Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-08-28Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes August 28, 2018 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: 744 S. Meadow St. – Retail Expansion Matt Oates for Benderson Development Corp. Stewart Park Inclusive Playground – Project Changes Rick Manning, Friends of Stewart Park Lucas Raley, Friends of Stewart Park Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller, P.C. 222 S. Cayuga St. – Modified Site Plan Approval David Hart, Hart Hotels NCRE Cornell University – Declaration of Lead Agency Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Steve Byers, Cornell University Cherry Street Extension, Major Subdivision, and Emmy’s Organics Site Plan Approval Nels Bohn, IURA Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller P.C. Scott Whitham, Whitham Design, Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 2 Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Design, Samantha Abrams, Emmy’s Organics Ian Gaffney, Emmy’s Organics Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Larry Raley, Raley Construction Taber Raley, Raley Construction. 327 W. Seneca Street Apartments – Declaration of Lead Agency Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said she had sent out a revised agenda earlier in the day including the option of approving the modified Site Plan for the Hotel Ithaca demolition project (222 S. Cayuga Street). She said she thinks the applicant is ready, and that the Board can proceed if they want. Chair Lewis said he would add a second Privilege of the Floor period after the team for the Cornell NCRE project has made their presentation (on energy). He encouraged those who want to speak about that project and can do so, to wait until after the presentation, but he said that people who are unable to wait can speak at the first Privilege of the Floor. 2. Privilege of the Floor Regi Teasley of 201 Cliff Park Road spoke about the NCRE project. She said that as a sociologist she knows humans are a strange species. She said that you would think that a species would act in its own interest, and that in many ways, that’s how we might judge the viability of a species. She said that the Earth seems to be unique, and that even though astronomers are getting better at looking, they can’t seem to find anything else quite like it. She said that if we don’t take care of the Earth and pay attention to climate change (which is coming upon us very quickly), we won’t have this lovely home anymore. She said that you might ask what this has to do with the Cornell housing project, and answered that it is all connected because either we are building the very best buildings and cutting our emissions as much as we possibly can, or we’re doing business as usual, and that heads to a planet we can’t live on. She said she wants her granddaughters to have a viable future, and that means that everyplace, everywhere, we must be building the best buildings we possibly can, and cutting emissions as much as we possibly can. She concluded by saying that Cornell knows better, and that they need student housing that is the best they can possibly build. Charles Geisler of 517 Ellis Hollow Road spoke about the NCRE project. He said that Cornell has submitted an application to build housing on North Campus for 2,000 students and to heat these buildings with natural gas. He said that tonight the Board is reviewing Part 2 of the FEAF, designed for Type I actions under SEQR. SEQR holds the Project Sponsor, Cornell, responsible Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 3 for providing information, requested by the Lead Agency, for making its Determination of Significance. If the Lead Agency makes a Positive Declaration, it may also require formal scoping in preparation for the EIS. He said that the threshold for an EIS under SEQR is that it may cause an adverse environmental impact. He said that the dormitory project will increase energy use at Cornell by 1.4 percent, adding nearly 3,000 metric tons of CO2 (equivalent) a year. He said that despite attention to upstream methane emissions in its 2016 “Senior Leadership Climate Action Report,” neither methane from its Co-Gen plant nor methane leaked from its larger transmissions system are included in this application and that this really isn’t good enough in a community highly sensitized to the perils of fugitive methane and where a series of greenhouse gas-reduction plans are in place across the community. He said Cornell’s submission is a Type I action and he asked the Board’s findings reflect the need for a robust EIS, and he asked that as part of the EIS, the lead agency require scoping, as a scoping session would ensure public participation and due attention to cost-effective green energy alternatives. He said that the Sierra Club recently recognized Cornell within its top 20 “Cool School” rankings and said that the country notices when schools do the right thing and that new students coming to Cornell and living in these dorms will pride themselves in knowing that their residence halls passed a rigorous environmental prelim. Elmer Ewing of 1520 Slaterville Road spoke about the NCRE project. His comments were also submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Mitchell “Buzz” Lavine of 719 Ringwood Road spoke about the NCRE project. His comments were also submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Edward Crossmore of 1125 Taughannock Boulevard spoke about in favor of the project proposed at 222 S. Cayuga Street. He said he and his wife own 115 W. Green Street, immediately to the west of the Hotel Ithaca property. He said Hotel Ithaca has proved to be a very responsible neighbor, that they have done an excellent job on all the work that has been done to-date, and he sees no reason to suspect that anything else will happen in connection to the present application. John Graves of 319 Pleasant Street spoke about the proposed subdivision and duplex at 209 Hudson Street. He quoted from the recommendation from the Planning Board to the BZA that read (in part): “The Planning Board is unsure whether this variance and the subdivision it will allow is in the spirit of the South Hill Overlay District.” He said that he – and most South Hill residents – are sure that the project proposed at 209 Hudson Street is clearly not in the spirit of the South Hill Overlay District. Graves also spoke about the NCRE project at Cornell. He said it will add 2,000 new beds to their housing inventory. He also said that Cornell’s updated climate goals state that they will eliminate all carbon emissions by 2035. He observed that that is only 17 years in the future. He said that the Planning Board should remind Cornell that heating their new dorms with natural gas is not going to help them meet their climate commitment, and in fact, it will make it harder. He said that the Planning Board should recommend that Cornell use a more innovative, non-fossil-fuel solution to heat their new dorms. