Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-04-24Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Planning and Development Board Minutes April 24, 2012 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Schroeder; Meghan Thoreau Board Members Absent: Bob Boothroyd Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning and Development Applicants Attending: Townhouse Apartments (107 Cook St.) Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architects Cornell University Law School Addition (524 College Ave.) Andrew Magre, Associate University Architect, Cornell University; Michael S. Husar, Project Manager, Cornell University; Scott Aquilina, AnnBeha Architects; Stewart J. Schwab, Cornell Law School Dean Building Renovations & Site Improvements (902 Taber St.) Allan Chambliss, Jr., Architect; Scott Tobey, Owner Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor David Nutter, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) member, indicated that BPAC would be interested in assisting the City in making any decisions involving the increased use of pedestrian, bicycle, and other alternative modes of travel. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, sitting member of the Natural Areas Commission (NAC), and former City Attorney, expressed concern with the proposed subdivision and sale of the 1 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting City-owned Cherry Street property. It is the NAC’s contention, he remarked, that the parcel should not be sold at auction, but should instead be incorporated into a Southwest Natural Area (which should be formally designated by the City). Hoffman submitted additional written comments to the Board. Jennifer Dotson, First Ward Alderperson, also expressed concern with the proposed subdivision and sale of the City-owned Cherry Street property, voicing agreement with Hoffman. She added it would be helpful to Common Council if the Planning Board could elucidate how it believes Cherry Street should be zoned. 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 100-2-1.2, Cherry Street, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner. Lead Agency Concurrence. The applicant proposes subdividing existing 8.25-acre lot into two parcels. Parcel A, fronting Cherry Street and measuring 6.00 acres, would be transferred to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). The applicant proposes permanent easements for utilities and the alignment of a future waterfront trail, and a proposed 25’ wetland buffer. Parcel B, measuring 2.25 acres and containing several wetlands, will be retained by the City. The lot is in the I-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and minimum street frontage of 50 feet. Due to the presence of wetlands on the site which prohibit future development, the proposed Parcel B will be deemed uninhabitable and will therefore not require street frontage. The Board of Public Works has determined the existing parcel has no further Public Works use. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review. Common Council intends to act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the sale/transfer of the land and the subdivision. Schroeder indicated he does not object to Common Council acting as Lead Agency; however, he is concerned the draft Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 and 3, do not take the Natural Area Commission’s (NAC) comments into consideration. Marcham indicated it would be helpful to obtain more detailed information (e.g., maps) of that area of the City, so the Board can more effectively identify the kinds of issues and potential concerns associated with the subdivision. Schroeder observed the NAC document appears to imply the Southwest Natural Area was never officially designated; however, he was under the impression it had been. Cornish responded that she is not absolutely certain, but she is reasonably confident it was not, in fact, ever designated. Schroeder noted he would be concerned if that turns out to be the case. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency Concurrence On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: 2 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 a minor subdivision involving City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100-2-1.2 by the City of Ithaca, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes subdividing the existing 8.25-acre lot into two parcels. Parcel A, fronting Cherry Street and measuring 6.00 acres, would be transferred to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). The applicant proposes permanent easements for utilities and the alignment of a future waterfront trail, and a proposed 25’ wetland buffer. Parcel B, measuring 2.25 acres and containing several wetlands, will be retained by the City. The lot is in the I-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and minimum street frontage of 50 feet. The Board of Public Works has determined the existing parcel has no further Public Works use, and WHEREAS: the minor subdivision is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the sale/transfer of the parcels over 2.5 acres is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Both require environmental review, and WHEREAS: in a resolution passed on April 11, 2012, the Planning and Economic Development Committee declared Common Council’s intent to act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the sale/transfer of the land and the subdivision, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution consenting to Common Council acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the sale/transfer of the land and the subdivision. In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd Schroeder asked if it would be procedurally appropriate for the Planning Board to consider the Declaration of Uninhabitable Land resolution before the environmental review process had even taken place. 3 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Cornish replied that is certainly something that could be discussed. She remarked that the intent of the Declaration of Uninhabitable Land resolution is merely to ensure the parcel is protected. Schroeder explained that the location of the proposed subdivision line should be part of what is being analyzed during the upcoming environmental review, and that if the Planning Board today passed the Declaration of Uninhabitable Land resolution the Board would be acting as though, prior to environmental review, the location of the subdivision line had already been finalized. Therefore, he argued, considering the Declaration of Uninhabitable Land resolution today, as listed on the meeting agenda, would be premature. Cornish agreed that Schroeder’s suggestion may make the most sense, in this case. Rudan concurred. Nicholas remarked the subdivision process may require a variance. If so, the environmental review would need to take place as a part of the whole subdivision review process. Nicholas also noted that the Building Department indicated it does not have a problem with the subdivision. Acharya indicated the subject should be investigated further, before the Board proceeds. Cornish indicated Planning staff would further investigate the issue. 4. Site Plan Review A. Townhouse Apartments, 107 Cook St., Jason Demarest, Applicant for Owner, Dan Liguori. Determination of Environmental Significance & Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct two 2-story townhouses with partially finished basement levels, four parking spaces, an asphalt-paved access drive, walkways, and landscaping. The buildings are each 2,304 SF with 6,128 SF finished floor area, and each containing two 3-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 4 new units with 12 new bedrooms. Proposed exterior finishes include colored concrete, fiber cement board, cedar shakes, and stained wood lattice detailing. The project is in the R-2b Zoning district. