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.