HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-05-24Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
May 24, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya (arrived 6:32 p.m.);
Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Snyder (left 8:59 p.m.)
Board Members Absent: Bob Boothroyd; David Kay
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Applicants Attending: Collegetown Terrace Apartments
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect
Ithaca College Boathouse
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Bret C. LeBleu, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Ramnath Venkat, HOLT Architects
Memorial Flagpole Garden, Stewart Park
Rick Manning, Rick Manning Landscape Architect
City of Ithaca Water Plant, Sketch Plan
Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works;
Rick Gell, O’Brien & Gere, Engineers;
Jesse Guyer, O’Brien & Gere, Engineers
Elmira Road Hotel, Sketch Plan
Larry Fabronni, Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors;
Ajay Patel, Developer and Property Manager;
Bill Manos, Site Owner
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Lisa Nicholas suggested adding an “Old Business” heading to the agenda, and thereunder the
discussion topic, “Proposed Site Plan Review Ordinance Revisions.” She would like the
1
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Board to review the current state of these proposed revisions, which reflect changes the
Board tentatively agreed to c. 2008. There were no objections to adding this agenda item.
2. Privilege of the Floor
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, speaking on behalf of the South Hill Civic Association
regarding off-street parking, said, “Small changes are taking place on South Hill that are now
adding up to significant negative environmental impacts. Before Ithaca College moved to the
top of South Hill, single family homes dominated our neighborhoods; these homes
traditionally required very limited or no off-street parking. After Ithaca College moved to the
top of South Hill, these same single family homes began to be converted to multi-tenant
houses requiring a parking space for each tenant. Today off-street parking has reached
critical density on South Hill and with it has come undesirable and detrimental changes to
our neighborhoods. Gardens, lawns, trees and shrubs are slowly disappearing and being
replaced by blacktop and gravel surfaces. These hard surfaces increase water run-off,
scouring debris and pollution into Six Mile Creek. The most serious negative impacts
however, are the things that are not so obvious: our love affair with automobiles is negatively
affecting our culture, the air we breathe and the climate. It is for these reasons that the South
Hill Civic Association opposes any attempt to increase off-street parking areas on South Hill
without a thorough examination of the request.” Graves called on the Mayor, the Common
Council, the City Attorney, the Building Department, the BZA, the Department of Planning
and Development and the Planning Board “to work cooperatively to curb the growth of legal
as well as reverse the growth of illegal off-street parking on South Hill.” Graves suggested
that this could be accomplished by revoking Certificates of Occupancy for property owners
who “illegally install parking areas on their property and (in the case of 137-139 Hudson) on
other people’s property. These Certificates of Occupancy should only be reinstated after the
illegal parking areas have been restored to their legal condition.”
Jesse Hill, South Hill landlord and property manager, also commenting on the off-street
parking issue, said he believes City zoning needs to be amended to encourage the widest
possible variety of transportation alternatives. Hill said he believes current zoning practices
are excessively ‘autocentric’ and he would like to see more efforts to establish a genuinely
diverse alternative transit infrastructure. Hill cited his property at 201 South Aurora Street
(which was given a variance from the City’s parking requirement) as an example of the kinds
of things that can be done.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP,
Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John Novarr).
Presentation & Discussion — No Action. The project will include the construction of
16 new buildings, and rehabilitation of one existing building at 901 East State Street, that
will provide approximately 1,064 new bedrooms and 640 new parking spaces. The
existing buildings on the project site currently include 637 bedrooms and 467 parking
spaces; of these, 475 bedrooms and 361 parking spaces will be removed, leaving 162
existing bedrooms and 106 existing parking spaces. The combined proposed (new) and
2
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
existing (to remain) bedrooms and parking spaces for the proposed project will result in a
total of not-to-exceed 1,226 bedrooms and not-to-exceed 746 parking spaces. The
proposed project will result in not-to-exceed 589 net additional bedrooms and not-to-
exceed 279 net additional parking spaces (relative to existing conditions). The proposed
project will result in a maximum building footprint of 175,001 gross square feet,
comprising an estimated 628,642 gross square feet of residential space and 235,645 gross
square feet of parking. The 16 new proposed buildings range in size and height from two
to six stories; all but two of the proposed buildings are at least four stories tall. Proposed
site development includes the demolition of roadways, and some vegetation and
landscaping on the project site. Of the total 16.4 acres of property, approximately 12.1
acres would be disturbed for construction. The environmental review for this project was
completed on October 26, 2010, when the Planning and Development Board adopted the
Findings of the Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant has been granted a lot
line adjustment and a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Acharya arrived at the meeting during the following discussion.
