HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-11-27 Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
November 27, 2018
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch
Glass, Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones
Board Members Absent:
Emily Petrina
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
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (draft FGEIS)
James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties
NCRE Cornell University – review FEAF Part III
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
327 W. Seneca Street – Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
Rob Morache, Stream Collaborative, for Visum Development
Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR
Development LLC – Public Hearing, Review of FEAF II and III
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Frost Travis, Travis-Hyde Properties
Robert Keane, WDG Architecture
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
2
815-817 N. Aurora Street – Two New Two-Family Dwellings –
Declaration of Lead Agency
Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture
Stavros Stavropoulos, Property Owner
504 S. Meadow Street Maguire Lincoln – Declaration of Lead
Agency
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
Phil Maguire, Owner
312 E. Seneca Street Sketch Plan
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects
Stavros Stavropoulos, Property Owner
114 Catherine Street Sketch Plan
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects
Nick Lambrou, Property Owner
130 Cherry Street Sketch Plan
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design
Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design
Molly Chiang, Vecino Group
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle LLP
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas noted that consideration of the September 25th minutes would be
added under “Approval of Minutes,” and added discussion of making a site visit to City Centre
before the next meeting and discussion of Staff Reports to Old/New Business.
2. Special Order of Business – Planning Report on ILPC recommendation to designate the
former Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Station at 701 West Seneca Street
Historic Preservation Planner Bryan McCracken appeared in front of the Board to make a
presentation on the former DL&W Railroad Station, which the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission recently recommended designating an individual local landmark. He said the
Waterfront Working Group had identified the building as a resource and recommended the
designation, which prompted the ILPC to make their recommendation.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
3
McCracken said the former railroad station was designed by Frank J. Nies and built in 1912. He
said it is a one-story building with a low-pitched, hipped roof. He discussed some of the original
features still intact on the building: bay doors, casement windows with divided-light transoms
above, Rookwood tile mosaics, and wide overhanging eaves supported by large, impressive
brackets. He said the building is an excellent example of Prairie Style architecture.
McCracken explained some of the history of the DL&W Railroad, saying that the DL&W
company used the line to transport Pennsylvania coal to Ithaca, from which it was loaded onto
barges and transported up Cayuga Lake to the Erie Canal and then on to the entire Northeast. In
the early 20th Century, the company transitioned to primarily offering passenger service.
McCracken explained that William Truesdale became president of the DL&W Railroad in 1899,
and under his leadership the lines were modernized. He added hundreds of miles of new track,
straightened numerous curves for faster transports, added signals and other safety features at
crossings, and built dozens of new stations, including the one in Ithaca.
McCracken said Frank Nies, the architect for the DL&W railroad, designed numerous stations.
B. McCracken next discussed the criteria from the Landmarks Ordinance the ILPC used for
determining their recommendation to designate the station an individual local landmark:
Criterion No. 1., which reads: “Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or
value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or
nation.”
McCracken said that the Ithaca railroad station is significant for its association with the extensive
rail network that would have allowed a person in the early part of the 20th Century to travel
almost anywhere in the Northeast. He said it is also significant for its association with William
Truesdale who was the driving force behind the DL&W Railroad’s improvement campaign.
McCracken said the ILPC also thought the building is an excellent example of an architectural
style, qualifying it under Criterion No. 3, which reads: “Embodies the distinguishing
characteristics of an architectural style.”
McCracken said that the building is an excellent (and possibly the only) example of the Prairie
Style in Ithaca. Features of the Prairie Style include the low-pitched, hipped roof with wide
overhanging eaves, horizontality, regular fenestration patterns that typically included casement
windows, and hand-crafted ornamentation and detailing, similar to the Craftsman style. He said
the building possesses all these features.
McCracken said the Commission also felt it met Criterion No. 4, which reads: “Is the work of a
designer whose work has significantly influenced an age.” McCracken showed a photo of the
DL&W Railroad station in Morristown, Pennsylvania alongside a photo of the Ithaca station and
said that the two buildings – both designed by Nies – share a number of features: both buildings
have a Flemish bond brick pattern, both are in the Prairie Style with wide overhanging eaves and
large impressive brackets, and originally both had green glazed terra cotta tile roofs, though the
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
4
Ithaca station’s roof has been modified from the original. He said that many of Nies’ designs
share similar features and some have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Finally, McCracken reviewed major alterations to the building. He said that the ILPC looks at
this to see if the building qualifies for local designation. He said that with this building the
majority of the architectural features are intact. He said the biggest thing missing is the site itself,
noting that when the building was designed, it was intended to be a grand entrance to the
community, and there was an extensively landscaped lot and other exterior features associated
with the building. He said that most of those features were subsequently removed, although the
flagpole remains. He said another major alteration is the roof, formerly a green terra cotta tile
that was at some point in the mid-20th Century replaced with asphalt shingles. He concluded by
saying that the Tompkins Trust Company addition at the north end of the building is another
alteration to the site, but noted that it’s actually a separate building, and associated changes to the
building itself are reversible and are not visible from the public way.
McCracken said that as part of the designation process, the Planning Board is asked to file a
report with Common Council examining the proposed designation and relating it to
Comprehensive Plan, zoning laws, planned public improvements, and any proposed plans for
redevelopment of the site, so he is appearing tonight to request the Planning Board file that
report.
Chair Lewis thanked him and asked Nicholas to remind the Board of how to proceed.
Nicholas referred the Board to the report provided and gave a brief explanation.
Jones said she is a member of the Waterfront Working Group, and it was their hope that it would
be designated, so the ILPC could oversee a sensitive redevelopment of the site. She said she
supports the designation.
Glass asked if any specific proposals for redevelopment of the site (or the GreenStar next to it)
have been put forward.
Nicholas said no.
Chair Lewis asked if this report goes to Common Council.
Nicholas said yes, as part of the designation.
Chair Lewis said he isn’t sure if it’s something to include on the report, but he has concerns that
it’s a relatively small building situated in the middle of the lot, and that by designating it, they
are tying up a lot of land and the site becomes much less developable after that.
Jones said an overbuild might be a possibility and pointed out that there’s a lot of parking on the
site that could be used for a building.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
5
Director Cornish said that she strongly supports this designation and that it is one of the few real
treasures left in the City, and in the ILPC’s opinion, it’s worthy of preservation. She said that she
is an urbanist and likes to maximize use of sites, and she understands that it’s in the middle of a
large developable lot. She said she thinks, however, this is one case where it’s worth it to
overlook that it’s in the middle of the lot because once it’s gone, it’s gone. She said that she
hopes that in the future they will be able to work with a developer who will be sensitive to the
beauty of the building and also take advantage of the site.
Johnston asked about the lot to the west, who owns it.
Cornish said that it’s all one parcel, and the Trust Company owns the entire thing. She said that
Tompkins Financial is exploring their options for development of the site. They do want to
maintain a presence on the West End, as it’s a very active branch, but it doesn’t have to be in that
exact location or configuration.
Elliott said the roof was green tile, and now it is asphalt. He asked if the building were
designated and the new owner wanted to change the roof, would they have to go through the
ILPC?
McCracken said that to either replace in-kind with asphalt shingles or to restore to its previous
condition by installing a green tile (his preferred option), would require staff-level review. He
said that for a new owner to replace it with something other than green Spanish tile or asphalt, it
would require ILPC approval.
Chair Lewis said he sees no language making a recommendation for the designation.
Nicholas said that is correct, that the document in front of them is just a report.
Chair Lewis asked if the Board was ready to vote. Board agreed.