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 4 Kenn Young of 228 Columbia Street spoke about the Planning Board’s recommendation to the BZA regarding 209 Hudson Street. He asked them to reconsider the section where they say they are “unsure.” He asked them not to ignore the recently enacted South Hill Overlay District, overwhelmingly supported by residents and adopted by Common Council. He said they need to give neighborhood residents time to make thoughtful and educated decisions regarding zoning, development, and the future of the neighborhood. Kenneth Jaffe of 218 Lake Avenue spoke about the SEQR forms in use by the City of Ithaca for its environmental review process. He said the City needs to update its forms to the 2012 DEC “Model” SEQR forms. His comments were also submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. George McGonigal, First Ward Alderperson, spoke about the subdivision and duplex proposed for 209 Hudson Street. He asked the Board to recommend that the BZA deny the variance request because he said it basically defies the South Hill Overlay District that Common Council created last November. He said 209 Hudson Street is a large parcel, and Overlay District does not make amendments for subdividing parcels. He said that what it does is to allow for at least a year of time for the South Hill neighborhood study to take place. He said that the Overlay District doesn’t mean that this project might not go ahead in the future, but that time is needed time to study the neighborhood and get as many voices as possible involved in creating a plan for the neighborhood. Elisa Evett of 298 Bald Hill Road, Brooktondale, co-chair of local chapter of Mothers Out Front, an environmental activist group, spoke about the use of natural gas in Cornell’s NCRE project. She read a statement from her fellow Mothers Out Front co-chair Katie Quinn-Jacobs, which she also submitted in writing and which is included as an addendum to these minutes, as are Evett’s own written comments. Stephanie Heslop of 4471 Jacksonville Road, Trumansburg spoke about the NCRE expansion. She said she has attended many public meetings to encourage the City and the County to rethink the way they have been using tax abatements, as she doesn’t think they have been getting enough back in return. She said she’s heard over and over that we have to prioritize density downtown over living wage jobs and affordable housing because of the grave threat posed by climate change. She said she would like to think that local government officials really do take climate change seriously and haven’t just been using it as an excuse to do the bidding of the wealthy and powerful, but she’s not so sure. She said she thinks we’ve lost track of what’s really important. She said scientists tell us we are to have no new fossil fuel developments if we are to avert climate catastrophe. She concluded by saying we need a livable climate, and we absolutely do not need Cornell to put up more buildings that are powered by fossil fuels. Camille Tischler of 110 Taylor Place spoke about the NCRE expansion. She said she is concerned about Cornell building residences for 2,000 more students using fossil fuels. She urged the Planning Board to do everything in their power to transition to clean energy. Peter Bardaglio of 9748 Arden Road, Trumansburg founder and coordinator of the Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative and author of Boldly Sustainable, spoke about the Cornell Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 5 NCRE. His comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Sara Schaffzin of 313 Utica Street spoke about the NCRE. She said that we have known for decades how to construct more energy-efficient buildings. She said that as a freelance writer in Rochester, NY in the mid-1970s, she interviewed a lot of people who were building their own houses, many of whom were building energy-efficient houses (as a response to the oil crises of the time). She said that though they hadn’t yet heard rumbles of climate change, there was still a very compelling argument for trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. She said that even back then, we knew it was possible, and that we know a whole lot more now. She said that Cornell at his point is just kicking the can down the road, and asked, “Where’s the end of the road?” To which she said that she thinks we are at the end of the road. She said she thinks Cornell knows better. She said that there are alternatives and there are resources to develop them. She noted that there’s a ban on fracking in New York State, and asked why we want to import fracked gas from elsewhere when we have a way to avoid it. Amanda Kirchgessner of 4471 Jacksonville Road, Trumansburg spoke about the NCRE. She asked, “Are we crazy?” and said that we have known about climate change since before she was born. She said we have been dealing with this for well over 30 years, and not very well. She said that this is an opportunity in our own back yard to say, “No.” She said Cornell has the resources; it’s not like we’re putting them out, and it’s not like they’re housing thousands of homeless people. She said that if that were the case she would probably be willing to make a moral compromise, but she said this project is to provide housing for some of the most privileged people in the country, and Cornell can absolutely afford to do it in a green and sustainable manner. She said she hopes the Planning Board members will make the right choice, and that there’s a room full of people who will support them telling Cornell that they have to do this project in a certain way. Pastor Michael Vincent Crea of 713 Court Street, graduate of Cornell, spoke about the NCRE. He said he has grave concerns about any project going forward to be using fossil fuels, such as the proposed business as usual buildings. He said he would hope that the members of the Planning Board will take into account not just what is happening right now, and not just what is efficient, but also what will be ecological for everyone going forward. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak at this time, Chair Lewis closed the first Privilege of the Floor period. 3. Subdivision & Site Plan Review A. Retail expansion at 744 S Meadow Street Retail Expansion. James Boglioli for Benderson Development Corp. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to build a 3,200 SF addition to the western end of the existing 17,546 SF retail space. The project will require the removal of an existing dumpster enclosure – which will be relocated to an expanded dumpster area behind the building to the south. The project includes the additions of two parking spaces to the existing lot. The Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 6 project is consistent with the findings of the 2000 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Matt Oates, Benderson Development representative, appeared in front of the Board and provided project updates. He presented two options for the portion of the addition that would face the north (main entrance driveway side) of the addition. One option presented featured brick inlay details and included a fire door. A second showed an option with an awning. He also shared materials samples with the Board. Jones asked if the brick inlay pattern would be shown anywhere else on the building. Oates said no, the brick pattern is not replicated elsewhere, but that the awning as shown in the other option would relate to existing awnings at the other end of the building. Jones asked if they were to consider the awning in the colors shown. Oates said they could use different colors if desired. Petrina said she likes the material palette for the side and