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (because the site is contiguous to a historic district) and is subject to environmental review. Architect Jason Demarest updated the Board on the proposed project. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Thoreau: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for Townhouse Apartments at 107 Cook Street, from Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Dan Liguori, and 4 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct two 2-story townhouses with partially finished basement levels, four parking spaces, an asphalt-paved access drive, walkways, and landscaping. The buildings are each 2,304 SF, with 6,128 SF finished floor area, and each containing two 3-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 4 new units with 12 new bedrooms. Proposed exterior finishes include colored concrete, fiber cement board, cedar shakes, and stained wood lattice detailing. The project is in the R-2b Zoning district, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (because the site is contiguous to a historic district) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on April 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Survey Map, No. 107 Cook Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 7/20/11, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Site Plan (C1.00)” and “Drainage, Utility & Landscaping Plans (C1.01),” dated 4/17/12, “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 3/27/12, and “Floor Plans (A1.00),” dated 2/15/12, and a rendering entitled “Liguori Townhouse Apartments ― 107 Cook St.,” dated 4/24/12, showing colored concrete at the basement level, all prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed Townhouse Apartments, located on 107 Cook Street in the City of Ithaca, will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Rudan: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for Townhouse Apartments at 107 Cook Street, from Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Dan Liguori, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct two 2-story townhouses with partially finished basement levels, four parking spaces, an asphalt-paved access drive, walkways, and landscaping. The buildings are each 2,304 SF with 6,128 SF finished floor area, and each containing two 3-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 4 new units with 12 new 5 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting bedrooms. Proposed exterior finishes include colored concrete, fiber cement board, cedar shakes, and stained wood lattice detailing. The project is in the R-2b Zoning district, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (because the site is contiguous to a historic district) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on March 27, 2012, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on April 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Survey Map, No. 107 Cook Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 7/20/11, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Site Plan (C1.00)” and “Drainage, Utility & Landscaping Plans (C1.01),” dated 4/17/12, “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 3/27/12, “Floor Plans (A1.00),” dated 2/15/12, and a rendering entitled “Liguori Townhouse Apartments ― 107 Cook St.,” dated 4/24/12, showing colored concrete at the basement level, all prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review, did on April 24, 2012 make a negative declaration of environmental significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Townhouse Apartments located at 107 Cook Street in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of building materials, colors, and samples, for approval by the Project Review Committee, and ii. If it is determined at a future date that the two buildings require air conditioning, this shall be provided by building-wide central air conditioning, rather than by separate units in each individual apartment, and iii. Submission of revised site plan drawing showing grass to be planted on top of the proposed drainage structures along the west side of the property, in those locations where such grass-planting is feasible, and iv. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and 6 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting v. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd B. Cornell Law School Expansion, 524 College Ave., Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible entry to Myron Taylor Hall along College Ave., new windows and doors at the lower level of Myron Taylor Hall facing Purcell Court, 16,500 SF of new underground lecture space (under the existing College Ave. lawn panel), upgrades to Purcell Court, and associated interior improvements, landscaping, walkways and similar site improvements. The project includes the lowering and reconstruction of Purcell Court ― which will allow direct access from the underground addition. Site development will require the excavation of approximately 20,000 CY of existing site soils, the removal of the existing stone wall, walkways and trees along College Ave., and the removal of much of the structures and landscaping in Purcell Court. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Basic Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Cornell Law School Dean Schwab recapitulated the underlying vision of the proposed changes and the school’s objectives for the addition. Architect Aquilina then walked the Board through an updated presentation of the proposed changes. Schroeder suggested the project architectural drawings more accurately reflect the finer details of the existing Myron Taylor Hall façade; or perhaps the applicant could simply annotate them to reflect that some existing details are missing from the drawings. Schroeder remarked that adopting Marcham’s written recommendations and accompanying drawings regarding using larger panes of glass in the bottom portion of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall, facing Purcell Court, would help distinguish the upper portion of this façade from the bottom portion and help the former retain its historical character. Schroeder also remarked he would prefer that at least two of the original bays of this north façade be retained. Associate University Architect Magre indicated those suggestions would be explored. Thoreau asked if the interior carved marble grand stairway railing could be retained in some fashion. Aquilina responded there are actually two railings, one of which was already being retained. The applicant can certainly explore retaining the other one. Magre added that if they could not succeed in finding a place for it, they would donate it to Significant Elements or a similar organization. 7 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting At the recent Project Review Committee meeting, Rudan remarked, it was discussed whether it would be possible to create a heavier upper portion on the window bays facing Purcell Court. As the City Historic Preservation Planner Lynn Truame indicated in her comments to the Board, “the new openings in the east courtyard wall extend nearly full height, creating an oddly topless impression.” Magre indicated the applicant would explore all the Board’s suggestions, and then return for preliminary and final approval at the next meeting. Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 – Project Impacts Project Name: Law School Addition Date Created: March 1, 2012 Date Revised: March 21, 2012 Further Revised by Planning and Development Board: April 24, 2012 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 8 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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): Excavation of approximately 20,000 cy of material from site. See Part 3.  Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)?  Yes No Specific land forms (if any):  Yes No IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)?  Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body.  Yes  No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream.  Yes  No 9 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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 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 10 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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 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 requires 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 11 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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. See Part 3.  Yes No 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 12 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? Other impacts (if any): Project removes all site vegetation, including mature trees. Landscape plan is proposed. See Part 3.  Yes No 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):  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 13 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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): The project will permanently alter portions of the Law School, which, although not designated, is a historic resource of the community. 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 14 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource.  Yes No Other impacts (if any):  Yes No 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 (if any): Potential construction impacts related to the removal of 20,000cy of site soil. 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 15 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action?  Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility?  Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).  Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure.  Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen.  Yes No Other impacts (if any): Potential construction impacts only ― project site is not proximate to residential/dormitory land use.  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 16 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? 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 Other impacts (if any): 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 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action?  Yes No Unknown In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd 17 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3: On a motion by Thoreau, seconded by Marcham: City of Ithaca  FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM — Part III  Site Plan Review — Cornell Law School Addition  Preparation Date: April 18, 2012  Revised by Planning and Development Board: April 24, 2012    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible entry to Myron Taylor Hall along  College Ave., new windows and doors at the lower level of Myron Taylor Hall facing Purcell  Court, 16,500 SF of new underground lecture space (under the existing College Ave. lawn panel),  upgrades to the Purcell Court, and associated interior improvements, landscaping, walkways,  and similar site improvements.  The project includes the lowering and reconstruction of Purcell  Court ― which will allow direct access from the underground addition.  Site development will  require the excavation of approximately 20,000 CY of existing site soils, the removal of the  existing stone wall, walkways, and trees along College Ave., and the removal of much of the  structures and landscaping in Purcell Court.  The project is in the U‐1 Zoning District.  This is a  Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted  Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental  review.  The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).      IMPACT ON LAND    Project construction will begin in the summer of 2012 and is expected to last approximately 18  months.  Project development requires the excavation of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of  existing site soils and the removal of lawn areas, 28 trees, walkways, the parapet wall along  College Avenue, the staircase that descends to Purcell Court and the paved and landscaped  areas inside Purcell Court.  Excavation and landscape removal will be completed during the first  six months of construction.      The applicant is proposing to transplant/salvage 5 trees and to stockpile removed topsoil for use  during site restoration.     Excavation will be done in accordance with standard construction practices, utilizing  recommendations by the design team’s geotechnical engineer.  The Contractor shall dispose of  demolished materials, cleared vegetation, excess topsoil, and poor quality excavation material  off‐site in a legal manner and in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.   Disposal as “clean fill” will be implemented where appropriate to reduce landfill disposal.     The project requires the use of the entire lawn and sidewalk areas between the building and  College Avenue and the interior Purcell Court for staging and work areas throughout the  construction.  The site will be fenced and have a stabilized construction entrance.  Contractors  18 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting will be required to park remotely (using parking garages or Cornell's Palm Road contractor  parking area) and be shuttled to and from the site.     IMPACT ON DRAINAGE    The disturbed area exceeds 1 acre, therefore, the project requires a Stormwater Pollution  Prevention Plan (SWPPP).  The SWPPP will address both construction erosion‐control  requirements and post‐construction water quality and quantity (rate of flow) controls.    IMPACT ON AIR    Project construction will begin in the summer of 2012 and is expected to last approximately 18  months.  Project development requires the excavation of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of  existing site soils and the removal of lawn areas, 28 trees, walkways, the parapet wall along  College Avenue, the staircase that descends to Purcell Court and the paved and landscaped  areas inside Purcell Court.  Excavation and landscape removal will be completed during the first  six months of construction.      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.  • Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.  • Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.  • Requiring trucks to be covered.  • Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS    The existing lawn and landscaped areas within the project site will be disturbed by the staging  and the construction process.  The construction will require the permanent removal of 28 trees.   This includes 11 trees along College Avenue;: two 2”‐diameter trees, seven 12”‐diameter trees,  and two 24”‐diameter trees, and 17 trees in Purcell Court: one 24” in diameter, three 12” in  diameter, and 13 6” in diameter or smaller.  The applicant intends to transplant 5 of the trees  removed from the College Ave. area.     The applicant is proposing a landscaping plan, which includes 15 new trees, extensive shrub and  perennial areas, and the restoration of the upper and lower lawn panels.   