Proposed Local Historic Landmark Designation of the Former Delaware, Lackawanna, &
Western Railroad Station at 701 West Seneca Street
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held November 27, 2018
Moved by Jones, seconded by Johnston and unanimously approved
At the regular monthly meeting on November 13, 2018 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (“ILPC”) by unanimous vote recommended designation of the Former Delaware,
Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Station at 701 West Seneca Street as an Individual Local
Landmark. A map showing the location of the station and a summary of its historic and
architectural significance are found in the Building Structure Inventory Form and other
information provided by the ILPC to support the recommendation to designate the structure.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
6
“The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of
such designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public
improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
1. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan
The City of Ithaca adopted “Plan Ithaca” as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan on August 17,
2015, which identifies the goals of the waterfront mixed use area as the creation of a mixe d use
district, including commercial and housing with an emphasis on uses that create an active
waterfront environment. To develop recommendations for the plan and for the zoning, the City
established a waterfront working group made up of 17 members of the public and City Planning
Staff. Designation of the former Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Station at 701 West
Seneca Street is supported by the waterfront working group and is consistent with the
waterfront land use plan developed for the area and adopted by Common Council on August 2,
2017.
“Plan Ithaca” offers the following goals and recommendations related to Historic Preservation:
5.2.2 All historic resources worthy of preservation will be protected, whether formally
designated or not.
5.2.4 Existing historic buildings will be rehabilitated or adaptively reused rather than
demolished.
5.2.5 New construction within or adjacent to historic districts or individually listed
landmarks will be compatible with the existing built environment.
5.2[C] Continue to designate resources identified as historically or architecturally
significant.
5.2[Q] Use patterns of traditional design – including detailing, materiality, size mass,
form, rhythm and scale – which all enhance the sense of place within historic
neighborhoods, to inform future development.
The Comprehensive plan identifies the following characteristics for the waterfront character
area:
The area will consist of mixed-use development including commercial and
housing, with an emphasis on uses that create an active waterfront environment.
There will be a focus on the preservation and enhancement of water related uses.
New development should protect viewsheds and allow public access to the
waterfront. Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be improved, particularly
to adjacent mixed-use areas. Development space in the waterfront area is at a
premium and reducing the impacts of parking in new development should be
carefully considered.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
7
Designation of the Former Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Station at 701
West Seneca Street is consistent with the historic preservation goals and desired
character of the Waterfront district. Furthermore, designation of the station will
encourage new construction and redevelopment projects to be consistent in character.
2. Relation to Zoning Laws
The property is located in the WE/WD West End / Waterfront District, which was established to
encourage creation of a mixed-use district with particular emphasis on appropriate waterfront
development that encourages a mix of uses.
Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building
height for properties located along the waterfront are restricted to 2 -3 stories for the first ten
feet of depth of the building, and can subsequently be constr ucted to up to five stories. The
existing building is a single story, prairie style brick rectangular building. Any proposed exterior
alterations or additions to the structure would be subject to ILPC review to assess the visual and
historic compatibility. Historic
3. Relation to Projected Public Improvements
There are no plans for public improvements in the area at this time. Designation will not prevent
a future development in project area. Local landmark designation requires that any future public
improvements in the area undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission before work commences.
4. Relation to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area
There are no plans in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area. Local landmark designation
requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site
undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work
commences.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
8
3. Privilege of the Floor
Chair Lewis reminded members of the public that there would be a Public Hearing for the Falls
Park Apartments later that evening. Lewis then opened Privilege of the Floor.
Joe Wilson of 75 Hunt Hill Road said that several reports released recently indicate that we
have years, not decades, to address climate change. He said: 1.) SEQR was created by the State
Legislature to be a tool for protecting and improving your community, and is not a meaningless
checklist as you were told by your outside attorney; As a lead agency you have discretion in how
you apply SEQR, so if you choose to emphasize reducing emissions for the benefit of your
community, you have the power to do so; 2.) The quantification of emissions, including
upstream emissions, is not a useless exercise and is not impossible; While you can’t force those
who produce upstream emissions to act differently, the data regarding those emissions from a
specific project can provide the basis for you to decide what alternative fuels, what heating and
cooling technologies, what appliances, what efficient building envelopes are necessary to reduce
emissions in a given project; and 3.) The City is admittedly far behind in developing regulations
to reduce emissions, you have many examples and useful tools available from the County. He
also submitted comments in writing.
Denise Katzman of 800 S. Plain Street said that a number of years ago Nationwide Insurance
was the first to stand up against fracking. They would not insure your home if you leased your
land to the gas companies, nor if lands nearby yours were being leased. She said we don’t need
any more volatile fuels being produced that destroy the environment and human health. She said
she would also submit comments in writing.
Regi Teasley of 201 Cliff Park Road referenced an article from “The Guardian” she shared
with the Board, “World Must Triple Efforts or Face Catastrophic Climate Change Says the UN.”
She said that in a time of division and political instability we must take the longer view with
absolute clarity. She said what we see is daunting, but if we take meaningful action at every
opportunity, we can avoid the worst outcomes of global warming. She said global warming and
climate change are here now, and what happens next is going to be shaped by our actions. She
said the science is incontrovertible and the time is short. She said here in Ithaca, we face the
NCRE. Board members can look carefully at the evidence, think deeply, and require an EIS.
Continued use of fossil fuels will seal our fate. There’s a Turkish saying that goes, “No matter
how far you have gone down the wrong road, go back.” She said the Board has a chance to make
a major course adjustment with this project. She concluded her remarks by thanking the Board
for their time.
Sara Hess of 124 Westfield Drive said that if a City like Ithaca with its enormous assets and
knowledgeable officials who are honest and hard-working can’t ask a developer to look again at
their plans and explain why they can’t significantly reduce fossil fuel use in order to heat the
buildings, when so many other methods are readily available to them; and if Cornell with their
enormous assets, knowledge, expertise in buildings, their Climate Action Plans that pledge to
reduce fossil fuel use, if they are unwilling to spend another few months to consider changes that
would reduce fossil fuel use, tighten the building envelope, use more renewables, then when, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
9
where, and who will look to the many solutions that we have already to make better buildings?
She asked the members of the Board to do that.
Alex Highland of 220 Hayts Road, electrician with Local 241, spoke in favor of the NCRE. He
said that while some things about the project bother him, Cornell’s a great employer and they
hire union labor and pay decent wages – things we should strive for in this community. He said
so did the Cayuga Operating Station, until last week when the County shut them down, so the
[union members] will not be working there now. He said he had also been excited to go work on
the Black Oak Wind Farm (if for no other reason than to be able to check out the view). He said
they really need these jobs, and he’s sick of Cornell being singled out. He said Sara just
referenced Cornell’s enormous assets and asked why aren’t we demanding WalMart do that? The
Walton family has 10 times what Cornell does, in terms of financial resources. He said he thinks
we need to have long-term plans that apply to everyone across the board, and not a piecemeal
approach, so that developers can plan accordingly and build, instead of shutting these projects
down. He said people complain Cornell’s project is not efficient enough, and there was a cranky
neighbor in Newfield who didn’t want clean wind energy there, but we need to keep working,
and we need a local hiring policy on these other projects.
Alicia Alexander of 136 Hunt Hill Road said she thinks Cornell has a moral responsibility for
leadership. She said that “do as I say and not as I do” does not work, and that Cornell should be a
model institution and lead the way in taking every action possible to address climate change. She
said they need to show that these new technologies are applicable to them as well as to the rest of
us, and if available technologies are not good enough for them, they have the mind power to
create new ones. She said she loves that we have Cornell in this community, and she would like
them to shine even brighter by being a moral beacon of social responsibility.
