Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-10-23 Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes October 23, 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, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anne Redmond, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: 111 Clinton St Tax Parcel # 80.-11-1 – Minor Subdivision Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Cherry Street Extension – Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval for Construction of a Road Emmy’s Organics – Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval Nels Bohn, IURA Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller P.C. Matt Cooper, STREAM Collaborative Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design Retail Expansion S. Meadow Square – Consideration of Final Approval Matt Oates for Benderson Development NCRE Cornell University – Continuation of Public Hearing Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 2 Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Arvin Tikku, iKon 5 Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC – Declaration of Lead Agency Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Frost Travis, Travis-Hyde Properties Robert Keane, WDG Architecture Sketch Plan – Mixed-Use Proposal – Carpenter Business Park Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design Tom Levigne, Cayuga Medical Center and Park Grove Tony Votaw, Cayuga Medical Center Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said that consideration of final approval for the Benderson Development Retail Expansion project had been added to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Patty Siegard of 292 Lampila Road, Newfield, said that while she was primarily interested in commenting on NCRE, she spoke in favor of using local union labor on all projects going forward. Barbara Lynch of 406 E. Buffalo Street said she is a downhill neighbor of 2 Fountain Place. She said they recently purchased the house with the intent of aging in place, and they have invested a significant amount of money in the last few years making improvements. She said they bought there because it is a residential neighborhood, and they want to make sure it remains residential. From a broader planning perspective, she said there’s no need to push commercial development on that hill. She said that though the proposed B&B use might not physically change the building, it could have a deleterious effect on the urban fabric (unless it has no impact on parking and is not used as an event space). She said she would not object to a B&B home, with a family living there, but she would object to a B&B inn. Vincent Mulcahy of 3 Fountain Place said he and his wife have owned their home since 1984, and that it’s an amazing place to live. His house and the two others (2 Fountain and 2 Willetts) Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 3 are William Henry Miller designed homes and all relate to one another. He said that one of the central issues raised in the use variance request is that the property is unsaleable as an R-2a property, but he said he was interested in buying [2 Willetts Place]. He said that the description of the properties being on the market for 6 months is also incorrect. He cited a City inspection dating to 1998 that characterizes 2 Willetts Place as a two-story, two-family home, and this appeal describes it as a single-family home, but there are three efficiency units inside. He said the appeal makes the claim that it is too expensive to be viable for a single family to buy it (per the R-2a zoning). He then asked: If it’s too expensive, why not reduce the price? He also submitted supporting materials for the Board’s review. Paul Houston of 406 E. Buffalo Street spoke against the variance for 2 Willetts Place. He asked what are they are going to do about fire escapes and what are they going to do about parking? He said it seems to him that the applicant’s strategy is to secure approval from the Board and then worry about those things after the fact. He said he wants to ensure that the applicants have to submit a complete plan for addressing those concerns before they secure approvals. He said that fire access on that street has been a long standing concern and that the University was told they couldn’t put use the street for more parking. He said he’s also concerned about the applicants wanting to serve dinner, including alcohol, to non-guests. He said he’s okay with them seeking a variance to have more bedrooms to rent, but not a restaurant/inn. Dan Hoffman of 415 Elm Street spoke about the City’s use of its own forms for the CEQR process. He said that he’s disappointed by this decision because it goes against the recommendation of the City’s own Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. He said it’s been required since 2013, and the New York State forms include many more categories of impacts and more questions. He said that by using the City forms, the Board is making a decision about environmental impacts without having or considering all the information needed. He said using the State forms could have significant impacts on how they would evaluate a project such as the Emmy’s Organics building, which would involve building a new road and developing a site that is currently wooded and/or wetlands. He also expressed concern that the City did not require public notice be given to the residential neighbors nearest to the project. He said it’s a special situation because the houses along Floral Avenue are slightly beyond the 200- foot mark and the waterway separates them from the project. Lisa Strayer of 361 Floral Avenue spoke about the Emmy’s Organics project. She said she feels like she was notified late in the game. She expressed concerns about loss of recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat, saying she has seen a bald eagle in the area. She expressed concerns that more than 100 trees will be cut and asked the Board to require more trees be planted in the area. She asked the buildings be designed to fit into the landscape and that light pollution be minimized. William Benson of 367 Floral Avenue said he’s lived on Floral Avenue for more than 20 years and that he’s always known that the area across the inlet from his house was zoned light industrial, and that it was likely that someday a new facility would be constructed somewhere across from his place on Floral Ave. He said that he has known Ian and Samantha for a long time, and that he’s known Ian since infancy, as his mother, Mel, is his oldest friend in Ithaca. He said he completely supports the project, that he believes in what Emmy’s Organics is doing, that Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 4 it’s nutritious food, and they need to expand. He said he understands Mr. Hoffman’s and Ms. Strayer’s concerns, and he hopes they will be addressed, but that the real reason he is speaking is that neighbors on Floral Ave were not notified. He said that he understands that they are not technically within the 200-foot radius that would require notification under the law, but he finds it extraordinary that the Board and applicants would not look at the subdivision and development proposal and see the need to inform neighbors along Floral Avenue (240 feet away, but with a clear view of the proposed project.) He said he and his neighbors are going to be directly impacted and he thinks they should have been notified. There being no additional members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision of 111 Clinton St., Tax Parcel # 80.-11-11. Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property onto two parcels: Parcel A measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet on W Clinton St and containing two existing buildings, parking and other site features; and Parcel B measuring .1 acres (4,480 SF) with and 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St and containing one multi-family building. The property is in the P-1 Zoning District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of street frontage, 25-foor front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance of the existing deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel B. The project is in the Henry St John Historic District. This i s 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. Lynn Truame appeared in front of the Board on behalf of INHS to explain that they were proposing to subdivide the property to transfer ownership of the multi-family building to a tax credit partnership to help them secure funding for renovations. There were no changes to the proposal since last meeting, and no members of the Board had questions for the applicant. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary & Final Subdivision 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 Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #80.-11-1, by owner Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property into two parcels: Parcel A measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet on W Clinton St and containing two existing buildings, parking, and other site features; and Parcel B measuring .1 acres Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 5 (4,480 SF) with 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St and containing one multifamily building. The property is in the P-1 Zoning District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance for the existing deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel B. The project is in the Henry St John Historic District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action did, on September 25, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 25, 2018 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled “Survey Map, 301 South Geneva Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York,” with a revision date of 7/13/2018 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require area variance from district regulation in the requirements in the P-1 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Subdivision 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. Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Major Subdivision, at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-1.21 by Nels Bohn for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval. The IURA is proposing to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into four lots. Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 6 2.601 acres, and Lot 4 will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics (see below), Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and sold for future development. This subdivision is part of a larger development project that 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), for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 25, 2018. Nels Bohn of the IURA and Andy Sciarabba of T.G. Miller P.C. appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Bohn said they are proposing to subdivide the parcels into four lots, with one lot (Lot #4, closest to the Flood Control Channel) reserved for the City as a buffer (or for some other future use by the City). He said they are also planning on extending the road 400 feet and to sell the rear lot to Emmy’s for their new facility, and hold on to the other two lots for sale to interested parties looking to develop them sometime in the future. Jones asked how the lot sizes were determined. Sciarabba said that they sort of worked back from the lot size required by Emmy’s to do phases one and two of their proposed project, and they also considered the IURA’s requirement to keep other lots at or about 1-acre in size to make them saleable to other businesses looking for plots in the future. He also said the current alignment of Cherry Street lent itself to the subdivision as proposed, with Lot #4 being a natural buffer. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has a pending subdivision application from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for the major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6-acre parcel into four lots: 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. The applicant is also proposing the construction of a 400-foot extension of a public road (Cherry St). The project site is in the Cherry Street District (CSD) which has no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements and the following yard dimension requirements: no front yard setback except as necessary to provide a 5’ sidewalk and 8’ treelawn and minimum10’ side and rear yard setbacks, and WHEREAS: the entire development project, including this subdivision, the road construction and the production facility 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. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 7 WHEREAS: the Ithaca Common Council, the Ithaca Board of Public Works, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Industrial Development Authority all potentially involved agencies in this action all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: that on August 28, 2018, the Ithaca Planning and Development Board did declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 25, 2018, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 25, 2018 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following drawings: “ Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Showing lands owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Located at Southerly End of Cherry Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” dated 7/23/18, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on September 25, 2018 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to district regulations for the Cherry Street Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, by owner the IURA. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 4. Site Plan Review A. Construction of a Public Road at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-1.21 by Nels Bohn for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The IURA is proposing to extend Cherry Street by 400 feet. 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. The road extension is part Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 8 of a larger development project that 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), for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 25, 2018. Nels Bohn of the IURA and Andy Sciarabba of T.G. Miller P.C. remained in front of the Board to discuss the proposed road extension. Jones asked applicants to speak to the public comments heard earlier. Sciarabba said that from a buffering standpoint, as the road is laid out, with Lot #4 being reserved, in addition to the street trees planned to be planted on the site, it will be difficult to see much of the roadway from the other side of the Inlet. He said it might seem more open, and you would probably see some light from the streetlights, so it won’t be invisible. However, he said he thinks more of the impact might come from the buildings proposed for the site, across the roadway, which he said he thinks will also be screened by plantings. Bohn said there will be a 95-foot buffer from the top of the hill to the Inlet, some of which is grass, but some of which is wooded. He also said that the City has reserved a 20-plus-foot buffer in that area for the proposed Black Diamond Trail, which will probably be visible from the flood control channel when it comes online in the future. Glass asked how they came to the 65-foot ROW. Sciarabba said it is a continuation of the existing, with roadway, tree lawn, sidewalk, utilities, etc. Glass asked how wide the actual pavement is. Sciarabba said it is 31 feet. Jones asked if sidewalks were planned for both sides. Sciarabba said one side, as currently. There being no further questions from the Board members, the Board next considered the action. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has a pending Site Plan Review application from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for the a 400-foot extension of Cherry Street on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 9 WHEREAS: the IURA is proposing to construct a 400-foot extension of Cherry Street. The extension will include a sidewalk, tree lawn and underground utilities. It will be built to City standards and transferred to the City upon completion. The project site is in the Cherry Street District (CSD), and WHEREAS: the road extension is part of a larger project that includes a major (4 lot) subdivision of the 6- acre parcel, of which one lot will be will be sold to Emmy's Organics and developed as a manufacturing facility, two lots will be will be marketed and sold for future development, and one lot will be retained left undeveloped for potential future trail use, 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(I)(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 all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: that on August 28,2018, the Ithaca Planning and Development Board did declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 25, 2018, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 25, 2018 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAP), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following drawings: " Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Showing lands owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Located at Southerly End of Cherry Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York" dated 7/23/18, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; drawing for the road extension: "Existing Conditions Plan CI00", "Demolition Plan CI0l", "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan -CI02", "Layout Plan-C-I03", "Utility Plan - CI04", "Grading Plan-CI0S", and "Details-C201" dated 7/31/18 prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and “Cherry Street Landscape Plan – L2.0” dated 8/31/18 and prepared by Stream Collaborative et. al., and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on September 25, 2018 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Approval to the proposed Cherry St extension on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, by owner the IURA. Moved by: Johnston Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 10 Seconded by: Elliott In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Construction of a 14-24,000 SF Production Facility (Emmy’s Organics) at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-1.21 by Ian Gaffney for Emmy’s Organics. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. Emmy’s Organics 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 facility is part of a larger project that includes subdivision of land a 40-foot road extension by the Ithaca IURA extension that 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), for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 25, 2018. Ian Gaffney of Emmy’s Organics, Matt Cooper of STREAM Collaborative, and Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design appeared to address the Board. Chair Lewis asked if the applicants would like to respond to any of the concerns raised by members of the public. Gaffney said, yes, at Emmy’s Organics, it has always been their concern to be responsible. He said he has known Mr. Benson since childhood. He said that their plans have been based on the assumption of an approximate 20-foot wooded buffer and 95 feet from the top of the inlet to the bank, and that land along the side of the building will be designated as wetlands. He said cutting trees never feels good, but they will do as much as they can to source solar and wind power, compost, recycle, etc. He said he hears the comments from the community and they are not falling on deaf ears. Fournier said that they have walked on the site with City Forester Jeanne Grace and that many of the trees are tall and spindly, growing close together, fast growing, and rather brittle. She said that while they will be taking some of those trees away, they are planning on replacing them with high quality, native hardwoods, so in terms of habitat, that should mitigate some of the effects on flora and fauna in the area. Cooper next spoke about color and lighting selections for the building. He said they are planning on using two shades of green that should blend with the natural colors and that the lights would all be downward facing to minimize the light pollution. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 11 Jones asked if items such as lighting, signage and the dumpster enclosure could return for Board approval. Deputy Director Nicholas said yes. Glass asked if smaller-caliper native species could be included as part of the planting plan. Fournier agreed and suggested that they might also do a meadow planting for the area included for future expansion, in order to provide habitat for wildlife in between Phases 1 and 2 of the project. Glass clarified that he was not interested in replacing the larger caliper trees, but rather add some smaller ones in addition to the ones already proposed. Fournier expressed support, but said it might require adjustments in the budget. Petrina asked if they could add a condition to review plantings, in light of public comments. Nicholas said that is a good idea and said they should ask for revised planting plans and also a restoration plan for areas that will be disturbed by construction during the proposed expansion (Phase 2). Elliott asked if they were planning to do mixed plantings or just plunk in trees? Fournier said they were planning on using a mixture of trees and shrubs, as well as try to minimize grass. She said that plain old mown lawns, unless being used functionally (for example to play soccer or have a picnic) don’t have a huge ecological function. Whereas the same space, if planted with native grasses and wildflowers has an enormous ecological function. Johnston asked about lighting. Gaffney said that they are currently running one shift a day, four days a week, and that a new facility would need to have some lighting around the outside for safety and security purposes, but that they would be conservation minded. A Board member pointed out Dark-Sky fixtures are required by the City. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has a pending site plan review application from Ian Gaffney of Emmy’s Organics, for construction of a production facility on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 12 WHEREAS: the parcel is currently being subdivided into four lots, of which one lot will be will be sold to Emmy’s Organics and developed as a manufacturing facility, two lots will be will be marketed and sold for future development, and one lot will be retained left undeveloped for potential future trail use The applicant is proposing to construct a production facility on the proposed Lot 3. The facility will be approximately 28,000 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 up to 14,000 SF. This projects is part of a larger development project that also includes a 400-foot extension of Cherry Street to access the subdivided parcels. The project site is in the Cherry Street District (CSD), 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 Development Authority all potentially involved agencies in this action all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: that on August 28, 2018, the Ithaca Planning and Development Board did declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 25, 2018, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 25, 2018 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following