19 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting   No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES    The project will permanently alter portions of the Law School, which is a valued aesthetic  resource of the community.  Myron Taylor Hall and Anabel Taylor Hall represent a coherently  designed and planned architectural ensemble using the Collegiate Gothic architectural style.   Myron Taylor Hall additionally features architectural sculpture by prominent early 20th century  sculptor, Lee Lawrie, who also worked on Rockefeller Center, the Nebraska State Capitol, and  prominent buildings at West Point, Yale, and the University of Chicago.      Some felt the initially proposed design was not sufficiently compatible with the Collegiate Gothic  architectural style of the existing buildings.  Many concerns, as expressed both by Board  members and the City Historic Preservation Officer, centered on the tension between the  existing gothic style, characterized by a powerful, massive, and solid architectural vocabulary  and the proposed contemporary alterations, which are lighter in expression and emphasize  transparency and accessibility.  Another concern was the elimination of sculptural elements that  are integral to the original design intent.    In a memo dated April 5, 2012, the City Historic Preservation Officer wrote the following:    “The language of Collegiate Gothic architecture is powerful, massive, and solid.  It includes  nothing that is diminutive, attenuated, or highly transparent by modern standards.  This is, of  course, because while the architecture of the Gothic period, which Collegiate Gothic imitates in  many respects, was highly transparent for its day, it was still impossible to achieve the level of  transparency we can now achieve with the use of modern building materials and systems. The  interior and the exterior of Collegiate Gothic buildings are entirely distinct; the outside is never  "brought in."  Even large openings, such as the windows of the law school library, include heavy  tracery that breaks up the expanse of glass so that the primary visual impression of the wall  remains its solidity. The base of the wall in a Collegiate Gothic structure is solid; window  openings, if any, are generally small and doors are thick and heavy.    The detailing of four new elements of the law school addition seem, in my opinion, to be  speaking a different language, one of greater transparency and attenuation. These elements are:  the new openings in the east courtyard wall, the new openings in the north wall of Myron Taylor  (south wall of the courtyard), the rebuilt stair from College Avenue into the courtyard, and the  new entrance into Myron Taylor from College Avenue.”    In response to these concerns, the Planning Board, proposes the following changes to the initial  design to mitigate the potential impacts:    • Reuse/reinstallation of original architectural details ― notably finials from the existing  staircase and the limestone headers and sills from the existing parapet wall, plus the  use of new limestone coping on the rebuilt stairs and parapet wall that matches the  existing coping (i.e., with bullnose edges and a slight upward swell at the top).    20 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting • Design revisions to the staircase that descends to the Purcell Court that include thicker  masonry walls, limestone coping matching the original, and terminal ends on the lower  baluster walls, thereby making the stairway appear more massive and proportionate to  the existing architecture.    • Applicant, Planning Board, and planning staff to engage in a dialogue to identify a  revision to the proposed design of the lower portion of the north wall of Myron Taylor  Hall (at south end of courtyard), and of the lower portion of the small section of the  east courtyard wall south of the proposed rebuilt staircase, that addresses the concerns  expressed by Planning Board members and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer  about respecting the original architectural design of these areas.  Potential solutions  include: (1) the use of larger lights of glazing (rather than multiple small lights of  glazing) within the proposed new openings; and/or (2) leaving at least two of the  original small slit windows at the base of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall intact.    • Installation of light fixtures at new entry facing College Avenue that are reproductions,  perhaps at a somewhat larger scale, of existing Purcell Court Collegiate Gothic lanterns.    • The rebuilt east courtyard wall and its new projecting bays will be built of local Llenroc  stone masonry, and the steel metalwork within these bays will be painted to emulate  weathered bronze.    • Drawing T0.3 to be revised to show no demolition of windows or decorative limestone  trim at the second and law library levels of Myron Taylor Hall’s north elevation (at  south end of courtyard).    IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES    The project will permanently alter portions of the Law School, which is a valued aesthetic  resource of the community.  Myron Taylor Hall and Anabel Taylor Hall represent a coherently  designed and planned architectural ensemble using the Collegiate Gothic architectural style.   Myron Taylor Hall additionally features architectural sculpture by prominent early 20th century  sculptor, Lee Lawrie, who also worked on Rockefeller Center, the Nebraska State Capitol, and  prominent buildings at West Point, Yale, and the University of Chicago.      Some felt the initially proposed design was not sufficiently compatible with the Collegiate Gothic  architectural style of the existing buildings.  Many concerns, as expressed both by Board  members and the City Historic Preservation Officer, centered on the tension between the  existing gothic style, characterized by a powerful, massive, and solid architectural vocabulary  and the proposed contemporary alterations which are lighter in expression and emphasize  transparency and accessibility.  Another concern was the elimination of sculptural elements that  are integral to the original design intent.    In a memo dated April 5, 2012, the City Historic Preservation Officer wrote the following:    21 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting “The language of Collegiate Gothic architecture is powerful, massive, and solid.  It includes  nothing that is diminutive, attenuated, or highly transparent by modern standards.  This is, of  course, because while the architecture of the Gothic period, which Collegiate Gothic imitates in  many respects, was highly transparent for its day, it was still impossible to achieve the level of  transparency we can now achieve with the use of modern building materials and systems. The  interior and the exterior of Collegiate Gothic buildings are entirely distinct; the outside is never  "brought in."  Even large openings, such as the windows of the law school library, include heavy  tracery that breaks up the expanse of glass so that the primary visual impression of the wall  remains its solidity. The base of the wall in a Collegiate Gothic structure is solid; window  openings, if any, are generally small and doors are thick and heavy.    The detailing of four new elements of the law school addition seem, in my opinion, to be  speaking a different language, one of greater transparency and attenuation. These elements are:  the new openings in the east courtyard wall, the new openings in the north wall of Myron Taylor  (south wall of the courtyard), the rebuilt stair from College Avenue into the courtyard, and the  new entrance into Myron Taylor from College Avenue.”    