Charles Geisler of 517 Ellis Hollow Creek Road referenced a letter he’d submitted previously
asking the applicants to explore the possibility of using the Lake Source Cooling system to heat
the buildings. He then asked the Board if they really believed that they have not squandered an
opportunity to do a SEQR-based EIS on this project. He said a lot of people over many months
have come forward with comments, written and oral, and these are well-informed technically-
competent people who have raised serious doubts. He said SEQR has a very high bar and sets a
“whole project” requirement that means you must look at all components of a proposal,
throughout all its phases. He said that an EIS would require, for instance, a comparison of
alternative energy options to natural gas (as has been proposed) over the lifespan of the project.
He asked the Board to not set a bad precedent by not doing an EIS.
Margot Brinn of 600 Hector Street asked at what point would the Board would feel that it is
time to take every step possible to stop the use of fossil fuels? Would it be when Florida, or New
York City, or Bangladesh is under water? She said she would like to see the Board require that
every new project that comes before them be powered by renewable energy.
Carol Chock of 39 Woodcrest Avenue said that her house would be so much more efficient if it
had been built from the beginning using clean energy, with better windows, and with forced air
instead of baseboard hot water. She said that last year when she tried to make her home more
energy efficient, it very quickly became very expensive. She said that every project makes a
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
10
difference and that she hopes they will require every project that comes in front of them to be
built to a high standard of energy efficiency. She said that regarding Cornell specifically, there
are very few points where they are subjected to oversight by the community in which they reside,
and she hopes the Board will take advantage of this opportunity.
There being no additional members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed
Privilege of the Floor.
4. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones, the September 25, 2018 and October 23, 2018
minutes were approved unanimously with the following modification:
Anne Redmond, Planner, was added to the list of staff attending in October.
5. Site Plan Review
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St., Jamie
Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Distribution of FGEIS &
Review of Schedule. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and
rehabilitate the +/-800,000 sf former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission
facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal
boundary. The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office,
and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown
Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access routes
including a highly-desired trail connection. The project will be completed in multiple
phases over a period of several years with the initial phases involving the
redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this property will
focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. Using the
existing structures, residential, commercial, studio workspaces, and office development
are proposed to be predominantly within the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will
be within both the Town and City of Ithaca.
James Gensel of Fagan Engineers appeared on behalf of David Lubin, Unchained Properties, and
distributed copies of the draft FGEIS for Board review.
Adam Walters, counsel to the Board, was also present.
Gensel explained that all the Appendices are available online and that all the comments received
have been compiled into a matrix in Chapter 3, and all the changes to the DGEIS have been
compiled into Chapter 4. He explained that the one Appendix that they provided a printed copy
of was Appendix G because of the numerous changes made to it.
Jones asked when they should have their comments prepared.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
11
Nicholas said that they should receive comments from the Town by the December 18 meeting,
and that the Board would be reviewing it at the December and January meetings. She reminded
them that they have reviewed it before, and that now they are reviewing it for the final time. She
said that there is a fifth Tuesday in January (January 29), and that she had hoped they could have
a special meeting at that time and adopt a Resolution of Completion. She said that after that, they
would have 30 days to adopt the findings, which could be done at the February meeting.
Jones asked if the language for the PUD was available for review.
Nicholas said that it should be going out for circulation very soon, likely within the next week.
Adam Walters said that as they review the draft FGEIS, they should keep a copy of the DGEIS
handy, as it can become confusing very quickly if they don’t have it for reference. He said that
they should note any questions or if anything seems missing or incomplete, as this is their last
chance to do a review.
B. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Review of FEAF Part 3. 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).
Kathryn Wolf and Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects,
and Amy Dake of SRF Associates appeared in front of the Board. Michaels said there have been
no changes to the proposal since their last appearance, and that Dake is appearing with them
tonight because she is the traffic engineer who produced the traffic study, and can thus answer
any questions about traffic impacts. She said that Steve Byers, the energy expert from Cornell, is
also available should they have any further questions about the energy section. She said they did
not have a presentation today, that they were just going to be available to answer questions as the
Board worked through Part III of the FEAF.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
12
Chair Lewis said Part III is 43 pages long, and his goal is to work through it to the extent that
they can take a vote [on Environmental Significance] next month. He noted that they only have
30 minutes on the agenda, so unless anyone else has any questions or concerns, they should get
started.
Adam Walters, counsel to the Board who was present to advise them on this case, said that one
of the commenters said he had called SEQR a “meaningless checklist exercise,” and he said he
doesn’t think he’s ever suggested that to the Board, and that he’s worked with them for a long
time. He said SEQR is really important, and they are doing exactly what they should by taking a
really close look at every particular potential adverse impact.
The Board next reviewed Part III.
Jones asked the applicants if there were any known long-term issues related to the use of DDC.
Michaels said she wasn’t sure, but she didn’t know of any problems resulting from it.
Jones asked for a reference to the list of projects using DDC to be added to Part III.
Director Cornish noted a sentence that seemed to be incomplete.
Elliott said that the Impact on Land section focuses on the site itself, and noted that something
like thousands of cubic yards of material will be removed from the site. It seems like they should
be concerned about possible impacts elsewhere when that material leaves the site.
Cornish said they have asked about that in the past, and noted that to be truly environmentally
sensitive, the cut should equal the fill so nothing has to be removed. She asked the applicants if
they knew where it would be going.
Michaels said she wasn’t sure, but she would find out. She also noted that permits are required
for dumping soil.
Blalock asked if there were any proposed changes to the intersection of Pleasant Grove and
Hanshaw roads.
Dake said no changes are proposed, and the project should add very little traffic to that
intersection.
Cornish asked about the plans for getting contractors to the site via shuttle, as described on page
25.
Michaels said that section is actually incorrect. The plan is to use space (Frisbee golf field) at the
very end of A-Lot for contractor parking to keep them as close to the job site as possible. There
will be times when there will be so many workers on campus that that lot won’t accommodate
them all. At that point, the plan is to use Palm Road for overflow parking and provide them with
a shuttle. The shuttle would be prohibited from driving through Forest Home.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
13
Cornish then asked about emergency access, and suggested some language indicating that access
points need to be identified and approved by the Fire Chief prior to final Site Plan approval,
saying it’s important that they resolve that.
Blalock asked about move-in/move-out plans.
Cornish asked how they will know that such a plan has actually been developed and put in place.
Michaels said it’s in Cornell’s best interest, and they have a group working on the problem. She
said that having move-in happen over more than one day is absolutely going to happen.
Cornish asked for documentation.
Michaels said that what they have submitted is what she has so far. She said she would inquire to
see if Cornell has more, and suggested that if the plans are not yet sufficiently finalized at
present, the Board could tie submission of such plans to final site plan approval.
After some additional discussion about emergency services plans for special events, Walters said
that this is a Type I action, and as such, the Board cannot impose conditions on the Neg Dec, that
the applicant has to propose them.
Chair Lewis asked for clarification.
Walters said there’s a court of appeals case directly to this point. The courts have said that for a
Type I action, you cannot do a conditioned Neg Dec. What the courts have said is appropriate is
for the applicant to propose steps (such as a move-in/move-out plan) to mitigate anticipated
impacts.
Chair Lewis asked if imposing it as a condition for final site plan approval would get them into
trouble.
Walters said no, from a SEQR perspective it would not. He said that, in fact, it makes a lot of
sense to do so because there really aren’t a lot of other mechanisms in place for a lead agency to
ensure an applicant actually does the things they say they are going to do in the application.
After some discussion about service vehicle trips, Elliott asked about food delivery vehicles.
Dake said that the analysis was done for commuter peak times, and she said it seems unlikely
that that’s when kids are getting their food. She said that they would probably be getting
deliveries later, and the impacts on traffic would be hard to quantify the way the traffic study was
done. It seems it would be part of the background.
Elliott said he’s asking because of concerns from some of the residents of Forest Home about
increases in traffic at, say, 10 p.m. He said that some have said that they don’t think that sort of
thing is being reflected in the numbers being presented.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
14
Blalock asked about the traffic improvements listed on page 26, saying that many of the
proposed mitigations will require cooperation from the City, Town, County, etc. He asked how
they should interpret “the applicant proposes.”