front elevations, and in terms of options one or two, option two (awning) is consistent with the rest of the building as it currently exists. Jones said she agrees that the awning is more consistent, but that there may be another awning design that would fit better. Johnston also expressed support for the awning option. He then made a suggestion to combine elements of both options. Petrina said she thinks part of the problem they are having is that the front and the rear of the building are completely different and they are trying to get them to relate to each other. Oates agreed. He said they are trying to play off of what is going on with the rest of the building and also add something to it. Jones said it’s important to remember that the “back” side is also the main drive side. Oates agreed. Jones asked about bringing the wooden treatment around to the back. Oates said that it might be challenging to cut doors, etc. into that, so they are trying to do the back in a masonry treatment. Elliott agreed that the awning option seems more contextual, but said he’s not opposed to seeing if there’s a way to bring more of the front to the back of the building. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 7 Chair Lewis asked the applicant if this is the second or third time he has appeared in front of the Board. Oates said that he was not at the previous month’s meeting but it might be the third. He said he was not sure. Chair Lewis said he would like some clarity on this, either a vote on the resolution or a clear recommendation. He asked for Board members each to make a recommendation. Jones said she would be willing to vote on preliminary approval tonight but ask the applicant to return for final with a firm description of what the awning will look like. She also asked they bring as much of the front detailing around to the back as possible. Johnston, Blalock, Petrina, Glass, and Elliott agreed. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a 3,200 SF retail expansion to be located at 744 S Meadow Street, and I. WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to build a 3,200 SF addition to the western end of the existing 17,546 SF retail space. The project will require the removal of an existing dumpster enclosure – which will be relocated to an expanded dumpster area behind the building to the south. The project includes the addition of two parking spaces to the existing lot, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 24, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for the project, 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 April 24, 2018, and WHEREAS: subsequent to the Board’s declaration of Lead Agency, the applicant submitted a trip generation report prepared by TYLIN International and dated April 24, 2018, that demonstrates that the traffic counts for the proposed new retail is consistent with the findings of the 2000 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan and therefore no additional environmental review is required, and WHEREAS: this Board has, on August 28, 2018, reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings titled “Overall Site Plan (C4.0)” and “Construction Details (C4.2)” with a latest revision date of 5 -17-18; “Detailed Site Plan (C4.1a)” and “Detailed Dumpster Plan (C4.1b)” with a latest revision date of 4-06-18; “Grading Plan (C5.0)”, Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 8 “Drainage Plan (C5.1)”, “Drainage Details (C5.2)”, “Utility Plan (C6.0)” and “Utility Details (C6.0)” dated 2- 19-18 and “Demolition and Erosion Plan (C3.0)” and “Landscape Plan (C7.0)” with a latest revision date of dated 5-23-18 and prepared by James Allen Rumsey Architect, a color drawing showing building elevations with labeled materials dated 4-10-18 (with a received date of 7-16-18) and unattributed, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; Tompkins County department of Planning and Sustainability; and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to the following condition: i. Submission of revised elevations showing materials and design features from the south and west elevations carried over to the north elevation. Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Stewart Park Inclusive Playground by Rick Manning for the City of Ithaca. Consideration of Project Changes. The project was approved by the Planning Board on March 27, 2018. The applicant is now requesting project changes, including relocation and redesign of the bathrooms and the parking area, and layout and programing changes to the overall playground. The project is to construct a new accessible playground with a splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment, a new structure with accessible bathrooms and storage/office space, and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent parking area to add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the P-1 Zoning District. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on February 27, 2018. The proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration. Rick Manning and Lucas Raley from Friends of Stewart Park, and Andy Sciarabba from T.G. Miller, P.C. appeared to update the Board on proposed project changes. They reviewed and agreed to a number of changes from City Forester Jeanne Grace. They also explained the rationale behind a potential change to the benches opposed by Grace, and said that they would continue discussions with her and other stakeholders before a final product selection is made. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 9 Manning said Phase I will be a community build and Phase II will be a more traditional build project, bid during the winter and constructed in the spring of 2019. Their goal is to have it open by Memorial Day if possible. He said they are still actively fundraising to meet that goal. Glass asked about the carpet product versus bonded rubber surface. Manning said they are still making a final decision on which to use, and that whichever material they select will go down at the end of Phase II. He said they are leaning towards the carpet at present because they think it looks better and it is a little more durable, though it is a bit more expensive. Director Cornish asked if it will be all one color. Manning said the main color will be a grass green, but that there may be play features built into the surface with different colors (pathways or hopscotch fields, for example). Cornish referenced the Commons and warned about seams possibly coming open and problems associated with differential settling. Manning said that this is a very different product than what is in use on the Commons, and that it’s different than traditional turf, more environmentally friendly and safer. Adopted Resolution for Approval of Project Changes On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina. WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approved the Stewart Park Playground project with conditions on 3/27/18, and II. WHEREAS: The applicant is now requesting project changes including relocation and redesign of the bathrooms and the parking area and layout and programing changes to the overall playground. The project is to construct a new accessible playground with a splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment, a new structure with accessible bathrooms and storage/office space, and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent parking area to add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the P- 1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: The project requires Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board and approval by the Board of Public Works for improvements on City Property. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) will authorize the expenditure of approximately $1,000,000 of the proceeds of the State and Municipal Facilities Program bond issuance for the Proposed Project, and WHEREAS: This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on February 27, 2018, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 10 WHEREAS: the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration and no further review is required, and WHEREAS: this Board, has on July 24., 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised drawings titled “Exiting Conditions Plan -Phase 1 (C-100)”, “Layout Plan- Phase 1 (C103)”, “Demolition Plan- Phase 1 (C101)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan- Phase 1 (C102)”, “Grading and Drainage Plan- Phase 1 (C104)”, and “Details – Phase 1 (C201)”, “Exiting Conditions Plan -Phase 2 (C-100)”, “Layout Plan- Phase 2 (C103)”, “Demolition Plan –Phase 2 (C101)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan – Phase 2 (C102)”, “Grading and Drainage Plan – Phase 2(C104)”, “Utility Plan- Phase 2 (C107)” and “Details- Phase 2 (C201)” all with a latest revision date of 8/21/18 and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and “Perspective Renders (A000)”, “Floor Plans (A101)”, “Elevations (A202)”, and “Sections (A301)” dated 7 /10/18 and prepared by Stream Collaborative, other application materials, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board understands that final construction costs may necessitate that certain discrete elements may be installed at a later date as funding allows, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby approves the project changes subject to the following conditions: Unmet conditions from the 2/27/18 approval: i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details such as, but not limited to site furnishings and signage, and ii. The applicant has agreed that all metal elements will have a consistent black finish wherever possible, and that all terminal ends of metal fences will have end posts, and iii. Applicant will notify the Planning Board of any and all further changes to the project, and iv. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permits that may be required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc. New Conditions: i. The final parking arrangement for the south side of the parking area shall be determined under the guidance of the Engineering Division, and ii. Submission of revised drawings C101 & C102 to reflect the City Forester’s comments dated 8-24-18, and iii. The applicant will work with the City Forester to appropriated size the music garden to minimize potential damage to nearby trees, and iv. No permits needed to commence construction or demolition shall be issued until submission and approval of an Operations and Maintenance Plan or that operation and maintenance issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Forester. Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Petrina In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 11 C. Modified Site Plan - Building Demolition & Site Improvements at 222 S. Cayuga Street (Hotel Ithaca) by Lenroc LLC for David Hart. Public Hearing, and Consideration of Modified Site Plan Approval. The applicant is requesting modifications to the site plan that was approved on October 27, 2015. The applicant has completed the project and now wishes to demolish the two-story wing that was previously slated to remain and construct 17 additional parking spaces (from 91 to 108). The proposal includes the removal of the eastern-most curb cut on Clinton Street; landscaping, including 20 new trees; lighting; and signage. The project is in the CBD-100 Zoning District. The entire project was classified as a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h.) (4) and (l), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), for which the Lead Agency amended the Negative Declaration issued on 3/27/12. David Hart, president of Hart Hotels Inc., appeared to review a modified site plan for the project at 222 S. Cayuga Street. The site plan, initially approved in 2015, was to modernize the hotel built in 1972. Applicant is returning to request the Planning Board reconsider the request to demolish the south wing of the hotel, per a previous proposal. Hart said they want to clear out that corner because they aren’t using that portion of the building and they have no intention of using it going forward. He said that at the Project Review Committee meeting they discussed what is going to happen to the footprint of the building once that corner is removed, and he said they will use some of the vacant space to reorient the parking, removing one curb cut on Clinton Street (goring from two to one), and eliminating 10 feet of blacktop from the parking area along Clinton Street to add 10 feet to the planting bed there. Jones asked about the City Forester’s comments/concerns regarding the soil volumes for tree islands. Hart said they will meet her requests and would not get the required building/demolition permits until they have satisfied her concerns. Public Hearing On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones. Blalock said that he was on the Board when the project came before them last, and noted that the reason that the demolition was not done at that time was that there was an objection to having a lot of surface parking in the downtown core across the street from the Cayuga Street Garage, which was well below capacity. He asked if that concern has gone away. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 12 Blalock also noted that previously, there had been mention of the possibility of the parking lot being an interim use of the space, with plans for something else to be built there eventually. He asked if the long-term construction plan is still on the table. Hart said that long ago they had discussed building a conference center there, but soil studies revealed that the piles required would make the project cost prohibitive, so they flipped the design and built the addition on the north side. He said he understands that having a surface parking lot in the downtown business district is not the highest and best use of the land, but neither is having the two-story eyesore of a building there. Director Cornish agreed that they don’t want to see a vacant, unused two-story building, and added that though they don’t want to see a surface lot there forever, many businesses have reconfigured their downtown offices recently and the Cayuga Garage is closer to capacity, so adding parking there is an interim solution to the increased parking demand. Hart said that the nice thing about their business is that they tend to have a complimentary use of the garage, in that they need it for overflow mostly on nights and weekends when the garage is at its most vacant. Johnston asked about slowing traffic on the widened connection between Clinton and Green. Jones suggested signage, striping and/or speedbumps. Hart agreed, noting that it’s private, not public. Glass asked about pedestrian pathway lighting between Cayuga and Clinton. Hart said they have proposed some to replicate what they have along Green. Petrina pointed out a small discrepancy in the size of the planting bed to be widened to 18 feet, saying that previously they had indicated the existing bed is 12 feet, and that tonight he said 10 feet. She asked applicant to double check the numbers so the resulting bed is 18 feet. Elliott asked about using the two-story building to be demolished for workforce housing. Hart said that the existing building getting close to 50 years old is, in his opinion, not a habitable situation – even for someone desperate. He said that possibly building new housing units on the ground floor was part of a previous plan involving the construction of a tower and convention center, a plan that was since abandoned. He said using the old building for housing is not on the table at this time. Chair Lewis asked about the question of pedestrian lighting. Jones asked Nicholas if she had the verbiage for the condition. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 13 Nicholas said she has listed a condition that applicant works with staff to develop plans for signage and striping between Green and Clinton. She also mentioned that they should make a condition that the curb cut to be removed should be replaced with a full height curb. Blalock asked for the inclusion of a (non-binding) statement that the Board wants the long term use of the lot not be surface parking. Other members expressed support. Chair Lewis asked about inclusion of a condition regarding lighting. Members suggested replicating what’s in use along Cayuga Street. Additional discussion of the resolution and related conditions followed. Adopted Resolution for Modified Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Modified Site Plan Review for improvements to the Hotel Ithaca (formerly Holiday Inn) located at 222 S. Cayuga Street by Hart Hotels, Inc., applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: on 7/24/12, the Planning Board approved a project for this site consisting of two new additions: a one-story banquet and meeting facility on the north side of the main building and a new 10- story tower with 115 new guest rooms, and WHEREAS: on October 27, 2015 the Planning Board approved a redesigned project to construct a five- story wing with first- and second-floor connections to the existing building. The project included reorganization of parking throughout the site, resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces, landscaping and other site improvements. Site development included removal of the north and west multi-story wings but retention of the two story southern wing, and WHEREAS: the applicant has completed the project and now wishes to demolish the two-story wing that was previously slated to remain and construct 17 additional parking spaces. The proposal includes the removal of the eastern-most curb cut on Clinton Street; landscaping, including 20 new trees; lighting; and signage. The project is in the CBD-100 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: the entire project was classified as a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h.) (4) and (l), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), for which the Lead Agency amended the Negative Declaration issued on 3/27/12, and WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has determined that the proposed changes are consistent with the amended Negative Declaration, 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 August 28, 2018, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 14 WHEREAS: Tompkins County Planning Department and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board feels that the proposed site work is a significant improvement over existing conditions, but that the long term plan for this urban corner should be a building and not a surface level parking lot, and WHEREAS: on August 28, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate: a drawing entitled “Proposed Site and Layout Plans Phase 3 (S1)” with a latest revision date of 8-16-18 and prepared by NH Architecture, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Modified Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of a revised site plan showing planting specifications and soil volumes for tree islands, and ii. The applicant will restore the closed curb cut on Clinton St to full height curb, tree lawn and sidewalk, and iii. Applicant will explore widening the Clinton St – facing planting bed to 20’, and iv. Applicant to work with staff on signage and/or striping to prevent cross -property vehicular traffic between Green and Clinton Streets, and, v. Applicant will work with staff to investigate pedestrian scale lighting on Clinton St, and vi. Any work within the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. Any City tree removal will require a Tree Permit, and viii. Before Certificate of Occupancy- any needed easements or license agreements shall be in place for the portions of the property on City Property ix. Bike racks to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Declaration of Lead Agency, and Review of FEAF Part 2. The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 1,200-seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. The sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the City. The freshman site will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of which is in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 15 City in which the proposed five stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii). Kathryn Wolf and Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects and Steve Byers from Cornell University presented on the Energy and Transportation aspects of the proposed North Campus Residential Expansion project at Cornell. Wolf introduced Byers, saying he was the project manager for Cornell’s original Climate Action Plan, helped establish the original Cornell Green Building Program, and helped with managing and permitting the combined heat and energy plant, and is currently the lead on Cornell’s Earth Source heat project. He helped design the energy goals and standards for the NCRE project and appeared in front of the Board to present the “Energy” portion of the presentation. Byers said that the total square footage of the project will equal about 4 percent of the campus as a whole. He said that the application provides an energy narrative, and an analysis by Taitem Engineering which includes a detailed energy analysis, a greenhouse gas accounting, comparisons with national and local green building guidelines, and comparisons with other heating and cooling methods, including heat pumps. He noted that all materials are available for download on both the City and Town websites. He also referred to information available on Cornell’s website, including “Energy Fast Facts,” real time building energy use data, information about Lake Source Cooling and the combined heat and power plant, the Climate Action Plan, and Earth Source Heat. Byers next provided an overview of the NCRE as it relates to campus energy use. He said the new buildings will tie into the district energy systems (central facility serving whole campus). He said that while the new buildings will represent about 4 percent of square footage of the campus, they will represent only about 1.4 percent of the energy use on campus (for both Lake Source Cooling and heat/electricity). He said the modeled energy use is 25 percent less than current state energy code (recently updated). He also said that by using the district energy system, the buildings will use less source energy (less gas) than if heat pumps were used. He went on to provide additional supporting details. The Board next had a short discussion period. Jones asked how gas would come to the site. Byers said the gas is brought to the existing district energy through existing infrastructure. Jones asked if the decision to use gas is one of convenience. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 16 Byers said that from his perspective it’s the only way to do it because they can’t solve the problems [related to energy efficiency] by substituting other energy sources. Elliott asked if there is a plan to use carbon offsets. Byers said that their preference under their Climate Action Plan is to create new reductions in fossil fuel uses elsewhere (to compensate for student and faculty travel, for example) as opposed to purchasing offsets. He said that though it’s not figured out as well as they might like, buying carbon offsets is more of an accounting exercise, sort of an easy button. Elliott said that some offsets can directly benefit the local community, and that might help improve the public response to the project. Michaels pointed out that using the existing district energy system is more efficient in and of itself than heating and cooling using power from the grid. She also said that the infrastructure is already there, so it’s not necessarily about convenience but about the energy it would take to build new infrastructure. Byers said that they are using gas in the existing combined heating and power plant, so the new development would use gas, but they would not actually be running new gas lines to the buildings themselves for heating. Michaels and Byers invited the Board to tour the facility. Petrina ssid she enjoyed reading the analysis by Taitem and invited the public to do the same, saying they are independent and their data, compelling. She quoted from page 203, “the central plant is producing less electricity than its full capacity and is currently selling electricity to the grid. It may therefore be possible to supply some or all of the electricity needed for the proposed buildings without increasing the gas consumption of the plant.” She said that if that’s true, it sounds amazing and asked for metrics on that. Byers said there’s some accounting that takes place and that when they export to the grid they displace other gas combustion powered power sources elsewhere. It won’t necessarily remove gas use from the state grid – which would be too good to be true. Glass asked for a definition of net zero and if it is possible. Byers said that it means that the building generates as much energy as it uses over the course of a year (although not necessarily at the same time it is used, citing solar panels in place over night as an example). He said it’s a challenge, saying that for a one- or two-story building it’s doable, but beyond that much harder to do. Glass asked about the Bloomberg Center on Roosevelt Island. Byers said it’s a great building , a great accomplishment but it’s not net-zero. Two buildings completely loaded with photo-voltaics produce about 2/3rds of the energy used in one of the two buildings. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 17 Johnston asked if Cornell would be bringing a commissioning agent onboard. Byers answered yes. Petrina asked why only LEED Silver. Byers said Silver is a minimum goal, and they hope to exceed their goal, but LEED requirements are always changing, which creates challenges. Wolf next reviewed the transportation portion of the presentation, discussing the traffic study done to show current conditions and identifying areas where vehicular levels of service would decrease. Reductions to parking availability, increases in pedestrian traffic and possible conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians were detailed. She also noted that several TCAT routes would need to add busses. Mitigations were also detailed. Questions from the Board followed. Regarding the Circulation Study, Petrina asked applicants for clarification regarding the number of crashes at the corner of Jessup and Pleasant Grove roads (13 crashes reported). Chair Lewis next opened the second Privilege of the Floor. Marie McCrae of 710 Irish Settlement Road, Dryden spoke about the NCRE project. She said that we are at a critical time in history and that to approve large projects that will increase the amount of methane being brought into Tompkins County is crazy. She said we are all connected and all affected by climate. She asked the Board to seriously consider what kind of energy is used in any building project being brought before them for consideration. Judy Pierpont of 710 Irish Settlement Road, Dryden spoke about the NCRE project. She said that climate change is the determining reality of our moment in history, and we have to deal with it now. She said that if we do not limit or stop the burning of fossil fuels now the ensuing temperature rise will destroy the environment that supports human and all other life. Institutions and governments have to make a full good faith effort to address the problem or else “our ship will go down.” Individual citizens cannot set policy or prevent unwise development, but you can. The NCRE should be designed to net-zero emissions with less glass exposure, otherwise there is an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Sara Hess of 124 Westfield Drive spoke about the NCRE project. She spoke about the greenhouse gas emission goals being set by municipalities and Cornell and noted that Cornell recently shifted its goal to become carbon neutral by 2035 (later than originally stated). She also said that the goal of being 25 percent more energy efficient than state code is nothing to brag about and said that the City Green Building Policy will set higher standards, and that plan took two years to develop and was designed with a careful eye to economic impacts. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 18 Carol Chock of 39 Woodcrest Avenue spoke about the NCRE project. She pointed out that Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, noting that though it only persists for about 20 years, it causes 100 times more warming. She spoke about how methane leaks from fracking wells and from the delivery systems. She spoke about Ithaca’s commitment to preventing climate change and asked how we can ask other big developers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we don’t require Cornell to do so. Caroline Byrne of 108 Park Street spoke about the NCRE project. She relayed a concern from a friend who wanted to say the project should be built to passive house standards. She expressed her own concerns that it will only be built to LEED Silver. She observed that in order to meet their own Climate Action Plan, the older buildings will be harder to retrofit, so creating highly efficient new buildings seems like the easier option. Irene Weiser of 334 Brooktondale Road, Brooktondale, Councilmember in the Town of Caroline and coordinator for Fossil Free Tompkins, spoke about the NCRE project. She said she helped oppose the West Dryden Road Pipeline intended to bring added gas supply to Lansing. Lansing has now had to forego any new gas development. She said they are upset. She also observed that other towns, such as Dryden, are voluntarily foregoing new gas usage and pushing developers to use heat pumps. She cited Caroline’s requirements that new developments requiring site plan review conform to the County’s 239 requirements and said it’s time for the City to step up and play the same game. She commended the City’s Green Building Policy, and urged the Board to review a “greenwashing” presentation from Ian Shapiro when evaluating this proposed development. Margaret McCasland of 202-7 Cypress Court spoke about the NCRE project. She said she is a faith-based leader regarding climate change. She said the climate is changing faster than we are, faster than even the most pessimistic expected it to. She said that building and energy technologies that were cutting-edge a decade ago are no longer good enough. We have to drastically reduce emissions. LEED Silver is “so yesterday.” The combined heat and power plant is also “so yesterday.” She said she had supported it years ago, but that was before learning about the dangers of fracked methane. Her comments were also submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Eric Pritz of 106 Brook Lane, Village of Cayuga Heights spoke about the NCRE project. He said climate disruption is a grave threat, and we need to take a leap to make it through this. He also spoke about parking and said that while it might be true that only 5 percent of undergraduates purchase parking permits, that doesn’t mean only 5 percent bring vehicles to Ithaca. He said that people in his neighborhoods are jockeying for positions every day, and that throws into question all of Cornell’s data. He asked the Board to pay close attention to the delivery system being moved onto Triphammer, right at the S-curve before Wait Avenue where busses cannot navigate without stopping traffic coming the other way. He also said there is no sidewalk on Triphammer by Sisson for pedestrians. He asked the Board to consider neighborhood impacts. Lisa Marshall of Horseheads spoke about the negative impacts of fracking in communities where it is happening and delivered a petition asking Cornell not to use fracked gas in their Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 19 proposed dormitory expansion project. A copy of the petition is included as an addendum to these minutes. Annalise Kukor of 144 E. Spencer Street, Cornell Cooperative Extension employee spoke about the NCRE project. She said that at CCC they ask citizens to reduce their energy use and increase their use of renewables, and it seems only fair to ask the same of Cornell (given that they have many more resources). She said climate change is certain and it is upon us and that neing 25 percent above code is not that impressive. She said we should not be using fracked gas as a bridge fuel, and urged the Board to push Cornell to explore more radical options going forward. Brian Eden of Ithaca spoke about the NCRE project. He said he is disappointed by the inadequacy of this proposal. He spoke about climate feedback loops and said we need to be reducing methane use wherever we can. His comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Tom Blecher of 313 Utica Street spoke about the NCRE project. His comments were also submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Milo Vella of 660 Stewart Avenue spoke about the NCRE project. A Cornell student, he expressed concerns for the environmental impacts of the development. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the second Privilege of the Floor. Chair Lewis invited the applicants to respond to concerns raised by the public. Byers explained that the reason that they want to use their district energy plant and not grid electricity and heat pumps is that their system is more efficient and to use the grid would require the use of more natural gas, not less. He then explained the sources of energy generation statewide and explained that whenever additional demand is placed on the state grid, it comes from natural gas burning facilities, as other sources such as nuclear are available at a flat/fixed level. He said the only way electricity supply can be increased when demand goes up is to burn natural gas. It is the only thing in the grid they can adjust to meet increased load. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 20 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval for the North Campus Residential Expansion, located on Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP, applicant for Cornell University, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore village will have f our residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF, and a 1,200 seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. All buildings in the sophomore village are in the City of Ithaca; the small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights contains landscape improvements. The freshman village will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of which is in the City and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the City in which the proposed 5 stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town, which allows for the proposed two -story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii), and WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board, the NYS Dormitory Authority, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health all potentially involved agencies in this action have all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None The Board next reviewed Part II of the FEAF. E. Major Subdivision & Construction of a Public Road at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-21 by Nels Bohn for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). Declaration of Lead Agency, and Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into four lots and extend Cherry Street by 400 feet. Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure 2.601 acres, and Lot 4 will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics (see below) and developed as a manufacturing facility, Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for potential future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and sold for future development. The project is in the Cherry Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 21 District which has no requirements lot size or street frontage, 5- and 10-foot side yards, and 10 feet for rear yard. The road will be built to City standards with a 65-foot ROW, 5- foot sidewalks and tree lawn, and will be turned over to the City upon completion. This action, combined with subdivision, road construction, and the sale of the property, is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (c) and (j) and B(4) the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review. Production & Warehouse Building (Emmy’s Organics) at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-21 by Ian Gaffney for Emmy’s Organics. Declaration of Lead Agency, and Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant is proposing to construct a production facility of up to 