Kathryn Wolf said that the presentation would begin with the applicant’s proposals for
resolving conditions regarding Buildings 4.1, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 contained in the Board’s
final approval resolution for Phase 1 of the project. Alan Chimacoff then presented the
following revised architectural drawings:
• Building 4.1: The brick chimney, after its narrowing, has been moved back to a
more central location in its portion of the north facade.
• Building 2.1: Rather than restoring Llenroc stone to the southern portion of the
east façade, plantings have been increased at the base of this portion of the
building.
• Building 2.3: An added bracket visually supporting the cantilever at the northwest
corner of the building has been supplemented with stepped soffits centered on that
bracket, in a manner better integrating the bracket with the overhang while
maintaining the required seven-foot-high driveway clearance.
• Building 2.4: A bluestone wall topped with an undulating metal railing (also used
at the Eddy Street and Mitchell Street plazas) now runs from the northwest corner
of the site, at East State Street’s intersection with Quarry Street, up to the south
side of the building entry on Building 2.4’s west façade. Llenroc stone has also
been restored along the base of this west façade from the porch base at the
building’s northwest corner up to the point where the bluestone wall meets the
building.
Chair Schroeder said these modifications appear to resolve the Planning Board’s
concerns about these four facades, and asked Board members if they had any remaining
issues regarding these facades. No concerns were expressed. Schroeder said that restoring
much of the Llenroc base, modifying the bluestone retaining wall and adding the metal
undulating railing has resulted in a design that much more successfully grounds the
western portion of Building 2.4 onto its site. He expressed appreciation for these changes.
3
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
The next portion of the presentation moved on the Phase 2 of the project, focusing on the
pedestrian bridges that will link the Entry Pavilion to Buildings 5 and 7 and
simultaneously link various project common areas. Chimacoff proposed that the bridges
be built of a fine metal mesh, giving them a streamlined, light and airy quality. The
bridges would be sheathed with glass on the sides and roof, but would have a solid base.
Marcham asked if the general public would have access to the bridges, to which
Chimacoff responded, yes, but only to the extent that non-residents can gain admission
into the connected buildings in the first place. Chimacoff said that the bridges will not
dangerous in any way. Project owner John Novarr added that a concerted effort will be
made to restrict the buildings to residents and their guests as much as possible, thereby
preventing the general public from wandering in.
In the next portion of the presentation, Ian Tyndell reviewed the modified landscape plan
for Phase 2. He noted that the vegetative screening to the south of Building 7 had been
enhanced, per one of the Planning Board’s conditions, with the addition of native
evergreens. The new evergreens include eastern white pines and eastern red cedars.
Tyndell said these cedars should look attractive within the context of adjacent meadow
grasses.
Schroeder said he wanted to make sure that Board members had noticed that, per a site
plan drawing first shown the previous month, the Entry Pavilion’s north façade (facing
East State Street) was now less wide than it had been when it was given preliminary site
plan approval, and that — correspondingly — a larger recessed notch now visually
separated the Entry Pavilion from Building 3.4 to its east. Schroeder noted that David
Kay had asked for such a reduction in the width of the Entry Pavilion’s north façade
several times earlier in the process.
Wolf concluded the presentation by stating that the applicant intended to request final site
plan approval for Phase 2 at the Board’s regular meeting on June 28, 2011. Cornish asked
about the status of the proposed on-site building materials sample wall, to which
Chimacoff replied it is still being finalized. Wolf said the applicant’s team had realized
that building material color choices would best be made while considering all of the
buildings comprehensively, and that therefore these decisions were taking more time than
initially expected.
B. Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 Third Street Extension, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP,
Applicant for Owner, Ithaca College. Determination of Environmental Significance
& Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant is proposing to remove the
existing boathouse and construct a single new boathouse. The new structure will feature a
Llenroc base, an upper-story balcony and a varied roofline. Site improvements will
include a paved multi-use plaza, a parking area for approximately 40 vehicles,
construction of a portion of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, shoreline stabilization, site
lighting, landscaping, and site furnishings. Site development will require the removal of
approximately 800 cubic yards of soil and debris from the site and 0.9 acres of
vegetation. Site access is proposed to continue from Third Street Extension through the
4
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Cornell boathouse complex. Permitting for bank stabilization will be handled through the
NYS DEC. The project is in the M-1 Zoning District. In accordance with §282 of the City
Code, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Controls, this project requires
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Trowbridge remarked that the revised project design is not that different from the initial
design, with the portion of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail that will pass through the
northern portion of the site now being located east of the entrance road — though in the
current design, the trail will now be separated from the road by a narrow strip.
Trowbridge said this arrangement should satisfy the interests of the City, Cornell
University and Ithaca College alike.
He also noted the revised site plan had reviewed by City Transportation Engineer Tim
Logue who indicated his initial concerns have been resolved. Trowbridge reported that
the fire lane adjacent to the trail, as well as the emergency apparatus turn-around area,
has also been approved by Deputy Fire Chief Tom Parsons. Trowbridge added that the
boathouse has now been moved as far west as it can go, without interfering with the
NYSEG utility pole nearby in any way. Trowbridge said a side-yard variance will be
required and the applicant is respectfully asking the Board to issue a strong statement in
support of the project to the BZA.
Trowbridge informed the Board that the results of a geological site analysis had
necessitated several hundred thousand dollars in additional expenses for foundation work.
Therefore, the following three components of the project are being submitted for
approval, but may or may not ultimately be completed, depending on cost and future
financial considerations: Add Alternate #1, stone wall with seat wall; Add Alternate #2,
southernmost portion of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail on this site; and Add Alternate #3,
northernmost portion of the trail on this site. (The middle portion of the trail, however,
will be built as an integral part of the basic project.)
Trowbridge explained site plan details, noting that signs for the site had been approved
by Logue. The applicant is also working with the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation on strategies to stabilize the shoreline; limestone block reinforcements will
be used near the boathouse and nearby docks and vegetative stabilization will be used
elsewhere. Trowbridge noted that an innovative bike rack design will be installed on the
east wall of the boathouse, and that the parking lot conforms to SWPP requirements.
Schroeder asked whether the bollards requested by Logue to separate the northernmost
portion of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail from the road will be constructed. Trowbridge
replied that although they have been accounted for in the design, they are part of Add
Alternate #3, which may or may not be completed. Schroeder asked if the applicant could
more clearly illustrate the bollards on the Add Alternate #3 drawing; Trowbridge agreed.
Schroeder then asked whether curbing will be installed around the tree islands in the
parking area. Ramnath Venkat replied it is not part of the current design, largely because
the site needs to accommodate very large trailers. Trowbridge indicated, however, that
the applicant would come up with a solution for protecting these trees.
5
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Venkat then briefly addressed the revised elevation details, noting that originally the
building was further away from neighboring property, but recent modifications now mean
there will be a small overhang over NYS DEC land. He said that, to partially compensate
for the encroachment, the eave overhang has been reduced from 5’ to 4.3’. The balcony
now protrudes slightly beyond the eave line, but this should not result in an appreciably
negative visual impact. All other details of the building remain the same.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
Acharya disclosed for the public record that he is employed by the applicant, Ithaca
College; however, he said he has no financial or other interests in the project that might
represent a potential conflict of interest.
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Snyder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for construction of the Ithaca College Boathouse by
Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, applicant for owner, Ithaca College, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to remove the existing boathouse and construct a
single new boathouse. The new structure will feature a Llenroc base, an upper-story
balcony, and a varied roofline. Site improvements will include a paved multi-use plaza, a
parking area for approximately 40 vehicles, construction of a portion of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, shoreline stabilization, site lighting, landscaping, and site furnishings.