Walters said that goes back to the issue of the applicant can propose, but you can’t require. You
can’t condition the Neg Dec, but it’s perfectly appropriate for them to propose it. You need some
sort of enforcement mechanism. He said sometimes the proposal is a little amorphous because
there are some things that need to be worked out with various levels of government needing to
come together. What “the applicant proposes” means is that the project you’re reviewing and
approving includes that.
Nicholas said that should that change, you could re-open SEQR.
Walters said you would need to.
Nicholas said that if they take out parts of their project, you have to look to see if that had an
impact.
Blalock asked if it could come up during site plan review as well.
Nicholas said yes.
Chair Lewis said he has not heard any comments on energy yet, and asked the Board to consider
the section starting on page 30.
Blalock said there was a question from Professor Geisler about Lake Source Cooling as a heat
source, and he asked the applicant to address that.
Steve Byers appeared to answer the question. He said that that the return water in the winter is
not going to be very warm, only about 40° F. So to use that water to draw heat out, you’d have a
heat pump that is pretty inefficient. It’s a very low coefficient performance. You would be much
better off with a ground source heat pump or some other source of water. He said they had once
considered it, and that you could do it but it would be inefficient. He said they have a limited
flow that they can get by permit, so it’s not like they can just increase the flow and get more.
They might be able to use it for part of campus but could not use it campus-wide.
Johnston asked if greenhouse gas emissions had been calculated for all the trips generated from
this project.
Michaels said she thought the Taitem report provided that information.
Johnston asked if the off-campus truck hauling trips were included in that study.
Michaels said that her understanding is that the Taitem study took into account all emissions
generated by construction activity and also all the emissions generated from the project once it is
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
15
built (including transportation). She said that when you look at the charts provided, they break it
down by stationary and non-stationary, and they list all the sources, and they include a page that
describes each item in detail. When you look at that, it appears they have accounted for
everything.
Johnston said that it might be a good idea to include that in the record, adding a note that figures
for energy use and emissions during construction are available in the Taitem report.
Nicholas agreed and referenced a line already included in the draft Part III.
Michaels referenced the Taitem report and said that page 187 details commuter and public transit
emissions, saying they provide a table detailing annual operating emissions from mobile sources
(cars and busses), and she said they provide the same for construction as well. She said it’s all
included.
Johnston said he was satisfied.
Jones asked Walters if he had seen other examples of SEQR reviews that incorporated a
consideration of a project’s upstream emissions.
Walters said that the DEC had guidelines for such – when doing a DEC-related project that
requires an EIS, and that those guides call for a qualitative, rather than a quantitative, analysis.
He said we’ve been doing SEQR since 1975 and have done many large energy projects over the
years, and it would be highly unusual to look upstream to see where the energy comes from. He
said most of our energy used to come from coal, but you wouldn’t evaluate the coal emissions
from your project; that would be highly unusual. However, he noted that science advances, and
environmental analysis advances. He said he thinks the DEC guidance is a good place to focus,
and they could embrace that approach. He said he thinks Nicholas has begun to incorporate some
of the upstream analysis, and that can be refined over the course of the next month, based on the
information the applicant has developed.
Jones asked if that [DEC] guidance was not required by SEQR.
Walters agreed that it is not.
Jones said she thinks that that is central to one of the biggest questions the Board has faced
relating to energy use on this project. She said she’s interested in having a discussion about
incorporating that into City-level decision making, though they might not have a legal leg to
stand on to incorporate that into their decision regarding this [NCRE] project, based on current
SEQR standards.
Walter said that at the end of the day, the Board is obligated to take a hard look at the potential
environmental impacts of the project. Clearly, the issue of upstream emissions has squarely been
raised. Natural gas will be removed from the ground as a result of this project, and the applicant
has given you numbers, so you can do a qualitative assessment. So, he said he thinks it is
something they should look at. However, he continued, SEQR doesn’t allow you to do a
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
16
conditioned Neg Dec for a Type I action, so it’s not like you can say the applicant can’t use
natural gas; that’s just not something you’re allowed to do. He said that SEQR also doesn’t
change the scope of jurisdiction of an agency. That’s just not part of your Site Plan Review
criteria.
Jones thanked Walters. She said she hopes that everyone present – Board, applicant, and public –
recognizes what the Board’s purview here is. She said that when it comes to the performance of
the building, and the sourcing of energy for heating and cooling as efficiently as possible (by
systems already in place and on-site), go above and beyond in terms of what is required by both
the City and the State at this point. She said she does not think the Board needs to go through an
EIS for this project. She said she thinks that the City might adopt legislation providing guidance
on future projects, but that they should not make ad hoc, piecemeal evaluations on projects.
Jones referenced the comments provided by Petrina (included as an addendum to these minutes)
that no one who has appeared to comment on this project had appeared to oppose City Centre, or
the downtown hotels.
Chair Lewis said that he thought the Board might consider taking up Petrina’s suggestion of
sending a memo at the end of the meeting, under New Business.
Lewis said that he thinks the Board has spent a lot of time looking at energy use on this project in
a way that they have not done for others, and he thinks there are good reasons for that. He said
you can’t listen to the volume of public comment received for this project and not listen hard. He
then referenced page 33 of the draft Part III, and suggested they review the items there that relate
to things they have heard. He said he thinks there’s a bigger conversation to be had about energy
that isn’t reflected in anything he read in the energy section, although it doesn’t seem like
anything there is wrong; it just seems like the section is not reflective of the controversy they’ve
seen as a result of this project.
Walters said maybe they need to revisit.
Director Cornish said she wants to re-read and review the section more closely.
Walters said it’s important to note that comments are still coming in and that the Board will want
to review to see if any new comments or issues raised affect any of the analysis or need to be
incorporated into the dialogue.
Nicholas said that perhaps they could remove some of the reference information included in the
narrative and just include the arguments, saying it might be less overwhelming. She said the
document might focus more on rationale, and that that might be helpful to the reader in terms of
sorting things out.
Chair Lewis expressed support. He asked the Board members to raise any questions or concerns,
or identify anything they would like to see added to the Part III now so it can be included for the
next month’s meeting.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
17
Jones said she might like to see some responses to some of the public comments included in Part
III, such as statements made at the meeting tonight that the Board members may be “squandering
an opportunity” or implications that they are not thoughtful or informed. She said she thinks this
Board is always thoughtful and is as well informed as possible given the information provided.
She said she thinks they all care a lot, and said that she opted not to have natural gas in her own
home.
Jones said that she thinks the Board is bound by the forms they are working with, and that as a
result of this project, they are all motivated to look into creating new city-wide ordinances, to
encourage use of renewables and possibly ban natural gas usage. She said she wants the public to
know they have been heard, and that includes members of labor unions, for whom she wants
there to be work. She said the discussion has become political now, that jobs are at stake, and
that’s not usually part of the discussion. She said now they are the one body who is taking into
account all of these different agendas.
Jones reiterated that she thinks the applicant has gone above and beyond what is required by
SEQR, and noted that they have not yet begun Site Plan Review. She said they have brought
counsel in for multiple sessions, something they don’t typically do. Someone suggested that the
applicant should use solutions we have now for these problems, and Jones said that she thinks
they are doing so with this project. She said that she knows they are supposed to see the project
separately from the applicant, but in this project it is sometimes hard to tease them apart because
the applicant brings a lot of unique resources to this project, such as access to Lake Source
Cooling and access to the Combined Heat and Power Plant. She said she thinks they are listening
to the public’s concerns, which is part of why the process is taking so long. She said she thinks
they are responding to the request that Cornell be a moral beacon. She said she thinks the project
is pushing the needle, not just for the applicant itself, Cornell, but also for the City. She said that
if the Board votes on it next month, she will gladly vote for a Negative Declaration, and she
looks forward to moving ahead with Site Plan Review. She also volunteered to be part of the
effort to write a memo to Common Council to suggest ways to hold all projects to higher
standards of energy efficiency (in some ways, the standards being set by this project).