24,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking for 22 cars, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project will be in two phases: Phase one, which will include a 14,000 SF building and all site improvements; and Phase two, (expected in the next 5 years) which will include an addition of between 14,000 and 20,000 SF. As the project site is undeveloped, site development will include the removal of 2 acres of vegetation including 55 trees of various sizes. The 2.6-acre project site is part of a larger 6-acre property owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) that is in the process of subdivision (see above). The project is in the Cherry District. This action, combined with subdivision, road construction, and the sale of the property, is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (c) and (j) and B(4) the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617 -4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review. Nels Bohn of the IURA, Andy Sciarabba of T.G. Miller P.C., Emmy’s Organics co-owners, Samantha Abrams and Ian Gaffney, Scott Whitham and Gaelin Walsh of Whitham Design, Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative, and Larry and Taber Raley from Raley Construction appeared before the Board to present details of the proposed project. Bohn explained that they are proposing to extend Cherry Street and subdivide the property into four lots, one of which will be sold to Emmy’s Organics for a new production facility, two of which will be sold in the future for development, and one of which will be retained for wetland protection and for a future extension of the Black Diamond Trail. Sciarabba explained the plan is to extend the road, sidewalk, and all utilities 400 feet to the new lots. The project will also include a firetruck-compliant turnaround. He said they are still working on the stormwater portion of the proposal. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 22 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 received three applications. Two, from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for a major subdivision and construction of a 400 -foot extension of a public road (Cherry St) and a site plan review application from Ian Gaffney of Emmy’s Organics, for construction of a production facility on one of the subdivided parcels, and WHEREAS: the IURA is proposing to subdivide a 6-acre parcel into four lots and construct a 400-foot extension of Cherry Street. Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure 2.6 acres, and Lot 4 will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics and developed as a manufacturing facility, Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for potential future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and sold for future development. Emmy’s Organics is proposing to construct a production facility on the proposed Lot 3. The facility will be approximately 34,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking for 22 cars, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project will be in two phases; phase one will include a 14,000 SF building and all site improvements; phase two is expected to commence within the next 5 years and will include an addition of 14,000 to 20,000 SF. The project also involves the sale of public property and potential tax abatements, and WHEREAS: taken as a whole, these actions constitute a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1)(c) and (j) and B(4), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review. WHEREAS: the Ithaca Common Council, the Ithaca Board of Public Works, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Industrial Devel opment Authority all potentially involved agencies in this action have all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Samantha Abrams, Emmy’s Organics, provided a brief history of the company and explained their need for a new facility. Sciarabba provided some additional information on site development needs and deed restrictins that would impact the proposed future facility expansion. Taber Raley of Raley Construction gave a brief overview of the plans for construction. Demarest briefly reviewed the proposed design of the building. He alerted the Board that some of the designs (roofline, windows, etc.) might be subject to change. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 23 Elliott asked about the site elevation and flood risk. Brief discussion followed and the Board reviewed Part II of the FEAF. F. Apartments (12 Units) at 327 W. Seneca Street by Noah Demarest for Visum Development. Declaration of Lead Agency, and Review of FEAF Part 2. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 units. Project development requires the removal of the exiting building and parking area. The project will include exterior bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project is in the B2-d Zoning District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small portion at the rear of the property is in the CDB-60 District. The project is subject to Design Review. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review. Noah Demarest provided a brief overview of the project. A brief question and answer period followed. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: 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 received a site plan review application for a 12-unit apartment building by Noah Demarest for Visum Development, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 affordable units. Project development requires the removal of the existing building and parking area. The project will include exterior bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project is in the B2-d Zoning District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small portion at the rear of the property is in the CDB-60 District and is subject to Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Approved by the Planning and Development Board September 25, 2018 24 Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None The Board next reviewed Part II of the FEAF. 4. Zoning Appeals  ##3102 – Area Variance, 209 Hudson St Architect Jagat Sharma reviewed proposed project changes (adding a back door, enlarging the living room and making one of the bedrooms into a master bedroom suite.) He asked the Board if this would impact their recommendation to the BZA. The Board decided to add language to the recommendation, which now reads as follows: The Planning Board is unsure whether this variance and the subdivision it will allow is in the spirit of the South Hill Overlay District. The Board is conflicted about this appeal because there is not yet a South Hill neighborhood plan, and therefore no specific guidance on this issue. However, the Board also appreciates the applicant’s recent revisions to the floor plans that make the project more appealing to families. 5. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. BPW Liaison Blalock said Lime Bikes are creating concerns and suggested that the Planning Board should probably have a discussion about bike parking, storage, etc. in the future. C. Director of Planning & Development Director Cornish thanked Blalock for rejoining the Board and for his work, saying a BPW Liaison to the Board has been needed for a long time. 6. Adjournment: On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.