Site development will require the removal of approximately 800 cubic yards of soil and
debris from the site and 0.9 acres of vegetation. Site access is proposed to continue from
Third Street through the Cornell boathouse complex. Permitting for bank stabilization
will be handled through the NYS DEC. The project is in the M-1 Zoning District. In
accordance with §282 of the City Code, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Controls, this project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). It also requires an area variance for side yard setback from the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act 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
6
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, an involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, has
consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for
this project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on May 24, 2011 reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Parts 2 & 3, prepared by planning staff, drawings entitled “Topographic Map – 2 Sheets,”
prepared by T.G. Miller and dated 4/24/01, and ‘Site Sections (L302),” dated 12/22/10, “
Existing Conditions Survey (L000),” “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Site Layout (L201)”
(revised drawing handed out at the May 24, 2011 meeting, showing longer Cayuga
Waterfront Trail segment in “Add Alternate #2”), “Site Signage (L202),” “Site Grading
(L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site Details (L501 & L502),” “Utility Plan (C101),”
“Shoreline Stabilization Cross-Sections (C201& C202),” “Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (C301),” all dated 5/24/2011, and all prepared by HOLT Architects and Trowbridge
and Wolf Landscape Architects, LLP, and “Exterior Elevations (A201),” “Property Line
Setback (A100)” (also showing color architectural renderings and elevation), both dated
5/24/11 and prepared by HOLT Architects, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, the NYS DEC, and other interested agencies have been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been
considered, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that
the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder,
Absent: Boothroyd, Kay
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for construction of the Ithaca College Boathouse by
Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, applicant for owner, Ithaca College, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to remove the existing boathouse and construct a
single new boathouse. The new structure will feature a Llenroc base, an upper-story
balcony, and a varied roofline. Site improvements will include a paved multi-use plaza, a
parking area for approximately 40 vehicles, construction of a portion of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, shoreline stabilization, site lighting, landscaping, and site furnishings.
Site development will require the removal of approximately 800 cubic yards of soil and
7
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
debris from the site and 0.9 acres of vegetation. Site access is proposed to continue from
Third Street through the Cornell boathouse complex. Permitting for bank stabilization
will be handled through the NYS DEC. The project is in the M-1 Zoning District. In
accordance with §282 of the City Code, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Controls, this project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). It also requires an area variance for side yard setback from the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on
January 25, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on May 24, 2011 reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Parts 2 & 3, prepared by planning staff, drawings entitled “Topographic Map – 2 Sheets,”
prepared by T.G. Miller and dated 4/24/01, and ‘Site Sections (L302),” dated 12/22/10, “
Existing Conditions Survey (L000),” “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Site Layout (L201)”
(revised drawing handed out at the May 24, 2011 meeting, showing longer Cayuga
Waterfront Trail segment in “Add Alternate #2”), “Site Signage (L202),” “Site Grading
(L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site Details (L501 & L502),” “Utility Plan (C101),”
“Shoreline Stabilization Cross-Sections (C201& C202),” “Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (C301),” all dated 5/24/2011, and all prepared by HOLT Architects and Trowbridge
and Wolf Landscape Architects, LLP, and “Exterior Elevations (A201),” “Property Line
Setback (A100)” (also showing color architectural renderings and elevation), both dated
5/24/11 and prepared by HOLT Architects, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on May 24, 2011 make a negative declaration of
environmental significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the Ithaca College Boathouse subject to the following
conditions:
i. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation-
related issues, including those concerning the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, have
been satisfied, and
ii. Approval in writing from the City Fire Department that all emergency access
issues have been satisfied, and
8
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
iii. Approval in writing from the Storm Water Management Officer that the project
meets City standards for storm water management, and
iv. Submission and approval of site and building signage plan, and
v. Submission of color architectural elevations with keyed building materials, and
vi. Submission of details including paving materials, building brackets, site
furnishings, site and building lighting, and bollards, and
vii. Addition of bollards, in clearly visible manner, between road and Cayuga
Waterfront Trail on “Add Alternate #3” on drawing L201.
In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Boothroyd, Kay
Schroeder asked when the BZA is scheduled to consider the needed area variance;
Trowbridge replied not until July. Schroeder said the Board would, therefore, defer
making a recommendation on the zoning variance until its June meeting.
C. Memorial Flagpole Garden, Stewart Park, City of Ithaca, Applicant/Owner.
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The purpose of this project is to
renovate the area around the base of the flagpole. Work will include removal of the
existing low wall, installation of a stone perimeter curbing, two sets of stair risers on the
east / west sides and two accessible ramps on the north / south sides, edged stone dust
pathways, and amended planting beds with a variety of plantings. The garden was
originally built in 1927 to memorialize Edwin Cromwell Stewart. Its renovation is part of
the 2009 Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan. The property is in the P-1 Zoning
District. This is a Type II Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is not subject to
environmental review.