Chair Lewis spoke to the public and let them know that very often they encounter issues that
they care about but lack the tools to effect a change using the processes that currently exist, and
he explained that when that happens, they usually write a memo.
Chair Lewis then asked the Board if anyone had any other concerns with Part III. There being no
further comments, the Board moved on to the next item on the agenda.
The Board then took a 5 minute recess. Counsel to the Board, Adam Walters, left at that time.
C. Apartments (12 Units), 327 W Seneca Street. Noah Demarest for Visum
Development. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The
applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 units.
Project development requires the removal of the exiting building and parking area. The
project will include exterior bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
18
signage, and lighting. The project is in the B2-d Zoning District and has received the
required variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small portion at the rear
of the property is in the CDB-60 District. The project has received Design Review.
This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),
for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance on September 25, 2018.
Rob Morache appeared on behalf of the applicant to provide the Board with project updates
resulting from design review. Stream has agreed to use the 400-series windows for the three
publicly visible sides of the building, and reserve the 100-series for use on the rear only. They
added half-round gutters to the fascia. They opted not to use architectural shingles, as had been
suggested, arguing they are a more honest material (architectural shingles generally try to look
like something else) and because the simpler look is more suited to the simple form of the
building.
Morache also said that they had received a memo showing updated elevations and detailing
materials selections previously, and he had materials samples on-hand to show the Board.
Nicholas reminded the Board that some of the ground-floor windows on the east and west were
removed due to fire code egress requirements for fire shutters.
Morache said the elevations are showing the current window configuration.
Chair Lewis said he likes the steel canopy proposed.
Director Cornish asked if Dryvit is permitted under the design guidelines.
Nicholas said it’s at the discretion of the Board.
Morache said they will be installing it over cement board, not Styrofoam, so it will be durable.
Elliott asked about why they selected a steel canopy, saying it looks industrial.
Morache said it is fireproof. He also said the illustration is just to give an idea of what they will
use. He said it will probably be metal framed with a black finish.
Elliott said it doesn’t look residential.
Morache said it’s a contrast.
Elliott said it is a small gesture on a large façade, it looks vestigial, and if you want to make a
statement, make a statement.
Johnston suggesting doing a color change around all the doors, as is currently shown on the front
door.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
19
Morache said it would be a surface treatment, but they could do that.
Chair Lewis asked if there were any other comments before considering the resolution. There
were none.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Glass:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received a site plan review application
for a 12-unit apartment building by Noah Demarest for Visum Development, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 affordable
units. Project development requires the removal of the existing building and parking area. The project will
include exterior bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project
is in the B2-d Zoning District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small
portion at the rear of the property is in the CDB-60 District and is subject to Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving
and funding or carrying out the action, did, on August 28, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental
Review for the proposed 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: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on October 23, 2018, 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 Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following
drawings: “Site Plan –L001” showing the Site Layout Plan and the Planting Plan, “Site Plan L002” showing
the Work Zone Traffic Control Plan and the Utility Plan, “Plan –A101” showing the First Floor Plans,
North Elevation- A102” and “West Elevation A103” and dated 9/24/18 and “South and East Elevations –
A104” dated 9/18/18 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other applications materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on September 25, 2018 determine
the proposed project would will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals, did, on November 6, 2018 grant the required area variances to
the project, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
20
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, did, on October 14, 2018 review the Design Review application submitted
by the applicant for the project and recommended the following changes:
Use architectural shingle instead of 3 tab
Provide building elevations with all materials identified and keyed to a materials board
Provide building materials samples
Window assembly on front should be carried over to all sides of the building, and
WHEREAS: this Board, did on November 27, 2018 review and accept as adequate the following revised
drawings: “Exterior Materials (A1)”, “Exterior Colors (A2)”, “Elevation – West (A3)”, “Elevation – South
(A4)”, “Elevation – East (A5)”,and “Elevation – North (A6)”, “Elevation – West (A3)” dated 11/20/18 and
prepared by Stream Collaborative and other materials, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary & final approval to
the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to lighting, signage,
exterior furnishings, bike racks, residential style canopies etc., and
ii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
iii. 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., and
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Glass
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Petrina
Vacancies: None
D. Falls Park Apartments (74 Units), 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC.
Public Hearing and Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. 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
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
21
Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11).
Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects; Frost Travis,
Travis-Hyde Properties; and Robert Keane, WDG Architecture appeared to present project
updates. They gave a brief presentation detailing project updates and showed the Board some
materials samples.
They also shared a series of photo mockups of the views of the building from various locations
around the site.
Michaels said she had distributed additional information relating to questions raised in the draft
FEAF Part III. She said they could review that material and discuss it at the next meeting. She
also responded to Elliott’s suggestion to look at the possibility of locating ADA-compliant
parking on the neighbor’s property made at the previous meeting. She said while it was
technically possible, it wasn’t ideal and creates liability issues by putting public access onto
private property.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Blalock, Chair Lewis re-opened the Public Hearing.
Bill Erickson of 15 Lake Street, around the corner from the project site, said they’ve lived there
for many years and dealt with the Lake Source Cooling project cutting through the street, then
the factory tear down and people in Tyvek suits vacuuming up debris from their yard. He said
one major concern is the contamination on the site, and he and his neighbors want to make sure
it’s tested for carefully and dealt with appropriately. He said drilling into the ground for piles and
removing soils (also probably contaminated) are concerns. He said that it’s important to the
neighbors that the project not re-contaminate the neighborhood. He also questioned the assertion
in the Environmental Assessment documents stating that there is not going to be any impact on
traffic. He said that he and his neighbors have a shared driveway, and it is already a challenge to
exit, especially when making a left-hand turn. He said the corner is only about 50 yards downhill
from them and the Gun Hill Apartments driveway right there. He said that this projects will lead
to more cars turning into or out of another driveway at that corner, and from the looks of it, the
driveway may even be in a blind spot.
David Marsh of Laborers’ Local 785 said they are always concerned about whether a project
of this size (133,000 SF) will utilize local labor. He said he’s done a census of his union
members in Tompkins and surrounding counties (not counting retirees) number 450. That’s 450
families locally who could benefit from this project. He said he hopes Frost Travis will consider
that when deciding to bid the project out. He said he is glad to see the project moving forward,
and they were involved on the demolition and initial remediation (before it got shut down). He
said it’s nice to see the project coming along again, they want to support it, and they would like
to see local labor build it.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
22
Carol Chock of 39 Woodcrest Avenue said she’s not equipped to comment on the progress of
the cleanup, but she does hope the site is cleaned fully. She said her kids used to go there after
high school and that it’s scary to know how much lead has been found on site. She said she
wants to acknowledge that the developer has decided to use heat pumps and efficiency measures
for this project. She said that the environmental community have been active in weighing in with
the City, particularly on the Green Building Policy (and had assumed that that was going to be
adopted sooner). She said they have also been working with individual developers and are
starting to see that one by one, they are making changes. She said that one big change that has
happened in the past few months is the release of the UN’s IPCC report. She said we used to
think we had decades to deal with climate change, but now we know we have 12 years max. She
said if we had gotten a handle on the issue back when we first started to understand the severity
of the problem back in 2005, a 3-percent reduction in emissions would have been sufficient, but
now we’re going to have to tighten our belts much further. She asked the Board to consider
adding such language to the FEAF and letting developers know that they are going to require
them to meet a higher standard of efficiency going forward.