In response to these concerns, the Planning Board proposes the following changes to the initial  design to mitigate the potential impacts:    • Reuse/reinstallation of original architectural details ― notably finials from the existing  staircase and the limestone headers and sills from the existing parapet wall, plus the use  of new limestone coping on the rebuilt stairs and parapet wall that matches the existing  coping (i.e., with bullnose edges and a slight upward swell at the top).    • Design revisions to the staircase that descends to the Purcell Court that include thicker  masonry walls, limestone coping matching the original, and terminal ends on the lower  baluster walls, thereby making the stairway appear more massive and proportionate to  the existing architecture.    • Applicant, Planning Board, and planning staff to engage in a dialogue to identify a  revision to the proposed design of the lower portion of the north wall of Myron Taylor  Hall (at south end of courtyard), and of the lower portion of the small section of the east  courtyard wall south of the proposed rebuilt staircase, that addresses the concerns  expressed by Planning Board members and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer about  respecting the original architectural design of these areas.  Potential solutions include:  (1) the use of larger lights of glazing (rather than multiple small lights of glazing) within  the proposed new openings; and/or (2) leaving at least two of the original small slit  windows at the base of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall intact.    • Installation of light fixtures at new entry facing College Avenue that are reproductions,  perhaps at a somewhat larger scale, of existing Purcell Court Collegiate Gothic lanterns.    • The rebuilt east courtyard wall and its new projecting bays will be built of local Llenroc  stone masonry, and the steel metalwork within these bays will be painted to emulate  weathered bronze.  22 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting   • Drawing T0.3 to be revised to show no demolition of windows or decorative limestone  trim at the second and law library levels of Myron Taylor Hall’s north elevation (at south  end of courtyard).    IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION    Project construction will begin in the summer of 2012 and is expected to last approximately 18  months.  Project development requires the excavation of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of  existing site soils and the removal of lawn areas, 11 trees, walkways, the parapet wall along  College Avenue, the staircase that descends to Purcell Court, and the paved and landscaped  areas inside Purcell Court.  Excavation and landscape removal will be completed during the first  six months of construction.      Excavation and removal of approximately, 20,000 cubic yards of soil will result in approximately  10 truck trips per hour.  Towards the end of the excavation, this will decrease to approximately  15 trips per day for backfill materials.  The excavation and backfill truck traffic will access the site  via a new temporary haul road.  It is anticipated the haul trucks will travel from College Avenue  to Campus Road and then onto Route 366.      The applicant anticipates that construction deliveries will fluctuate between 5 and 20 per day.   The majority of the construction deliveries will occur during off‐peak hours; however, a portion  could be made during peak commuting times.  Truck traffic typically requires more time and  space for maneuvering, and minor increases in delays can be expected.  The applicant will  schedule oversized loads and/or multiple truck deliveries 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. Most delivery trucks will travel the same route as the haul traffic  both into and out of the site, except for the deliveries of structural steel and metal deck on flat  bed trailers (approximately 8 trips for one month, 1‐2 trucks per week), which will come in via  Campus Road and College Avenue, but leave via College Avenue through Collegetown, due to  the inability to efficiently turn the flatbed trucks, due to the limited turn radius available.    The applicant does not anticipate scheduled blockage of campus or public roads, or anticipated  detours to vehicular traffic.  In the vicinity of the project, College Avenue will be posted as a  work zone and the speed limit will be reduced to 15 miles per hour (signage to include flashing  warning lights).    23 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Contractors will be required to park remotely (using parking garages or Cornell's Palm Road  contractor parking area) and be shuttled to and from the site.  The daily workforce will arrive  and leave outside peak traffic hours, arriving prior to 8:00 a.m. and departing prior to 4:30 p.m.    The applicant is required to coordinate with the City Transportation Engineer to finalize  construction traffic and routing plans before the beginning of construction.      No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON ENERGY    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS    The project will produce usual construction noise.  The project site is not near any residential  area that would be impacted by construction noise.       No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH    No significant impacts anticipated.    IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD    The project will permanently alter portions of the Law School, which is a valued aesthetic  resource of the community.  Myron Taylor Hall and Anabel Taylor Hall represent a coherently  designed and planned architectural ensemble using the Collegiate Gothic architectural style.   Myron Taylor Hall additionally features architectural sculpture by prominent early 20th century  sculptor, Lee Lawrie, who also worked on Rockefeller Center, the Nebraska State Capitol, and  prominent buildings at West Point, Yale, and the University of Chicago.      Some felt the initially proposed design was not sufficiently compatible with the Collegiate Gothic  architectural style of the existing buildings.  Many concerns, as expressed both by Board  members and the City Historic Preservation Officer, centered on the tension between the  existing gothic style, characterized by a powerful, massive, and solid architectural vocabulary  and the proposed contemporary alterations which are lighter in expression and emphasize  transparency and accessibility.  Another concern was the elimination of sculptural elements that  are integral to the original design intent.    In a memo dated April 5, 2012, the City Historic Preservation Officer wrote the following:    “The language of Collegiate Gothic architecture is powerful, massive, and solid.  It includes  nothing that is diminutive, attenuated, or highly transparent by modern standards.  This is, of  course, because while the architecture of the Gothic period, which Collegiate Gothic imitates in  many respects, was highly transparent for its day, it was still impossible to achieve the level of  24 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting transparency we can now achieve with the use of modern building materials and systems. The  interior and the exterior of Collegiate Gothic buildings are entirely distinct; the outside is never  "brought in."  Even large openings, such as the windows of the law school library, include heavy  tracery that breaks up the expanse of glass so that the primary visual impression of the wall  remains its solidity. The base of the wall in a Collegiate Gothic structure is solid; window  openings, if any, are generally small and doors are thick and heavy.    