Rick Manning noted the groundbreaking is scheduled for July 4, 2011, followed by an
all-volunteer ‘community build.’ He said a grant application had been submitted to the
Snow Foundation for $10,000; the results should be known by the end of June 2011 —
without this funding, the design team would likely need to reduce the project scope.
Manning said the landscaping will include boxwoods flanking each entrance, plus
internal switchgrass, shrub dogwood and shrub roses; he is working closely with Dan
Klein and Jeanne Grace on plantings for the project. Manning added it may even be
possible to collaborate in some way with the community beautification program, which is
already sponsoring some gardening projects in Cass and Stewart Parks.
Schroeder said virtually all the project details have been resolved to his satisfaction;
however, he wanted to emphasize that the entrances to the memorial staircase appear very
bright and prominent in historic photographs. It appears, therefore, that they were made
from light-colored materials. As a result, to conform with the original historic appearance
of the park, Schroeder would prefer that the stair treads be made from pre-cast concrete,
9
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
rather than from darker-colored bluestone. However, if this is not financially feasible, he
would be satisfied with the bluestone.
Rudan asked how bluestone and concrete compare to each other in terms of durability
and ease-of-maintenance. Manning replied that, although bluestone may be marginally
more durable than concrete, their durability is very comparable. Marcham expressed her
approval of the design, and said she would also prefer concrete stair treads. Schroeder
thanked Manning for providing the historic photographs, which he said have been
extremely helpful in perfecting this project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
No member of the public came forward to speak about the proposed project.
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Snyder, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for the renovation of the Memorial Flagpole Garden in
Stewart Park by the City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner, and
WHEREAS: the purpose of this project is to renovate the area around the base of the
flagpole. Work will include removal of the existing low wall, installation of a stone
perimeter curbing, two sets of stair risers on the east/west sides and two accessible ramps
on the north/south sides, stone dust pathways edged with bluestone curbing, and amended
planting beds with a variety of plantings. The garden was originally built in 1927 to
memorialize Edwin Cromwell Stewart. Its renovation is part of the 2009 Stewart Park
Rehabilitation Action Plan. The property is in the P-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on
May 24, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on May 24, 2011 reviewed and accepted as
adequate a drawing entitled “Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan, Flagpole Garden
10
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Plan,” dated May 9, 2011, and a drawing entitled “Flagpole Garden Planting Plan,” dated
May 24, 2011, both prepared by Rick Manning, Landscape Architect, and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested
agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all
comments received have been considered, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the Memorial Flagpole Garden, subject to
the following condition:
i. In order to echo general appearance seen in historic photographs, use of pre-cast
concrete for the stair treads and flush masonry blocks at ramp entries is preferred,
if this is affordable. If this is not affordable, then bluestone is an acceptable
substitute.
In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder
Absent: Boothroyd, Kay
D. City Water Plant, Sketch Plan
Superintendent of Public Works Bill Gray described the salient details of the proposed
project, noting that funding for a new water plant was approved several years ago. As
part of the project, a pilot study of a new membrane filtration system has been
conducted. The general approach to the initial design of the building was intended to
be very simple. The project has now reached a point where it makes sense to subject it
to review and modification.
Rick Gell highlighted the basic building details, noting that the new structure will
occupy the same area as the existing building, and access to the building will continue
to be from Water Street. The parking area will continue to hold nine spaces.
Turning to a three-dimensional computer model of the building, Gell said the primary
focus of the building design has been to achieve the right functional relationship
between the various processes that will need to take place and the specific building
elevations associated with each of those processes. The building eaves will remain at
the same height as the existing ones and the roof will be pitched to facilitate
maintenance. The principal challenge associated with the project will be to carefully
stage the construction process to maintain the continuing operation of the plant at all
times.
Acharya noted that the building’s north side appears markedly more open than the
other sides. He asked if it would be possible to add windows to the other sides of the
building (the south side in particular). Jesse Guyer indicated this would be relatively
easy to accomplish, particularly on the second floor.
11
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Schroeder asked whether lights would be left on at night, to which Guyer replied, yes,
but they should only be visible from the State Street side. Schroeder asked what
building materials will be employed, to which Guyer replied it was still a little early in
the process to be certain, but metal paneling is planned for the roof and brick for the
main structure.
Cornish said the entrance appears too small in relation to the rest of the building. Gray
agreed, although said this may be partly due to the necessarily large size of the
industrial space to the entrance’s immediate left.