Susie Kramer of 406 S. Cayuga Street referenced an Ithacating blog post from 2014 discussing
site cleanup efforts and saying how the developers were hopeful cleanup could be complete by
early 2015. She said at that time the proposal was for 45 units, plus townhouses. She referenced
increases to the proposed number of units at the former library site and said these proposals seem
to keep getting bigger after the end of initial approvals, and then we end up with a yet-
undeveloped site. She said she doesn’t think she is the only one wondering about this. She said
her more immediate concern is that the site is still not remediated, yet here is this team
presenting beautiful renderings of the site. She said it’s also hard to imagine that this enormous
building is not going to be seen from many different locations. She said again, as with the
library, it’s going to be luxury housing, not affordable. She said she would like to know why
there isn’t more concern that the site is still contaminated while we see all these pretty
renderings.
Walter Hang of 218 Wait Avenue said that 18 years ago he received an anonymous tip that
there was extensive lead contamination on the site. He said there was lead scattered all over the
ground, and that continues to this day. He said he was invited to be a part of the Citizen’s
Advisory Committee. He said he attended every meeting and spent thousands of hours looking at
the site. He said he thinks everything on the Environmental Assessment Forms needs to be
questioned. He said that they had initially proposed to remove 10,000 cubic yards of
contaminated demolition debris from the site, but then at the eleventh hour, they proposed to
bury it on site. He said the DEC only required one composite sample every 20 cubic yards, but it
ended up being hazardous waste and bankrupted Bianchi. He said they now know the site is still
massively contaminated with lead, up to 190,000 PPM. The allowable amount is only 400
[PPM]. He said they also know that you can go to the site and literally see lead shot all over the
place. He said the overlook is also contaminated, and these materials have rained down into the
gorge onto the trail, which recently measured 69,800 PPM of lead. He said kids are walking on
this contamination every day. He said when you look at these assessments, they are totally
untrue. He said the FEAF has numerous errors in it. He said the site also has extensive solvent
contamination in addition to the heavy metals. He said some of the VOCs have been measured as
high as 27,000 PPB, with the safety standard for groundwater for most of them being set to 5
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
23
PPB. He said this is migrating out into the Fell Creek area. He said that contrary to the
information presented previously, there is no site remediation going on at the site, and it is a
significant threat to public health. He said that he has written to request that the entire area,
factory site, island and Ithaca Falls areas all be added to the Federal Superfund program.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones.
Chair Lewis asked the applicant if they wanted to respond.
Travis said yes, and he said that within the past few days they had received a letter from the DEC
stating that their remedial investigation plan had been accepted, and now they would be moving
towards the remedial alternative analysis. He said they have proposed removing approximately
4,000 cubic yards of soil and rock to remove remaining contamination, but per the DEC
requirements, they will be looking for alternative remediation measures. He said the process has
been long and complicated, but he said their intention is to move forward with the cleanup and
when that’s complete, with the development. He said they are part of the Brownfield cleanup
program.
Travis said that construction in Ithaca is expensive, and that the original plan in 2007 was to
build 33 townhouse condominiums, but that was not feasible.
The Board then decided that they would review the FEAF Part III at the next month’s meeting.
E. New Two-Family Dwellings, 815-817 N Aurora by Daniel Hirtler for Stavros
Stavropoulos. Declaration of Lead Agency and Review of SEAF Parts 2 & 3. The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and
construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing
residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency
(2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The proposed redevelopment will include four
parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments. The applicant is requesting the
Board’s approval to use the landscaping compliance method for parking arrangement.
The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning
lot and setback requirements. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
Architect Daniel Hirtler and property owner Stavros Stavropoulos appeared in front of the Board
to present the proposed project, which is to tear down the existing building and build two new
duplexes on the lot. The proposed buildings would conform with all setbacks required by zoning.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
24
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for two new two-family dwellings at 815-817 North Aurora Street, by Daniel Hirtler, applicant for
owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and
construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a
legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency. The proposed redevelopment will make
both buildings legally conforming and include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments. The
applicant is proposing the landscape compliance method for parking arrangement. The project site is located
in the R-2b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance as it
proposes construction of two primary structures on a single lot, and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and now therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resoluti on,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Elliott
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Petrina
Vacancies: None
Jones relayed a question from the City Forester asking about the species of the tree slated for
removal.
Hirtler said he wasn’t sure, but that the tree needs to come down regardless of the proposed
building project because it is leaning at a significant angle (around 60 degrees).
Glass asked about proximity of the proposed buildings to the neighboring buildings, saying that
the drawings don’t show the context.
Director Cornish agreed that the drawings provide little context. She said it would be good to see
how this proposed development would relate to the properties on either side.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
25
Hirtler said that the proposed new buildings would be set back further from the property line than
the existing structure.
After some additional discussion about zoning, Deputy Director Nicholas said the zoning
administrator had reviewed the proposal and determined that it was in compliance with zoning
requirements.
Cornish said that this is the only house on the block with two large primary structures on it, and
it is definitely out of character.
Nicholas said that many times applicants will provide a visualization of the street view showing
the at buildings on either side of the proposed project to provide context.
Chair Lewis said he thinks that would be helpful.
Elliott said that there is a typology in Fall Creek where you see a large house with a carriage
house, so there is precedent for having two substantial buildings on a lot.
Hirtler said there are examples of a second residence being built next to an existing home all
over Fall Creek.
Elliott asked if there were any that are the same size as the main house.
Cornish asked if there are any examples where it’s exactly the same as the main house.
Hirtler said no.
Elliott asked him to consider if there were a way to create more hierarchy.
Hirtler said that the problem with that is that the only way to make the numbers work for the
project is for both buildings to have two three-bedroom apartments.
Cornish said she’s concerned that they might be trying to make numbers work everywhere to the
degradation of neighborhoods.
Jones said the project could be tweaked to make it better fit with the typology of the
neighborhood. She also observed that most houses in Fall Creek have a full front porch, and that
these do not.
Cornish reiterated her request for drawings putting the proposed building in context.
Elliott said it seems like this project leads to the “South Hill-ing” of Fall Creek.
Nicholas said that it seems like a lot of pavement as well.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
26
Chair Lewis said the applicant has received some substantive comments regarding the design,
and he said that because it seems like the proposal might change, the Board might put off full
review of the Parts II and III of the FEAF. He said that it seems to him that the Community
Character section of Part III seems to apply, and he asked the other Board members if they see
any other applicable impacts.
Jones said that she thinks this kind of urban infill is fine in general.
Elliott asked about impacts on energy, and said that by saying there is no impact they might be
falling into old habits.
Johnston said that though the project will bring in more capacity for energy use, they will also be
improving efficiency.
Elliott said that you could look at the energy use for the existing building and easily quantify
efficiency improvements. He said that even though there would be more building on the site, it’s
possible that they would use less energy.
Cornish asked if it would ever be possible to legally subdivide the site (or if the houses would be
on the same parcel permanently).
Hirtler said subdivision would not be possible. He had looked into that when initially figuring
out possible site design, and that the lots created would be too narrow to have any meaningful
buildable area. He said the lot is fairly large, but it’s deep. He said that while it technically could
be subdivided, the houses would have to sit closer to the property lines than is permissible from
the zoning.
Cornish said that that might be more desirable though, and it would be possible to build a pair of
single-family homes, which would be much more in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
There being no further comments from the Board, they moved on to the next proposal on the
agenda.
F. Maguire Lincoln, 370 Elmira Road by John Snyder Architects PLLC. Declaration
of Lead Agency and Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes to
demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two additions with updated
exterior materials. The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed for
demolition. The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include
incorporation of a new pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans.