drawings: “ Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Showing lands owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Located at Southerly End of Cherry Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” dated 7/23/18, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan –C102”, “Demolition Plan C103”, “Site Plan –L-1.0”, “Emmy’s Organics Landscape Plan – L2.0”, “Cherry Street Landscape Plan – L3.0”all with a latest revision date of 9/18/2018; and “Elevations Phase 2 – A201” and “Elevations Phase 1- A202” dated 7/27/18 and “Exiting Conditions –C-101” and “Utility Plan- C105” all dated 7-27-18 and “Grading and Drainage Plan – C104” with a revision date of 8/28/18 showing revisions to reduce the size of the future addition and remove all grading/ disturbance for the 25’ wetland buffer, and “Details –C201” dated 7/27/18 but showing revisions from the drawing with the same date, to include more detailed tree protection details, and all prepared by Stream Collaborative et.al. and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on September 25, 2018 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed project, now, therefore, be it Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 13 RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Approval to the proposed project on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of a receipt of filing from the Tompkins County Clerk for the approved subdivision, and ii. Submission of a revised layout plan showing materials for all curbing, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to lighting, signage, dumpster enclosure, exterior furnishings, bike racks, etc, and iv. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised Landscape/Planting Plan that includes restoration plans for the area designated for future expansion as well as all other disturbed areas of the site for which a specific landscape treatment has not been specified, and v. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and vi. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Retail Expansion (3,200 SF) at 744 S Meadow St by Matt Oates for Benderson Development Corp. Consideration of 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 project is consistent with the findings of the 2000 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Matt Oates appeared in front of the Board to present project changes. He said they are proposing bringing the ipe wood screens on the front of the building around to the back and also including awnings on the back in the same material as those on the front. He referred the Board to elevations dated October 20. Jones urged the applicant to reach out to local labor. Applicant said they put out bids and are willing to work with anybody and everybody. Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 14 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)”, “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 10-20-18) 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, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on August 28, 2018 grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to submission of revised elevations showing materials and design features from the south and west elevations carried over to the north elevation, and WHEREAS: this Board has, on October 23, 2018, reviewed and accepted a revised color drawing showing building elevations with labeled materials dated 4-10-18 (with a received date of 10-22-18) and unattributed, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed project subject to the following conditions: i. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 15 ii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, 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. Public Hearing (continued). 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 59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, 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 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). Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects appeared as project representative. The Board then continued the public hearing begun the previous month. Speakers were asked to limit comments to 90 seconds, and urged to keep their comments to issues/concerns not addressed previously. Speakers were also urged to submit comments in writing if they have more to say than is possible in the time allotted. Public Hearing (continued) On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, Chair Lewis re-opened the Public Hearing. Alex Highland of 220 Hayts Road spoke in favor of the NCRE. He said he is in favor for a number of reasons. First, it will be one of the most energy-efficient buildings on campus. Secondly, he is a member of the local electricians’ union, and the developers have agreed to use Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 16 local union labor in this project. He said other projects refuse to because they want to bring in out-of-town workers, cut corners, and exploit their workers. He said that he knows there are a lot of concerns about GHG emissions from this project, and that is something he is also concerned about. He said in 2014 he went to NYC and marched with Al Gore and Ban Ki Moon – and a quarter million other people – demanding action on climate change. He said he thinks this project is a step in the right direction. He said this project is the kind of thing they need because they will use local labor and participate in apprenticeship training programs. He said he wants to work with companies who are seeking long-term strategies on GHG emissions and also work with local labor unions. Prentice Smith of 817 Elmira Road, with Local 785, said he started as an apprentice through a program at the City, he went through career construction trades, and he worked his way up to a journeyman. He said he is local, was raised here, and knows many people who are looking for work, but often work is given to out-of-town contractors, which hurts the community, the tax base, and so on. He said he would like to see the Board support apprenticeship programs which help improve local people’s lives. He asked the Board to support the NCRE. Scott Stringer is vice-president of the the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 3 and said that they have approximately 350 members in Tompkins and surrounding counties. He said they want this job. He said they know it will exceed the LEED Gold standard, and they think that should be an acceptable standard for a project of this size. David Marsh, business manager of Laborer’s Local 785, secretary and treasurer of the building trades, spoke in favor of the NCRE. He said the unions have a written agreement with Cornell to honor local collective bargaining agreements even though they have not yet hired a developer for this project. He said that that is very different than what happened with MapleWood. When it comes to GHG reduction goals, he said that New York State, Tompkins County, the Town of Ithaca, and the City of Ithaca have the goal of reducing carbon by 80 percent by 2050. Cornell’s goal is to be carbon neutral by 2035. He said they will be able to achieve that if they are able to drill deep geothermal wells, and that is why they are incorporating hot water systems into this project. He said hundreds of local workers need this work and would benefit from this project. Brian Notebroom of 97 Irish Hill Road, Newfield, representing Carpenter’s Local 603, spoke in favor of the NCRE. He said the apprenticeship programs are incredibly important. He said he was an apprentice 30 years ago, and you can’t imagine how fast time goes. He said that as people age out of the workforce, younger people will need to come into the trades to replace them. He said that their union has goals to recruit more women and minorities, and this project will help reach their goals to recruit new people into the trades. Todd Bruer with IBEW Local 241, spoke in favor of the NCRE. He said they will meet LEED standards, and the new buildings will be the most efficient buildings on campus. He asked the Board to support the project and improve the local economy. Gerald C. Morley said he’s the business agent for the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union. He said their union has approximately 220 members, and last winter they had 85-90 members out of work (about 40 percent), many for several months. He said they currently have 56 out of work. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 17 He said many of them have been out all summer. He explained that while some are free to travel to find work, others have family obligations that prevent them from doing so. He said that members who go too long without work can lose their health insurance, as can their families. He said that they are also not paying into their pensions. He said this is hurting the local economy because they aren’t purchasing, and because are not earning an income, they are not paying taxes. He said that getting the NCRE project to go forward would help members of his union and benefit the local economy. David Soule, with the Local 267 Plumbers and Steamfitters Union, said he has three children and owns property in Tompkins County. He said work hasn’t been good the last few years, and that this project would help. He said he’s excited about this project aiming for LEED Gold standards because he has spent a lot of time in the classroom earning GreenPro Certifications, and that his training would help them meet their LEED goals. He said he’s in favor of the NCRE and the opportunities it would create. Chuck Kenyon, with the Local 267 Plumbers and Steamfitters Union, said he and his family are Tompkins County residents. He said that there has been little home work in Tompkins County, and that this has created hardships for his family. He said he supports the NCRE because it is very hard for people to work out of town or out of state. He said this project would provide opportunities for workers to have the family time we all deserve and that that’s why he supports the project going forward. Joe Wilson of 75 Hunt Hill Road said that his grandfather was a union member, and had it not been for the union, his own father and his siblings would not have survived after his grandfather’s leg was crushed in an accident. He said that the people who are calling for an EIS and to add public scoping as part of that process are not in any way impeding good, local jobs. He said some of them stood for good, local jobs at MapleWood, and he said it was not they who stopped that work from going to unions. He said they worked with labor on MapleWood. He asked the Board to review some materials he handed out. Jennifer Tavares of 91 Waterwagon Road, representing the Tompkins County COC, spoke in favor of the NCRE. She said Cornell is working to be competitive in its housing offerings for students. She said also that the project will help accommodate students displaced while Cornell does some much needed maintenance and historic preservation work on existing dorms elsewhere around campus. She said that neither the campus nor the community at large can absorb these students while construction takes place. She said that given the constraints of the housing market locally, it is logical to support Cornell’s efforts to accommodate their students, particularly in light of anticipated enrollment increases. She said that they are nationally ranked as a green campus and that currently they are using less energy than they did in 2000 with 20 percent more square footage. Her comments were also submitted in writing. Sara Hess of 124 Westfield Drive said that while she is happy to hear from local labor, this is a new era and all of us have a vision for the future that includes expanding green energy and reducing pollution. She said that the size of this project makes it significant and worthy of a full environmental review. She said it is the largest residential project undertaken in the City – by far – with seven buildings and 2,000 beds. She said that by comparison, John Novarr’s Collegetown Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 18 Terrace has 1,200 beds and MapleWood Apartments, under 900. She urged the Board to take their time and do a thorough review of the project. She submitted additional comments in writing Buzz Lavine of 719 Ringwood Road said that he supports local labor and he supports the NCRE going forward, but he has concerns about some of the environmental issues and thinks they warrant further investigation. He said that requiring an EIS would benefit the Board’s review in three ways: 1. They could hire expert advice to more fully assess the project and provide insight into the technical and legal issues involved; 2. Cornell, the public, and the Board would agree on alternatives that should be studied (done through scoping process); and 3. Other strategies to mitigate impacts could be studied. He asked the Board to require an EIS. Lisa Marshall of Horseheads, community activist with Mothers Out Front, said she is happy to see the labor union members at the meeting. She said her grandfather was a union member and organizer and that he is the person who inspired her to stand up and take action when things are not right in her community, to stand up for what’s right. She said that unfortunately, union members also stood up in support of a gas compressor station in her community. She said she would like to encourage the unions to stand with environmental activists to ensure that every project being built is done in a way that is as environmentally friendly as possible. She said we all want the best things for our community, and at the end of the day, the Cornell Combined heat and Power Plant is being powered by fracked gas. Carol Chock of 39 Woodcrest Avenue said that SEQR is not meant to be a hostile imposition but instead as a decision making process to encourage communication among government, project sponsors, and the public. It can be a tool to achieve support for development. She said the end result of an EIS is not defined as project defeat, but as a better project. She said the Cornell proposal is not a battle, and the community supports construction of dorms. She said nobody is playing an end-game where the project gets killed and Ithaca has to house 2,000 additional people. She said the state instructs the Board to use an EIS to examine ways to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts and to include an analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the action. She also submitted comments in writing. Mary Berens representing the Delta Gamma House Corp. (117 Triphammer Road) said they have been part of the Residential Life system for 130 years and on their current site for 78 years. She said they have some concerns about the traffic impacts of this project (both during construction and long-term) and also environmental impacts, particularly drainage, as they are located downhill from the site. She said they are looking for a careful environmental review, not only for the students who will live in the new dorms, but also for the neighbors. Margot Brinn urged the Board to require an EIS. She mentioned a building in Seattle that produces more energy than it uses. She asked the Board to urge Cornell to build that kind of building. She said we are so aware now of what is happening to the environment that she doesn’t think we can make these kinds of compromises any more. Brynn Schmidt of Ithaca spoke in favor of requiring an EIS for the project. She said her primary concern is the use of fracked natural gas and that the time has come to switch to sustainable fuels. She said she and her family used to live in northern Pennsylvania and were