The detailing of four new elements of the law school addition seem, in my opinion, to be  speaking a different language, one of greater transparency and attenuation. These elements are:  the new openings in the east courtyard wall, the new openings in the north wall of Myron Taylor  (south wall of the courtyard), the rebuilt stair from College Avenue into the courtyard, and the  new entrance into Myron Taylor from College Avenue.”    In response to these concerns, the Planning Board proposes the following changes to the initial  design to mitigate the potential impacts:    • Reuse/reinstallation of original architectural details ― notably finials from the existing  staircase and the limestone headers and sills from the existing parapet wall, plus the use  of new limestone coping on the rebuilt stairs and parapet wall that matches the existing  coping (i.e., with bullnose edges and a slight upward swell at the top).    • Design revisions to the staircase that descends to the Purcell Court that include thicker  masonry walls, limestone coping matching the original, and terminal ends on the lower  baluster walls, thereby making the stairway appear more massive and proportionate to  the existing architecture.    • Applicant, Planning Board, and planning staff to engage in a dialogue to identify a  revision to the proposed design of the lower portion of the north wall of Myron Taylor  Hall (at south end of courtyard), and of the lower portion of the small section of the east  courtyard wall south of the proposed rebuilt staircase, that addresses the concerns  expressed by Planning Board members and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer about  respecting the original architectural design of these areas.  Potential solutions include:  (1) the use of larger lights of glazing (rather than multiple small lights of glazing) within  the proposed new openings; and/or (2) leaving at least two of the original small slit  windows at the base of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall intact.    • Installation of light fixtures at new entry facing College Avenue that are reproductions,  perhaps at a somewhat larger scale, of existing Purcell Court Collegiate Gothic lanterns.    • The rebuilt east courtyard wall and its new projecting bays will be built of local Llenroc  stone masonry, and the steel metalwork within these bays will be painted to emulate  weathered bronze.    • Drawing T0.3 to be revised to show no demolition of windows or decorative limestone  trim at the second and law library levels of Myron Taylor Hall’s north elevation (at south  end of courtyard).  25 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting   PUBLIC CONTROVERSY    No significant impacts anticipated.  In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: 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 the Cornell Law School Expansion, by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a new accessible entry to Myron Taylor Hall along College Ave., new windows and doors at the lower level of Myron Taylor Hall facing Purcell Court, 16,500 SF of new underground lecture space (under the existing College Ave. lawn panel), upgrades to Purcell Court, and associated interior improvements, landscaping, walkways, and similar site improvements. The project includes the lowering and reconstruction of Purcell Court ― which will allow direct access from the underground addition. Site development will require the excavation of approximately 20,000 CY of existing site soils, the removal of the existing stone wall, walkways and trees along College Ave., and the removal of much of the structures and landscaping in Purcell Court. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and requires a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on April 24, 2012 reviewed and accepted 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 “Demo Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” and “Planting Plan (L401),” all dated 2/10/12, and prepared by AnnBeha Architects and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects; “Site Utility and Demolition Plan (C101),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C102),” “Foundation Drainage Plan (C103),” “Site Utility and Drainage Plan (C104),” “Site Utility Details and Drainage Details (C201)” and “Site Survey Map (10F1),” all dated 2/17/12, and prepared by AnnBeha Architects and T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Exterior Elevations (A3.01),” and “Add Alternate (T0.3),” both dated 2/17/12 and prepared by AnnBeha Architects; a submission entitled “Updated Renderings as Follow- up to the March 27th CLS Presentation,” dated 4/12/12 and prepared by AnnBeha Architects; and other application materials, and 26 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has, in its Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, proposed the following mitigations to address impacts to “Aesthetic Resources,” “Historic Resources,” and “Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood,” identified in that Part 3: • Reuse/reinstallation of original architectural details ― notably finials from the existing staircase and the limestone headers and sills from the existing parapet wall, plus the use of new limestone coping on the rebuilt stairs and parapet wall that matches the existing coping (i.e., with bullnose edges and a slight upward swell at the top). • Design revisions to the staircase that descends to Purcell Court that include thicker masonry walls, limestone coping matching the original, and terminal ends on the lower baluster walls, thereby making the stairway appear more massive and proportionate to the existing architecture. • Applicant, Planning Board, and planning staff to engage in a dialogue to identify a revision to the proposed design of the lower portion of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall (at south end of courtyard), and of the lower portion of the small section of the east courtyard wall south of the proposed rebuilt staircase, that addresses the concerns expressed by Planning Board members and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer about respecting the original architectural design of these areas. Potential solutions include: (1) the use of larger lights of glazing (rather than multiple small lights of glazing) within the proposed new openings; and/or (2) leaving at least two of the original small slit windows at the base of the north wall of Myron Taylor Hall intact. • Installation of light fixtures at new entry facing College Avenue that are reproductions, perhaps at a somewhat larger scale, of existing Purcell Court Collegiate Gothic lanterns. • The rebuilt east courtyard wall and its new projecting bays will be built of local Llenroc stone masonry, and the steel metalwork within these bays will be painted to emulate weathered bronze. • Drawing T0.3 to be revised to show no demolition of windows or decorative limestone trim at the second and law library levels of Myron Taylor Hall’s north elevation (at south end of courtyard), now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed Cornell Law School Expansion, with the incorporation of the mitigations listed above, 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. 