Approximately 311 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate customer, service
parking, employee, and display parking. Landscape design will improve vegetative
cover; however, it will not meet the City of Ithaca’s impervious/pervious requirements
(12%). The project site is located in the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest
Design Guidelines, and will require a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
27
maximum permissible in the SW-2 district (34 feet maximum permitted, 69-feet 3-inch
setback proposed). This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQRA”); however, it will be treated as a Type I Action for the purpose of
environmental review.
Applicants Phil Maguire and architect John Snyder appeared to present the proposal to the
Board.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for additions and improvements to the Maguire Ford Lincoln dealership located at 504 South
Meadow Street, by John Snyder Architects PLLC, applicant for owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two
new additions with updated exterior materials. The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF
proposed for demolition. The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements will include
incorporation of a new pedestrian walking path and site connections to Wegmans. Approximately 311
parking spaces are proposed to accommodate customer, employee, and service and display parking.
Landscape design will improve vegetative cover; however, it will not meet the City of Ithaca’s
impervious/pervious requirements (12%). The project site is located in the SW-2 Zone, and is subject to the
2000 Southwest Design Guidelines, and will require a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the
maximum permissible in the SW-2 District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance as it
proposes construction exceeding that of a Type II Action (more than 4,000 square feet), and an Unlisted
Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review,
and, now therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by Johnston:
Seconded by: Jones
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Petrina
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
28
Vacancies: None
Applicants reviewed their proposed updates to the Ford/Lincoln dealership. They said that a
portion of the rear of the building is in the 100-year floodplain and that portion will have to meet
flood design requirements.
Snyder explained that their proposal does not currently meet the 12 percent greenspace as
required by the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. He reviewed the proposed landscape and
hardscape improvements, as well as proposed materials selections and changes to the building
footprint.
Chair Lewis then asked the Board for comment.
Jones said that while she knows the business is selling automobiles, the Board is trying to design
the city to be less focused on automobiles than is was in the past. She suggested that they revisit
the pedestrian connection to Wegmans, saying it is indirect and goes out of the way. She also
said that the grassy areas need to be revised and could be enlarged.
Other questions about the property line shared with Wegmans arose relating to grade change,
ownership of the wall and fence (Wegmans) , and ownership of the trees there (also Wegmans).
Jones said the site isn’t very cohesive and that building this addition is an opportunity make the
site conform more to the Southwest Design Guidelines.
Jones and Director Cornish commented on the lack of plantings and the expanse of asphalt.
Nicholas said that the 12 percent recommendation from the Southwest Design Guidelines doesn’t
take in to account the planting guidelines adopted in the past year that stipulate a 25 percent
minimum greenspace requirement for parking lots.
Maguire said that in this case, because of the nature of the business, they shouldn’t look at it as
simply a parking lot, but rather as display space for their merchandise and also as a staging area
for vehicles coming in for repair. He said also that their utilization rates are very high here. He
said parking is important to maintaining the vitality of their business and explained that Nissan
was moving from this location primarily because of a lack of space.
Jones said this isn’t necessarily the highest and best use of space in what they want to see as an
urban area, and she said that if they want to stay and invest in this space they should do it in a
way that meets the design guidelines for the neighborhood, which means a lot more greenspace
and pedestrian connections that make more sense.
Maguire said they were looking for ways to include more green such as vegetative screening.
Cornish said the purpose of green space is to help with offsetting some of the heat sink effect of
all the asphalt and that vegetative screening won’t do that.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
29
Elliott said that he had previously suggested a vegetative roof, and that that might help them
meet the requirement and would also help with offsetting the heat sink.
Cornish suggested planting more trees along the roadway and said that whatever is done they
have to make sure they are planted per City Forester guidelines with a sufficient volume of
structural soil to ensure they will grow.
Elliott asked if they thought Wegmans would be amenable to breaching the wall and adding a
connection with some stairs, in light of the fact that it would bring people to their store. Jones
and others expressed support for the idea.
Cornish asked if they had plans for the big mound of asphalt at the corner of Cecil A. Malone
where they display trucks, if they could improve it.
Maguire said he thinks they could do something there to make it look nicer.
Blalock asked if they could have the sidewalk connect from Meadow Street to make the building
face the street more.
Other Board members expressed support.
The Board then agreed to review the FEAF Parts II and III at the next meeting.
G. Sketch Plan – 312 E Seneca Street
Jagat Sharma, architect, and Stavros Stavropoulos, property owner, appeared to present a plan
for a mixed use building (apartments with a ground floor commercial space on the first floor).
Board members expressed concern about the material selection with respect to the concrete block
on the eastern end of the building.
Cornish suggested he review the Downtown Design Guidelines.
H. Sketch Plan – 114 Catherine Street, Jagat Sharma
Jagat Sharma, architect, and Nick Lambrou, property owner, appeared to present plans for a new
apartment building and two-story parking structure on Catherine Street
I. Sketch Plan – 130 Cherry Street, Residential, Vecino Group
Scott Whitham and Kathryn Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design and Molly Chiang
from the Vecino Group appeared to present on the Cherry Street Arthaus proposal.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
30
Chiang said that the Vecino Group has been working on a proposal for the Green Street Parking
Garage project, which has taught them a lot about development in Ithaca, and has led them to
propose this affordable housing project geared towards artists. She said they have another model
of this type of project in Troy, New York, called the Hudson Arthaus, and that they offer
amenities and workshop space that make it attractive to artists. She said that she thinks Ithaca
has a lot of artists, and that they think the industrial area on Cherry Street would be a really neat
place for people to live. She said they have been in talks with the Community Arts Partnership to
determine what artists would find desirable, and she said that it seems like live-work studios are
what’s needed. She said that their funding would come through the Housing Finance Agency in
the form of low-income tax credits, which puts some limits on them, but they will continue
meetings with a group of artists in coming weeks to get their input on what would be attractive to
them. She said that the Vecino Group focuses on affordable and supportive housing and they are
excited to be here in Ithaca.
Chesebrough then reviewed the initial site plan proposal, first discussing the neighbors to the
property and the walkability of the site, saying it is within easy walking distance of a lot of
amenities. She also discussed the history of the site, and the potential improvements to
waterfront pedestrian trail networks in the near future, and said it looks like Taber and Cherry
Streets will become a more pedestrian oriented streetscape.
Chiang then walked through the preliminary floor plans, showing gallery space, workshop
spaces, offices, and parking on the ground floor. Upper floors would have a mix of studio, one-,
and two-bedroom apartments, and additional amenities such as a fitness center, community
room, and roof terraces on the inlet side of the building.
Chesebrough and Chiang next discussed the materials selections, Corten steel, concrete and
wood, saying they wanted to create a building with an industrial feel to match the neighboring
buildings, and discussing tentative plans for plantings and exterior layout.
Glass asked if parking is at grade.
Applicants said yes.
Blalock said he likes the idea, but it seems like a big part of the vision is having residents who
are artists. He asked how you ensure that.
Chiang said that per fair housing rules, they really can’t restrict residents to just artists, but the
hope is that they can attract artists through education and outreach. She said the one restriction
they can put in place is an income qualification for tenants.
Jones expressed support for the project, calling it refreshing and saying that she appreciates the
mission.
Chiang said they have also been looking into the Green Building Policy and would be willing to
work with the Board as a sort of test case on how to administer such a policy. He said the tax
credit program they would be using would already require them to meet or exceed the “easy
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
31
path” requirements, and that they may decide to go even further and try to meet the “whole
building” requirements.
Elliott said that given their proximity to Weitsman’s steel, they ought to have a welding shop,
possibly a shared maker-space that would provide metalworking equipment to artists, and they
might be able to provide residencies, which would give the place a lot of energy, with artists and
sculptors coming and going.