directl y Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 19 impacted, and essentially driven out of their former neighborhood as so many of their neighbors leased their properties to the drillers. She said that whenever we use natural gas, we are depending on the fracking process which is damaging communities in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country. Brian Miller, Tompkins County resident and President of the Electricians Union said we live in a community that has about a 45 percent poverty rate. He said that that number alone would make him think we should fill every job available with local labor. He said he finds that statistic outrageous. Brian Eden of Ithaca said he has worked with Dave [Marsh] for many years on the Coalition for Sustainable Development and has marched with local labor. He said it’s unfortunate that there’s a wedge being driven between local labor and labor supporters. He said he was a member of a union. He said it’s unfortunate we are getting Cornell’s talking points thrown back at us from labor. He said he’s really disappointed. He said they have supported labor for many years and support the dorms being built with local labor, but it’s unfortunate they were caught off guard by this. There being no more time allotted for the public hearing, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott. Chair Lewis urged anyone who had comments but did not get an opportunity to speak that night to submit them in writing and/or attend a future meeting and speak at Privilege of the Floor, noting that Cornell would be returning with this project for at least the next few months. He then called a five-minute recess. Because some members of the Falls Park Apartment team had not yet arrived, the Board next reviewed Zoning Appeals cases to make recommendations. 5. Zoning Appeals  # 3108, Area Variance, 327 W Seneca Street The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. All the requested variances will improve the design of the building, make the units more livable and improve the day-to-day quality of life of the residents. The side-yard variances allow for generous canopies over the entrances, while the front and rear yard variances increase the square footage of the apartments over minimum standards.  # 3109, Area Variance, 210 Park Place The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts subject to the following: 1) there are no unresolvable neighborhood concerns and 2) that the design, including roof angle, and materials of the carport are compatible with the existing building.  # 3110, Area Variance, 208-212 W Buffalo Street Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 20 The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The layout seems to reduce lot coverage from existing conditions and the addition will be minimally visible from the public right of way. The Board generally supports improvements that increase accessibility.  # 3111, Use Variance, 2 Fountain Place  # 3112, Use Variance, 2 Willets Place (Both cases received the same recommendation, below:) There are potential planning issues related to this appeal including parking and noise. The Board supports this appeal provided that the BZA clearly understands the appellant’s plans for the following and mitigates any potential neighborhood impacts:  On and off-site parking  Indoor or outdoor places of assembly  Hosting of special events or functions- especially during evening hours  Services provided to non-guests The appellant should demonstrate that the use will not include elements, such as an outdoor event space, that will produce evening and nighttime noise and that there is sufficient parking to meet the operational needs.  # 3107 Area Variance, 113 Fourth Street (revised from last month) The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal 4. Site Plan Review (continued) E. Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC. Project Overview Presentation and Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four-story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one- and two-bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements include an eight-foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11). Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 21 Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects; Frost Travis, Travis- Hyde Properties; and Robert Keane, WDG Architecture, appeared to present project updates to the Board. The applicants reviewed a number of items in the 2008 redevelopment agreement between the City and Travis-Hyde that would need to be modified due to changes to the site that had happened since the time of signing. Michaels said that one such change is the provision for two ADA-accessible parking spaces to allow public access to the trail. She reviewed a number of potential options, all of which had some problem or issues associated with them. She identified a possible location for one spot (not two) near the entrance to the garage, but said that she also would not recommend putting it there because it would require someone to back across a pedestrian walkway and into the street. Jones suggested exploring options for a drop off area instead of parking. Proposed changes to the redevelopment agreement are in development and would need to be approved by Common Council. Keane then reviewed a number of changes to the exterior, particularly window layouts, and he discussed the systems that will be used to improve energy efficiency and reduce water usage. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Elliott, 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 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval a 74 unit apartment building, located at 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one and two bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements include an eight foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before site development can occur the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The project is in the R -3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 22 WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and WHEREAS: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health, Common Council, the Ithaca Industrial Development Authority and the Board of Zoning Appeals, 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: Elliott Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None F. Sketch Plan – Mixed-Use Proposal – Carpenter Business Park Scott Whitham, Yamila Fournier, and Kathryn Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design, and Tom LiVigne and Tony Votaw from Cayuga Medical Center appeared to present a sketch plan of the site. Chesebrough walked through the history of the site and gave an overview of the current site conditions (including utility easements) and proposed site developments. A land trade is proposed to slightly shift the footprint of some of the Community Gardens but still keep them on site. Developments include mixed use buildings to include medical offices, retail, and residential space. A short question and comment period followed. Applicants said they would be submitting a formal application soon and were hoping to submit in time to appear at the December meeting. 6. Old/New Business  Special Meeting October 30, 2018 Nicholas handed out materials and said Adam Walters will be there to give them an overview of the SEQR process and what the Board can/should consider.  Introduction of new City Planner Anne Redmond  City Sexual Harassment Policy Board members signed and returned the acknowledgement form.  NYCOM training webinars. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018 23 Nicholas said the Board members can register for the trainings and would be reimbursed the $25 fee. Staff said if a group viewing is arranged, an invite would be sent out. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said that at some point they need to develop Planning Board recommendations for curb cuts and forward them to the BPW. C. Director of Planning & Development Cornish said that they have been working on transitioning the intercity busses to Green Street. One other item of concern is how to address issues and provide emergency access to the homeless encampment in the Southwest. 8. Adjournment: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35p.m. ----------------~------- PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE •Require sidingand roofing of buildings visible duringany season of the year along the recreational waterway begreen(or solar)so asto blend in with fauna,aswasdonefor Farmer's Market •Require lighting be directed awayfrom recreational byways,andthatpubliclightsbe activated by movement so as to minimize light pollution •Require siteplanfor development of all sites retain as many treesas possible, •Require thattreesonlybecutwhen necessary for approved expansions,notpriorto actual building of sucharea •Place staging and storage areasbe on eastern portions of lots,out ofviewof waterways and recreational byways •Prohibit any development of lot4 thatentails destruction of fauna ortrees •Require replacement of 75%of trees removed for roadway alongthe inletsouthofthe Route 79/Martin Luther King Blvd bridge to the northendof this parcel,and planting vegetative buffering of development,including turn-around,to create year round visual buffer (e.g forsythia bushes) Disappointed that Board did not choose to require &use the current environmental review forms mandated by NYS - for Cherry Street actions - even after that was recommended by the City's Parks,Recreation &Natural Resources Commission, as well as a number of citizens. The new forms,which were required as of2013,are much more comprehensive than the out-of- date ones the City was using until this month. They include additional categories of impacts,and many more questions about particular impacts.Because these new questions were not answered, by the applicant or the Board, the Board made its decision on whether the actions could have a significant impact on the environment,without having or considering all the information it needed to make a ~~~)er determination,consistent with State law &regulations.~_..'.,".'t<F~t "",fh '. .. . .~A:?o«#r1 .::::JIt's not too lateJo correct that error, by rescinding the former determination,ill order to conduct "'",,t,-Iff'e "t'~;'t> th . ."'\. th c.".';"?>,,,,>r'1'If,/.•~~."...._/J t;\1je envrr review usmg e proper rorms.1{!t:.Jj;",.r:»7'f'ri 7!1F tJ~;-'~";,l C{ii,fij,'t,l.'J7:)fflf l-t;;-.j1vli.C;,/,.~,, ,»"W"""""<'J av~;I{(M'~r,~~G.f~ Ifthe Board chooses to proceed without doing so, then I would say your best approach would be fJ'1 N,..,tJ\&;¥~ to make sure you take a "hard look"atJ&llJtspects and features ofthe proposed site plan that the new review forms are designed to highlight. That degree of thoroughness will require more than the time you've allocated on tonight's agenda - for example,just 20 minutes for reviewing the plans for the proposed development of an up-to-30,OOO-square-foot industrial building, plus parking and newly-constructed street access, on the site of what is now a City-owned woodland, adjacent to wetlands,waterfront,and a popular recreational corridor. Comments to City Planning Board -re:Cherry Street Development (10/23/18) /~~disappointed to learn that the City did not provide notice ofthe proposed Cherry St f~9-jt.y:elopment to the closest residential neighbors,who will certainly experience its impacts. l/ i lir!§ t~~ i ~ The details ofthe site plan are especially important for a site such as this one. - The loss of over 100 mature trees and other vegetation represents a loss of carbon- removing resources.Prudent stewardship would require substantial replacement. - No landscaping at all has been proposed along the south face ofthe large industrial building proposed for the site,which would leave it quite visible from the recreational corridor along the Cayuga Inlet. The initial building could be set back sufficiently from the south bo~dary such that,if the future addition ever happens, a buffer sufficient for landscaping would ._;'$." eXISt.t-A,hV.1-~t {;."'= -Exterior Lighting: should be minimized &directed downward onl~tlOtion-activated?GV1~t~j A4 Itf}!-r- -Exterior color of building - shades of dark green or brown. Tompkins Community/r..-.Action example (adjacent to Buttermilk Falls State Park) - its white color maximizes the clash w/I \~..surrounding vegetation.-, ~"""""-,."j 1 Carol Chock 39 Woodcrest Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 607 227-0006 Additions to prior submission regarding Cornell North Campus Residential Expansion: SEQR Process: SEQR is not meant by NYS to be a hostile imposition.It is defined instead as "a 'decision making process'to encourage communication among government,project sponsors and the general public."NYS has given both developers and the public a powerful tool to achieve support for development. The end result of an EIS is not defined as project defeat,but as a better project. The Cornell proposal isn't a battle. The community supports construction of dorms. Nobody is playing an end game where the project gets killed and Ithaca has to house 2,000 additional people. The state instructs you (quote) to "use the EISto examine ways to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts,"and to (quote)"include an analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the action." Buzz Lavine's (Mitchell Lavine's)table lays the decision out neatly: for each potential impact,what is the DEC threshold,what is the magnitude of impact in this case,the probability of occurrence,and the potential time duration? (quote)"If an action is determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts,an "Environmentallmpact Statement"is required." The public has pointed out potential impacts in energy,population,transportation, traffic,and sewage, for each of which there could be many types of mitigation.This community deserves to spend the time on the potential solutions. EAF #18,Impact on Growth and Character of the Community Within the life span this project will necessitate a substantial increase in several City services of greater than the 5%threshold established by the DEC guidelines. The population of the City of Ithaca is listed as 31,006 in updated US census statistics and by the city itself in 2016 as 31,890. In either case, an increase of 2,000 people is larger,concentrated in one neighborhood,than the 5% figure established in the Long EAF Form as indicating a significant enough change to warrant further analysis (see the first box in that category). 5 Re:Request to the City Planning and Development Board to require a complete EIS for Cornell's North Campus Residential Project (HCRE) Answers to questions as part of Cornell's EAFand in the additional memos it has submitted do not fulfill the obligation of the Lead Agency to determine negative significance.In fact, they raise enough additional questions to ascertain a need to require investigation of reasonable alternatives and identification of ways to avoid adverse environmental impacts on this occasion. This project will increase the population in one neighborhood of the city by a factor greater than 5%.