Schroeder said he thought the Water Street elevation was the least attractive face of the
building, and said this is unfortunate, given its visibility to the public. Gray said he did
not disagree, but explained that the design team is restricted in what it can achieve
from an aesthetic and architectural standpoint, in light of the need to keep the existing
plant operational. Schroeder suggested creating an arcade of some kind with columns
or similar features, running from the main entrance to the Water Street façade. Gray
affirmed that the design team would explore several different possibilities for making
the kinds of modifications Board members are seeking.
Snyder suggested the entrance’s appearance may change considerably once the access
ramp is designed; this will need to be taken into account.
Schroeder said he likes the gabled portions of the roof. He asked where the air
conditioning units will be located, to which Guyer replied they would most likely be
ground units.
Acharya encouraged the applicant to plan for the prospect of adding solar panels to the
building design.
Schroeder said it would be helpful for the Board to see an overall site plan illustrating
the water plant’s relationship to other water treatment facilities (such as the settling
ponds) and other nearby features (such as the Mulholland Wildflower Preserve). Gell
agreed to provide this.
Cornish concluded the discussion by noting that it may be helpful for the Planning
Board to take a guided tour of the current water plant and associated facilities.
E. Elmira Road Hotel, Sketch Plan, Larry Fabronni
[Note: The meeting agenda incorrectly listed this as a “Meadow Street Hotel.”]
Fabronni reviewed the basic details of the proposed 4-story hotel, which would be built
on what he said was one of the few remaining viable sites for this kind of project in
this part of town. Fabronni said he does not believe the proposed building will unduly
encroach into the surrounding residential zone, and said the design specifically tries to
steer away from the residences.
12
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Fabronni introduced developer Ajay Patel, who would also manage the site upon
construction. Fabronni noted that financing for the ten million dollar project is already
in place, but the timing is somewhat sensitive, given the 2012 anticipated opening. He
said that the proposed hotel would be one of the very first of an entirely new
generation of Fairfield Inn hotels.
Fabronni said he will appear before the BZA in July to ask for a use variance. He
argued that since six other properties in the general area had received variances,
including three with use variance, he does not believe that this request is entirely
without precedent. He indicated that only one home would need to be demolished (the
“Allen” house in the lower-right corner of site plan) and that the Spencer Road side
would be heavily landscaped to serve as a buffer. Additionally, he noted, the site plan
includes a mid-block public walkway to connect Spencer and Elmira Roads.
The project would include a fence to screen the project from the house just to the south
on Spencer Road; and Fabronni maintained that the viewscapes from the houses on the
hill on the east side of Spencer Road would not be negatively impacted in any way.
Fabronni emphasized that the project represents an allowed use in the SW-2 Zoning
District and said it would add valuable density to that end of Elmira Road.
Marcham said this is a very impressive project, but was curious why the orientation of
the building was not turned 90 degrees, so the long side of the hotel would face Elmira
Road.
Fabronni replied that the property offers only a very limited amount of space to work
with, and the need for a functional parking layout further restricts options.
Rudan asked why the building could not be built higher. Fabronni replied that a higher
building would require a masonry construction system that would be considerably
more expensive to build than the current design.
Snyder said he likes the building, particularly since it serves to define the street edge,
which is really important on a corridor like Elmira Road. He said he is concerned, on
the other hand, with the lack of green space on the Manos Restaurant side.
Schroeder remarked that none of the previous variances to which Fabronni referred
applied to a property extending all the way to Spencer Road, as this project site does.
Schroeder said he is concerned with the precedent a use variance on this property may
establish, as it may lead — variance by variance, piece by piece — to the abandonment
of residential uses on the west side of Spencer Road from this property south to the
point where the SW-2 zone currently meets Spencer Road.
Acharya said he agrees with both Schroeder and Snyder, but that the current site plan
already appears to be as good as it can be. Since the evolution of development on
13
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Spencer Road has not been conducive to residential use, he agrees that the Board
should consider the long-term perspective as it reviews this project.
Fabronni argued that residential assessments in the immediate proximity of this project
range from $80,000 to $200,000; consequently, future substantial investments in two-
family homes in the area seem unlikely, making this the hotel project a viable
alternative.