6. Old/New Business
Deputy Director Nicholas said they might have an opportunity to take a tour of City Centre on
December 18, ahead of the next Planning Board meeting, and that she would update them on that
as details became available.
They decided to form a working group of Jones, Johnston, and Petrina to draft a memo on energy
standards for new buildings.
Nicholas handed out a draft of the proposed Staff Report format and asked the Board to provide
feedback to help them determine what information would be helpful to them, and asked they
propose modifications, if needed. Director Cornish suggested adding a context section.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
Blalock said the USGS has done a big new survey of flooding, and that might affect some of the
projects they evaluate. He said there might be some changes with the way water is discharged
from the sewage treatment plant to try to reduce the ice jams they have seen in Fall Creek in
recent years. He also said dredging is planned for the Inlet and Cascadilla Creek in coordination
with the Johnson Boatyard project.
Blalock said the next item of concern is parking. He said there was a review of the Seneca Street
garage, which is a mess. He said new payment machines were going into all three downtown
garages. He also said that the new Director of Parking, Peter Messmer, together with DPW staff,
will be undertaking a new parking study. Blalock suggested that the Board might invite Messmer
to meet with them and do a scoping exercise to make sure the parking study takes into
consideration comments and concerns of the Board.
Blalock next mentioned that Tim Logue won an award for the West State Street improvements.
He said that Logue took a lot of criticism for that project, but it has come out well and people
Approved by the Planning and Development Board January 22, 2019
32
seem to be coming around. He also said that Addisu Gebre won some money to replace the Cecil
A. Malone Bridge, which along with the replacement of the Brindley Street Bridge should help
with the development of the Cherry Street area. Also, the City received $400,000 to help cover
the costs of sidewalks along S. Aurora Street approaching IC.
Finally, Blalock said that water bills will be going up a lot, but the good news is that the added
revenues would be used to hire a new street repair crew and a new sewer repair crew. He said the
BPW put together a well-put-together study making the case that putting off needed repairs costs
more money in the long run than doing them now. He said that currently City sewer crews are
putting in a lot of time repairing breakages -- often on double overtime in the middle of the night.
He said that they are all out there trying to plug holes rather than doing preventative
maintenance. He concluded by saying that he thinks the increase in sewage and water rates,
while painful, is the way to go in the long run.
C. Director of Planning & Development
Director Cornish said that Mike Thorne would be presenting the USGS information on flooding
at the next PEDC meeting on December 12. She said it might be nice to have Thorne come to the
Board and present the new information to them as well.
8. Adjournment:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Glass, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Apologies for not being here tonight. These are comments that I prepared and intended to work into the
discussion for tonight’s Planning Board meeting, 2018.11.27. –Emily Petrina
Building Materials
Why not use rapidly renewable building materials throughout the project? Currently these are
only listed in faculty‐in‐residence and residence hall director apartments.
pg 194, no. 18
Energy
I agree that the use of Cornell’s CHPP and LSC provides the most efficient heating, cooling and electricity
to the project. Based on this, I think the project has mitigated the large adverse impacts under energy
that we identified. I don’t feel that we need an EIS, however I think it’s a missed opportunity for the
applicant to not voluntarily undergo an EIS – for transparency and community satisfaction.
In terms of the CHPP’S use of natural gas:
I don’t think it’s within this board’s per‐view to make requirements that are beyond the scope of our
current codes. While I want to see the use of natural gas eliminated from every project, I don’t think
that requiring something extraordinary of Cornell is the place to achieve this goal. The place to do it is
through Common Council and the Ithaca Green Building Policy, which might need a harder look at its
timeline.
I suggest that the Planning Board drafts a memo to The Mayor and Common Council regarding our
Green Building Policy specifically relating to phasing out natural gas. The phase‐out goal is currently
2050, which is too late in light of more recent climate change studies. There is clearly community
support in this direction, and we may be able to affect change as a board which sees this issue again
and again. If we can make the change legislatively, that gives this board the reference against which
to judge future projects.
Let’s see public interest and protest against the use of natural gas at all projects developed in Ithaca.
We’ve heard “Cornell has the money to make change” – so do developers. “Cornell doesn’t pay taxes
so they should make change” – developers often get tax abatements. The difference is that Cornell is
here and is never leaving; they have a vested interest in treating Ithaca well and seeing Ithaca
succeed. Other developers may not have that local mindset; which is why we should hold them to an
equally responsible standard.
Can we amend our process? I think we can engage every project in this energy discussion. Meaning
all Type I and Unlisted Action projects should be evaluated for natural gas usage. We can push for
applicants to provide analysis of energy options before determining a neg/pos declaration without
requiring an EIS.
Joseph M. Wilson
75 Hunt Hill Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Comments to the Ithaca City Planning Board
Regarding Cornell's North Campus Residential Expansion,
November 27,2018
Honorable Board Members,
A few weeks ago, the IPCC released a report stating that we needed to take drastic action to curb global warming
in the next 10 years. In Ithaca,the Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions has just circulated a new
analytical tool documenting global warming impacts in Tompkins County.'The data,when projected to this
year,shows that between 1980 now, the annual average temperature will have risen by 2.3 degrees F., and annual
precipitation by 6.8 inches.The Report includes local testimony showing how these changes are harming our
local economy.'
Last Friday, the federal government released its Fourth National Climate Assessment.In its Summary Findings,
the following is included:"[T]his assessment shows that more immediate and substantial global greenhouse gas
emissions reductions ...would be needed to avoid the most severe consequences [of climate change]...."3
These reports make it clear that we as a species face an existential threat,that we are all in this together,and that
every-step we take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a good one. You have this massive project still in front
of you and multiple major projects waiting in line.Giventhis,I have a few suggestions for you as you go
forward:
The quantification of emissions is not an impossible or a useless exercise.While you can't force those
who produce the upstream emissions to act differently,the data regarding those emissions from a
specific project can provide the basis for deciding what alternative fuels,heating and cooling
technologies,appliances,and efficient building envelopes are necessary to reduce emissions.
Just as you hired an outside lawyer to advise you on SEQRA,there are local experts who you can hire to
advise you on technical matters like these.
While I have reservations about some of what Cornell has provided to you, it is unlikely that you would
have received as much as you did in the original application were it not for SEQRA and the threat of an
EIS.Given the ever increasing importance of energy,emissions and efficiency information,getting
Cornell and future developers to consider these matters before submitting an application is a good thing.
Although the City is admittedly far behind in developing regulations to cause emissions reductions,you
do have the Green Building Policy,the County's Energy Road Map, its approach to quantifying upstream
emissions,"and its "Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction (2018)"to use
as sources of questions to ask developers as well as guidance to best practices.You should use them in
your SEQRA reviews.
Finally,SEQRA was created by the State Legislature to be a tool for protecting and improving your
community.It's not a meaningless check list. As you were told by your outside attorney, as Planning
Board Members acting as a Lead Agency,you have discretion in how you apply SEQRA guidelines.So,
if you choose to put more emphasis on reducing the impacts of climate change on your City, you have
the power to do so.
1 Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions-"CSF Climate Change in Your County" at
http://climateslnalifann ing.org/tools/csf-countv-c liInate-change/
2 Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions, "Tompkins/Ithaca, NY Talanoa Dialogue Submission," https://cpb-us-
el.wpmucdn.com/blogs.comell.edu/dist/l/7755/files/2018/11/Tompkins-Ithaca-Talanoa-Dialogue finalreport-
2116yd9.pdf
3 ""4. Actions to Reduce Risk," p. 3,https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloadsINCA4 ChOl SUlnmary-Findings.pdf
4 http://tompkinscountyny.gOY /files2/planning/Energy-greenhouse/GovernmentInventory Report with Appendices.pdf