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 ®ulations.~_..'.,".'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 -