(although some beds will be filled with students currently in other locations,5-year enrollment increase is already 1,592, as discussed below in III.) Construction of additional housing is a primary goal for our community and it is a positive factor that Cornell proposes adding student dorm space. Nevertheless, there is no reason that alternatives cannot be explored, within a relatively short period of time, not only to mitigate impacts on factors such as transportation,community services, and schools,but also to enhance the environmental impact,truly renewable energy outputs and public health for city residents. My comments include sections I. through VI. below. I have attached two source documents and provided links to other source documents where length or formatting were prohibitive. I. A Negative Declaration is Not Appropriate: In order to issue a Negative Declaration, the City would have to determine that the environmental impacts identified are not significant,that it is comfortable issuing its own statement that the environmental concerns identified had been sufficiently analyzed, and that potential impacts are not significant in terms of the City's own environmental goals. The City would have to stand behind the assertion that all environmental questions have been sufficiently answered without additional research on behalf of the applicant, and that it has fulfilled the obligation to fully consider public input. Criteria the City wold be standing behind include negative findings of no significance, among others, related to: Creates a material conflict with community's current goals Major change in the quantity of energy used Substantial change in air quality Creates a hazard to human health >5%or other significant population change Need to more closely examine impact on municipal services City of Ithaca Planning Board -CD Dorm Project October 23,2018 Why do we have Planning Boards and SEQR guidelines?Planning boards are non-partisan bodies,independent of political influence,and without financial conflicts of interest.They are made up of citizens to be watchdogs on development projects,acting on behalf of the public,and serving the interests of the public. Until now, I believe the focus of your work has been on aesthetics, traffic,water,neighborhood character,noise,etc.But this is a new era where energy and green house gas emissions are now very relevant to your oversight of new buildings and development plans.I believe that all of you have a vision for the future that expands green energy and reduces pollution.This is the time to turn that vision into reality. I am in favor of building dorms on campus.I'm not asking you to delay it without good reason. By any objective measure,the size of the project makes it significant for a careful energy and environmental impact review.It is the largest residential project in the city by far,with seven buildings and 2,000 beds.By comparison,John Novarr's Collegetown Terrace has 1,200 beds;Maplewood apartments has 872 beds. By any of the DEC's rules of thumb for significance,(square footage,etc.) this project more than meets them.An Environmental Impact Statement is therefore strongly recommended by SEQR guidelines. As far as your obligation to follow SEQR guidelines goes, I quote from the law itself: 6 NYCRR §617.1 [SEQR]Authority,intent and purpose In adopting SEQR, it was the Legislature's intention that all agencies conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources,and that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all future generations. Because information about the energy use,environmental impacts of green house gas emissions,and the options for alternatives are very technical and very confusing,it takes specialized engineers to analyze and evaluate the plans and the options for mitigation. As many of you have already stated,it makes good sense to get expert advice before going forward,whether or not you ask for an EIS.I'm asking you to bring in an independent energy expert to see if this massive building project can't be improved by reducing the amount of pollution and green house gases used for heating and electricity. I encouraged you to make a Positive Declaration of environmental impact,and to note that a scoping session is needed so that alternative methods to mitigate the green house gases will be considered. Please,take the time and get the technical and legal help you need to make the best decisions for the public,including the students who will live in these dorms for the next 50 years. Thank you for your attention. Sara Hess 124 Westfield Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 Need for the Pos Dec To Include a Reguirement of Scoging, I submitted a comment on 10/21/18,entitled The Benefits of an EIS for the NCRE Prop-osal.In that comment I encouraged you to make a positive declaration of environmental impact,thereby requiring an EIS to be prepared. I neglected to mention one important and timely issue. A scoping session will be required to be sure that the EIS gives you the advantage of considering alternatives that could mitigate the problem impact(s). The only way to be sure the EIS will include that scoping session is to state a requirement for it in the Pos Dec itself.That's the law. (See Section 617.12.a.2.ii of the Environmental Conservation Law.) That section of the law can be found online at: So in addition to encouraging you to make a Pos Dec, to require an E ,i strongly encourage that Pas Dec to include a requirement for a scoping session. Then you'll get to take advantage of studies of possible mitigation measures,particularly alternative energy systems for the project. Thanks again for your continued perseverance in reviewing this large and complicated NCRE proposal. Mitchell Lavine For immediate release:October 23, 2018 Contact:Joe Wilson-607-362-1777 (Cell);wilson.jor79@gmail.com Concerned Citizens Callon the City's Planning Board to Require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Cornell's North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) Continuing their efforts to convince the City'sPlanning Board to require an EIS,members of local environmental groups urged Board Members to apply the letter and spirit of the State Environmental Quality ReviewAct (SEQRA)and extolled the benefits to allof doing so. Joe Wilson,a retired lawyer,offered the Boarda copy of a recent article in the New York LawJournal entitled "Strict Compliance with SEQRA:A Mandate Court's Enforce" and reminded Board members that the public has pointed out several potentially significant environmental impacts which callfor an EIS. Sara Hess, a City resident,quoting initially from SEQRA regulation 6 NYCRR 617.1,reminded the Board,"It was the Legislature's intention that all agencies conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air,water,land, and living resources,and that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all future generations." She concluded with,"I'm asking you to bring inan independent energy expert to see if this massive building project can't be improved by reducing the amount of pollution and green house gases used for heating and electricity. Please,take the time and get the technical and legal help you need to make the best decisions for the public,including the students who will livein these dorms for the next 50 years." Buzz,Lavine,a former Tompkins County Planner,zo-year planning board member,and teacher of environmental assessment at Cornell,said,"If you require an EIS here,the product would benefit your review of this project in three important ways: Youcould hire expert advice; Cornell,the public, and you would agree on alternatives that should be studied;and other strategies to mitigate impacts could also be studied.By choosing the EIS route,you make your decision-making for the community both far better informed and far more easily supported." These comments also re-enforce previously raised concerns about the City's seeming willingnessto skirt step-by-step SEQR procedures in deference to Cornell's desire for quick approval. Wilsonand Hess are members of Campaignfor Renewable Energy,and Fossil Free Tompkins.Lavine and Wilsonare part of the Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition.These groups and others have been tracking NCRE because of its apparent conflict with community plans and efforts to reduce gas use and green house gas emissions. -30 -