Loading...
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.