Snyder noted he would rather see the Common Council re-zone the entire area than see
the neighborhood suffer through a long process of attrition, variance by variance.
Cornish asked about the anticipated project timeline. Fabronni replied that this is the
project’s first submission to the City. He said he plans to appear at the July 5, 2011
BZA meeting.
Schroeder strongly recommended that the applicant hold one or more meetings with
neighborhood residents from the affected part of Spencer Road. Schroeder also noted
that the Planning Board’s key role in making recommendations to the BZA concerning
proposed variances is to consider the potential neighborhood-wide or community-wide
planning implications of such variances.
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2844 — 137-139 Hudson Street: Area and/or Use Variance
Appeal #2844, for a determination made by the Building Commissioner in an order letter sent
to the owner of 137-139 Hudson Street, Maria Avramis, on December 10, 2010, claiming she
illegally constructed a parking lot without a building permit in the back yard at 137-139
Hudson Street, despite the City Zoning prohibition against non-conforming uses being
extended or enlarged under Section 325-32 C.(1), “A non-conforming use may not be
extended or enlarged to other structures nor may a non-conforming use be extended or
enlarged to other portions of structures not devoted to such use or to other land without a
variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.” The property became a non-conforming
use in 1977 when the district changed from a R-3 zoning district, which allowed multiple
dwellings, to an R-2a use district that allows only residential one- and two-family dwellings.
When the property became non-conforming, the Building Department spent time with the
owner at that time to ascertain the property’s grandfather rights. The property was deemed to
have grandfather rights for its 4 parking spaces in the front yard. Under the last Zoning
Ordinance in effect prior to the 1977 Ordinance being enacted, the 1965 Zoning Ordinance
required the R-3 zone to provide one parking space per dwelling unit. The property at 137-
139 Hudson Street has 4 dwelling units.
The Planning Board cannot offer comments to the BZA until it has completed the
environmental review for both site plan review and the zoning appeal. Under the provisions
of §325-40 of the Zoning Ordinance, “When a variance, interpretation or special permit is
requested, no Board of Appeals action thereon shall be taken until the Planning and
Development Board has had the opportunity to submit a report as to conformance with long-
range planning objectives.” The Planning Board has not had such an opportunity because it
14
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
is prevented from commencing the site plan and environmental review process due to an
outstanding site control issue. The Planning Board fully intends to submit a report on the
appeal when the site control issue has been resolved and they are able to complete the
environmental review.
Appeal #2850 — 135 Crescent Place: Area Variance
Appeal of Richard Hautaniemi on behalf of the owner Elizabeth Cobb for an area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 6, minimum lot size, Column 10, maximum lot coverage,
Column 11, front yard dimension, and Column 12/13, side yard requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to add two small additions, install a new deck, and
perform interior alterations to the kitchen and living room at the dwelling located at 136
Crescent Place. The proposed additions and rear deck will exceed the allowable lot coverage
by 3%, having 28% of the maximum 25% lot coverage requirement of the zoning ordinance.
One of the proposed additions is an entry vestibule with an overhanging roof that will be
located in the front yard.
The existing front yard setback is 18’ and the new front entry and roof overhang will reduce
the front yard setback to 10.5’ of the required 25’ setback of the zoning ordinance. The
proposed addition located on the south side of the dwelling will contain a stair enclosure for
accessing the basement. The stair addition will maintain the existing side yard dimension of
9.5’ resulting in a deficiency of 0.5’ of the 10’ side yard requirement of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant would like the rear deck to parallel the exiting north side of the building that
has a side yard of 8.1’ of the 10’ side yard requirement of the zoning ordinance. The property
has an existing lot area deficiency having 5,880 SF of the required 6,000 SF that will not be
exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in an R-1b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit
may be issued.
Members of the Planning Board support the granting of this appeal with the exception of the
proposed trellis and vestibule in front of the house. Members feel that this architectural
element is out of character with the neighborhood as it decreases the setback of the house,
which is currently consistent with neighboring properties.
Appeal #2851 — 115 West Yates Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Julia Rose for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, off-street parking,
Column 6, lot area, Column 7, width at street and Column 12, side yard requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an 80 SF addition on the rear of
dwelling located at 115 W. Yates Street. The proposed sun room addition will be positioned
next to the existing porch located in the rear yard. The new addition will be 3’6” from the
property line which is an inset of approximately 6” from the west wall of the existing
building that has an existing deficiency of 3’ of the 5’ required by the zoning ordinance. The
property has existing deficiencies in off-street parking, lot area, and lot width that will not be
exacerbated by the proposed addition.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit
may be issued.
