked it is a geographically prominent building, but it appears too boxy. In
addition, the canopy appears out of place, since it is not accompanied by any walkways. The
project as a whole seems to needs some more architecture.
47
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder agreed with Elliott regarding the lack of windows. He noted, however, that the
rendering does not fairly represent the landscape plan. Keplinger agreed. Lane explained
that the downstairs façade does not allow enough room to install any new windows. Snyder
indicated that the window could be expanded.
Jones-Rounds suggested adding bicycle parking to the front of the site and make it more
visible. Keplinger noted that people would appreciate having covered protected bike storage.
Schroeder asked for the plans to illustrate the concrete curbing on the site.
Blalock asked about the water and soap effluents. Snyder replied the site will feature an
oil/water separator, in line with State Department of Environmental Conservation Code.
Schroeder indicated the Board will need a trip generation analysis report. Keplinger replied
that it would be provided.
Lisa remarked that the County has asked the applicant to remove the curbcut on Meadow
Street/Route 13. Keplinger indicated he would like to know the Board’s position on that
particular issue. Acharya responded that he himself is satisfied with the plan as it currently
is. Schroeder agreed.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6
of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a rental car facility to be located at 801 & 805 Cascadilla Street and 404 N
Fulton Street by Enterprise Holdings, applicant, for East Dessert First, Inc., owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to: build a 74-car parking area (24 customer spaces & 50
rental car spaces), perform façade renovations, and install lighting, landscaping, and stormwater
facilities on the 1.29-acre project site. Site development will require removal of all existing surface
materials (e.g., gravel, paving, etc.), and removal of approximately 0.2 acres of vegetation, including
some mature trees. Several mature poplars will be retained and protected during construction. The
applicant proposes to use two of the four existing curbcuts on N. Fulton Street. The applicant intends
to remove and stockpile topsoil for re-use on-site. The property is on three separate tax parcels in the
WEDZ-1a Zoning District. The applicant has applied for a Lot Line Adjustment for the rear property
line of 805 Cascadilla Street. The project will require a permit for work in the State right-of-way, and
48
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review,
and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the lead
agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for a car rental facility
to be located on 801 & 805 Cascadilla Street and 404 N Fulton Street in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2900, Use & Area Variances ― 115 W. Clinton Street (INHS)
Appeal of Paul Mazzarella for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for a use and area
variance from Section 325-8 Column 2, Permitted Primary Uses, and Column 11, Front Yard Setback
Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is a 427 square-foot addition to INHS’ existing
office building at 115 W. Clinton Street. The addition will be on the west side of the building at 115
W. Clinton Street and will be two stories in height, totaling 852 square feet. The addition will allow
for four additional office spaces, plus additional space for an existing office on the second floor. In
1994, INHS moved a house located at 301 S. Geneva Street to the parcel of land #80.-11-1, which is
in a P-1 use district. The house was to become INHS’ new office building designated as 115 W.
Clinton Street. Because the office building was located in a P-1 use district, and an office use is not a
permitted use in the P-1 zoning district, INHS needed the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a use
variance before INHS could start occupying the moved building. A use variance was granted to
INHS on December 5, 1994. Because INHS wants to enlarge the building and such enlargement was
not part of the Board’s original consideration when INHS was granted a use variance in 1994, this
means another use variance must be granted for the expansion to be permitted. The applicant,
therefore, needs a variance from Section 325-8, Column 2, Permitted Primary Uses, since the
expansion of an office use is not permitted in the P-1 Zoning District. There are three buildings on
parcel #80.-11-1, where 115 W. Clinton Street is located. The closest building to W. Clinton Street is
111 W. Clinton Street. 111 W. Clinton Street is set back 2.6 feet from the front yard property line to
the face of the building. Section 325-8, Column 11 requires the front yard setback to be 25 feet.
The property at 115 W. Clinton Street and parcel #80.-11-1 are located in a P-1 use district where
office buildings are not permitted uses. Section 325-38 and 39 require a use variance and area
variance be granted, before a building permit of Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
49
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
This project is a modest addition with exterior renovations that improve the aesthetics of the
neighborhood. The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal.
Appeal #2906, Use Variance ― 450 N. Aurora Street
Appeal of Susan McCormick, owner of 450 N. Aurora Street, for a use variance from Section 325-8
Column 2, Permitted Use Requirements, of the City of Ithaca’s Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
recently purchased the property at 450 N. Aurora Street for her business called “Investment
Advisory,” when the office space where she currently operated her business was sold. The applicant
was shown the property at 450 N. Aurora Street by her real estate agent, who assured her the property
would make an excellent place for her business. The property at 450 N. Aurora Street contains a
recently vacated dental office on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor, and is in the
R-2b residential use district. Believing that her realtors knew how the non-conforming use could be
used, Susan McCormick agreed to purchase the property; however, only when she applied for a
building permit did Susan McCormick understand she would need a use variance to establish a
business office in what is a non-conforming medical office. Between 1964 and 1977, the property at
450 N. Cayuga Street was located in an R-3 zone, where medical offices were permitted. About forty
years ago, the former owner of 450 N. Aurora Street set up a dental business on the first floor of this
building, in operation until the beginning of this year. The only way this non-conforming use can
legally continue is if another doctor or dentist uses the first floor of 450 N. Cayuga Street as a medical
office and the second floor as a dwelling unit; however, Susan McCormick must be granted a use
variance if she wishes to use the office for a business office. The applicant, Susan McCormick,
contends she did not create her hardship and it is economically infeasible to convert the first floor
back into a medical office or the first floor into a dwelling unit. 450 N. Cayuga Street is in an R-2b
use district, where a business office use is not permitted. Furthermore, Zoning Ordinance Sections
325-38 and -39 require that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant a use variance, before a building
permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued to the applicant.
The applicant argues she was not fully informed of the zoning requirements at the time she purchased
the property. The Board wants to be completely clear that it does not consider the appellant’s
argument relevant in a variance request and it did not consider it in this recommendation. An
uninformed property purchase does not ― in any way ― entitle a purchaser to a variance, and
cannot be the basis for any decision regarding this appeal. The Planning Board cannot identify any
long-term planning issues with this appeal and, for that reason only, does not object to its approval.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya announced that a landscape architect, Isabel Fernández, has just been appointed to
the Board.
50
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
51
B. Director of Planning & Development
Cornish noted that Common Council member Seph Murtagh is the new P&EDC Chair.
Cornish reported that the Seneca Way Apartments project has undergone value engineering
and the applicant would like to change the color of the brick from what was approved to a
darker, more expensive brick (chocolate brown). Cornish asked if there were any objections.
There were none.
Cornish noted that part of the recent Site Plan Review Ordinance amendment called for the
assimilation of the former Design Review Board into the Planning Board, so she would
welcome any suggestions on how best to manage this new function of the Planning Board.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya reported that BPW approved a food truck round up and its work on a new City
sidewalk maintenance program continues to progress quickly (it appears to be moving
towards establishing a sidewalk assessment district). Acharya added that he did communicate
the Planning Board suggestions and concerns regarding the sidewalks issue to the BPW.
8. Approval of Minutes: 2/26/13
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the February 26, 2013 meeting
minutes were approved.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:00 p.m.