27 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd C. Building Renovations & Site Improvements, 902 Taber Street, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, Applicants for Owner, Sabattis Industries, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. Applicant proposes interior and exterior renovations to existing commercial building and site improvements intended to create campus-like setting for business tenants of 902 Taber and adjacent buildings (one of which is known as the Aeroplane Factory) at 120-140 Brindley Street. Exterior renovations include a new 524 SF arcade across the street façade, replacement of degraded portions of existing roofing, and new shingle siding and repainting. Site improvements include installation of new 21-car parking area at 902 Taber St., with one dedicated curbcut replacing existing continuous curbcut, 7 spaces adjacent to the Aeroplane Factory, an asphalt access drive between the two parcels, a stonedust pedestrian path linking two plaza areas and a gazebo along the waterfront, landscaping, bike racks, and limited exterior lighting. Project requires demolition of existing residential structure and outbuilding, and removal of existing gravel parking areas, chain-link fencing on the two properties, and 5 mature trees. Project is in WF-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Owner Scott Tobey presented a broad overview of the proposed project. Schroeder raised the issue of installing some kind of public sidewalk ― the Board typically requires sidewalks on sites that do not already have them. Tobey responded that the Fire Chief recommended against installing a sidewalk, since there would be public safety issues associated with its stopping suddenly at the Aeroplane Factory; the Fire Chief argued against encouraging pedestrians to walk up that far, only to be forced to negotiate the street afterwards. Cornish commented that she would like to see sidewalks on the site and she believes people would use them, if installed. Having said that, she remarked, the City probably needs to explore the issue of sidewalks in that area more broadly and comprehensively, in order to identify the best sites. Marcham remarked she does not believe sidewalks should be required for the project, until the City has had the opportunity to examine the issue more broadly. Jones-Rounds commented she would at least like to see a proposal for a sidewalk, on at least some portion of the site. Acharya indicated he is also leaning towards requiring a sidewalk and would be curious to discover the Fire Department’s rationale for opposing it. 28 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder reiterated his belief in the principle that all City streets should have sidewalks. Tobey indicated the project’s budget is already stretched. He would most likely need to eliminate other portions of the project, to do so. He would, on the other hand, be willing to align the tree lawn and perform other minor modifications to permit room for a future sidewalk. Acharya observed that the applicant might consider removing some of the proposed parking spaces, to free up the funds for a sidewalk. Tobey replied he is certain all the parking would be used, as he anticipates all of his tenants would use it. A straw vote was held, and a plurality of Planning Board members in attendance expressed their preference not to require a sidewalk for this particular project. However, there was general support for asking the Board of Public Works to conduct a study of how future sidewalks could be provided in this area of the City. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Thoreau, seconded by Schroeder: 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 Building Renovations and Site improvements at 902 Taber Street, by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, Landscape Architects, LLP, Applicant for owner, Sabattis Industries LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing interior and exterior renovations to the existing commercial building and site improvements intended to create a campus-like setting for the business tenants of 902 Taber and the adjacent buildings (one of which is known as the Aeroplane Factory) at 120-140 Brindley Street. Exterior renovations include a new 524 SF arcade across the street façade, replacement of degraded portions of the existing roofing, and new shingle siding and repainting. Site improvements include the installation of a new 21-car parking area at 902 Taber Street, with one dedicated curbcut replacing the existing continuous curbcut, 7 spaces adjacent to the Aeroplane Factory, an asphalt access drive between the two parcels, a stonedust pedestrian path linking two plaza areas and a gazebo along the waterfront, landscaping, bike racks, and limited exterior lighting. The project requires the demolition of the existing residential structure and outbuilding, and the removal of existing gravel parking areas, chain-link fencing on the two properties, and 5 mature trees. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning District, and 29 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, 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 Building Renovations and Site Improvements at 902 Taber Street in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Acharya, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd Public Hearing On a motion by Rudan, seconded by Thoreau, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Scott Morse, 41 Algerine Road, Lansing, an associate of the applicant, spoke in support of the project, noting that the project would be a considerable improvement to the site. He does not believe it should be delayed or denied, merely because of the sidewalk issue. Moreover, he is not sure what, if any, added value a sidewalk segment might provide the site. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing. The Board discussed the draft FEAF, Part 2. Schroeder observed so far there is no genuine drainage plan associated with the project. As a result, the Board is not in a position to fully evaluate the environmental impact of the project, at this time. Cornish agreed, noting that this is particularly true given the site’s proximity to water. Nicholas remarked she believes City engineer Scott Gibson indicated the project would not require a SWPPP. Cornish read an excerpt of a December 3, 2009 e-mail from Gibson, which suggested that would likely be the case. Further action on the project was deferred pending applicant’s preparation of a drainage plan for the site. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2869 ― 634 W. Seneca St.: Area Variance Appeal of Rick Manning on behalf of the owner Alternatives Federal Credit Union for an area variance from Section 325-20C (5)(b)[3], angle parking and Section 325-20G, WEDZ-1 parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes demolishing the 30 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting existing two-story building located at 634 W. Seneca Street and construct a 7-car parking lot. In order to accommodate the 7 spaces on the 36.07’ wide lot, the applicant proposes to utilize angled parking spaces for compact cars. The paved area of the proposed compact spaces is 144 SF; the zoning ordinance requires 255 SF for a standard angled parking space. The property is also located in a WEDZ-1 zone that requires a low wall or a planted hedge, setback from the curb, 15’ minimum, and 20’ maximum. Due to the lot constraints on the N. Fulton Street side, the applicant has positioned the edge of the parking spaces 11’ from the curb, leaving a deficiency of 4’ of the 15’ minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. The W. Seneca Street side has an existing tree lawn approximately 9’ from the curb and a 5’ sidewalk, leaving a deficiency of 1’ of the 15’ minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. Both street frontages lack a low wall or planted hedge required by the ordinance. The property is located in a WEDZ-1a West End Development Zone in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. The Planning Board recognizes that approving an area variance for a surface parking lot allows a use that is not the most desirable for the site, given its prominent location in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District, and along a corridor intended for buildings with a two-story minimum height. The Board also recognizes there are factors unique to the site and the project that mitigate potentially negative impacts from this use. These factors include the following: 1) the small size of the site ― 3,600 SF presents a challenge for redevelopment; 2) the project includes removal of the existing unsightly, fire-damaged, and dangerous building; 3) because a portion of the building to be removed is, according to the survey, on top of the existing sidewalk area, the project will result in a slightly wider sidewalk; 4) the proposed landscaping is aesthetically pleasing and will function as both a screen for the parking lot, as well as a pedestrian amenity; and 5) the development of the parking lot does not preclude the redevelopment of the site to a more desirable use in the future. Appeal #2878 ― 205 Grandview Ave.: Area Variance Appeal of Rick Davis for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, lot width, Column 12, side yard, Column 13, other side yard, and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove the existing carport and construct a new garage, with a deck above, at the property located at 205 Grandview Avenue. The proposed new garage will be positioned parallel to the front of the existing house and infill the area east of the home where the existing carport is currently located. The existing carport is 3.4’ from the side lot line and the applicant would like to place the new garage at the same distance from the east property line, causing a deficiency of 6.6’ of the 10’ side yard requirement of the ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in lot width, other side yard, and rear yard dimensions that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The property is located in an R-2a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. Members of the Planning Board do not identify any long-term planning issues with this project and recommend granting the appeal, provided there are no unresolved neighborhood concerns. 31 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Appeal #2879 ― 403 Elmwood Ave.: Zoning Interpretation Appeal Appellant is appealing two zoning interpretations made by the Building Commissioner. The first involves the Commissioner’s determination that college students do not qualify to live together as a functional family; and the second involves her interpretation of the proposed lease to require membership by tenants in a college sorority. Due to the complex legal issues involved in this case, the Planning Board does not wish to comment on this appeal. Appeal #2880 ― 124 Roberts Pl.: Area Variance Appeal of Robert J. Mrazek for area variance from Section 325-20D (1), front yard parking of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located at 124 Roberts Place is a two-family dwelling that had no parking spaces on-site. The applicant tried to resolve this issue by hiring a local design professional to render a design for parking, because the property is located in the Cornell Heights Historic District. Therefore, any alterations to the yard would require approval from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee (ILPC). The applicant received permission from the Commission in 2006 to create a new curved drive in one of the two front yards of the property. The IPLC issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design. The applicant also found out that he needed to submit the plan to the Department of Public Works (DPW), in order to make two curbcuts. DPW granted the applicant permission to create 2 curbcuts for the driveway for egress and ingress in 2007. Believing he had all the necessary approvals, the applicant completed the work for the driveway. However, during a recent housing inspection, the Housing Inspector noticed the new work was completed without a building permit and that there is a zoning violation. Section 325-20D(1) states that all front yard parking within 15’ of the front property line must be orientated 10° of perpendicular to the street. The front driveway is curved and the cars will be more parallel to the street than perpendicular. The property has existing deficiencies in front yard and rear yard dimensions, which will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The property at 124 Roberts Place is located in an R-2a zone district where accessory parking is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. It is unfortunate that this project was approved and carried out without the proper review. The design features two curbcuts and front yard parking, both of which are undesirable in residential settings and are not compatible with planning goals for the preservation of neighborhoods. However, due to the particular history of this case, the Board recommends granting this variance. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Development (1) Joint City-Town Comprehensive Planning Committees Meeting 32 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Cornish remarked that both the City and Town of Ithaca comprehensive planning committees met together recently for the first time to discuss issues of mutual concern. Additional meetings will likely be taking place. (2) Commons Redesign Project Cornish announced the final design would be presented relatively shortly to the Common Council for review. The project will also be subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. (3) Collegetown Zoning Working Group Cornish noted the working group just held its second meeting and is moving ahead to try and find a solution to the Collegetown problem. She noted she could forward the group’s meeting minutes to the Planning Board. (4) Board Governance and Procedural Issues Cornish noted that information would be provided to the Board regarding various legal, procedural, and governance subjects (e.g., conflict-of-interest disclosures, ex parte communications, rules governing abstentions, etc.). Training on these subjects could be applied towards this year’s Board training requirement. (5) Revised Site Plan Review Ordinance Nicholas noted that the current schedule for consideration of the draft revised Site Plan Review Ordinance was provided in the Board’s meeting packet. Nicholas will also distribute the marked-up revised version of the draft ordinance to Board members for their review. C. Board of Public Works Liaison No written report was submitted. Acharya indicated the BPW continues to move forward in examining potential revisions to the City’s sidewalk laws. The final result will most likely include some kind of new, collective funding mechanism for sidewalk repairs. The Planning Board would definitely be consulted. 7. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Thoreau, seconded by Schroeder, the minutes of the June 28, 2011 meeting were approved by the Board. In Favor: Acharya, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Abstain: Jones-Rounds, Marcham Absent: Boothroyd 33 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting 34 On a motion by Thoreau, seconded by Marcham, the minutes of the March 27, 2012 meeting were approved by the Board. In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: Boothroyd Review of the April 10, 2012 special meeting minutes, which had been distributed just prior to the meeting, was deferred. Schroeder remarked that the January 24, 2012 and February 28, 2012 minutes, listed on the agenda for approval, had already been approved at the last meeting. Schroeder asked if future draft meeting minutes could be distributed no later than the Thursday prior to each regular meeting, to allow enough time for review, to which planning staff agreed. 8. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.