15
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Members of the Planning Board see no long-term planning issues with this appeal and
support its approval.
Appeal #2852 — 125 Highland Place: Area Variance
Appeal of Pamela Johnston for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, off-street
parking, Column 6, minimum lot area, Column 10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 11,
front yard dimension, Column 14/15, rear yard dimension, and 325-32C (3), extension and
enlargement requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert six
rooms to rent to an apartment in a non-conforming structure located at 125 Highland Place.
The property is a four-story multiple dwelling containing a total of three apartments, one each
located in the basement, first floor, and third floor plus six rooms to rent located on the
second floor. The conversion of the second floor to an apartment will increase the number of
apartments from three to four, thereby extending the use of this non-conforming structure.
The second floor has all the elements of an apartment and the conversion of the rooms to rent
to an apartment requires no construction. However, Section 325-32C (3) prohibits the
extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure except by means of a variance.
The property contains approximately 4,700 SF of lot area and the proposed conversion will
reduce the area requirements from 10,000 SF for three units and six rooms to rent, to 7,750
SF in area for four units. The existing property has two parking spaces on site and is
grandfathered for five spaces of the seven spaces required by the zoning ordinance. The
conversion of the rooms to rent to an apartment would trigger the current parking
requirements for the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, requiring one additional space for
the apartment.
The property has existing deficiencies in lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, and
rear yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposed conversion.
The property is located in an R-3a residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit
may be issued.
Members of the Planning Board support the approval of this appeal, provided occupancy
continues to be limited to 17 unrelated persons.
5. Old Business
A. Proposed Site Plan Review Ordinance Revisions
Nicholas walked Board members through the most recent draft of proposed amendments
to Chapter 276 (Site Plan Review) of the City Code, as agreed to tentatively by the Board
c. 2008. The most significant proposed changes would make single-family and two-
family residences subject to limited site plan review, with some form of neighborhood
compatibility review being recommended for such structures.
16
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Planning Board members were asked to review this draft and be prepared to discuss it at
the June Planning Board meeting. Nicholas noted that the goal would be to have a revised
Site Plan Review ordinance approved by Common Council this fall.
6. New Business
A. Rear Yard Parking in Residential Neighborhoods
Board members were referred to the Off-Street Parking section of the City Code (§325-
20), which had been provided in the agenda mailing. Cornish noted that the discussion
should really center on both rear yard and side yard parking.
Rudan remarked that illegal parking configurations seem to be almost unavoidable, at
times; and unfortunately the Building Department is frequently forced to act as the
parking police.
Acharya said a fundamental issue is whether off-street parking should be legally
permitted in the first place. He proposes removing minimum parking space requirements
from the zoning ordinance altogether, and instead make on-site parking something that
would require a zoning variance or special permit.
Rudan noted there is a large economic incentive for landlords to pursue anything that will
permit them to charge their tenants for parking.
Schroeder said there appears to be a discrepancy between the Building Department’s
interpretation of zoning regulations regarding parking and the Common Council’s
original intent when it passed them. For example, the City zoning ordinance defines
parking spaces as structures, and states that structures shall not be built within front yard,
side yard and back yard setbacks. However, the Building Department is interpreting
provisions in §325-20 (where five-foot setbacks for parking areas in residential
neighborhoods are mentioned) as superseding the district regulations specifying larger
front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, since the Building Department has to
interpret conflicting provisions of the zoning ordinance in the manner least restrictive to
property owners. Hence, larger setback requirements for residential parking areas are
essentially being overturned because of conflicts within the zoning ordinance itself.
Schroeder noted that the “landscaping compliance method” in §325-20 is not an as-of-
right practice, although it seems like it is being interpreted that way. The “landscaping
compliance method” may be applied only at the “discretion” of the Planning Board or
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, per language within $320-20 itself.
There was some discussion of the South Hill Civic Association’s suggestion that
Certificates of Occupancy be revoked for property owners who illegally install parking
areas on their property. Board members wondered whether this would be a feasible or
practical solution.
17
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Schroeder said the Board would continue its discussion of this issue at its next regular
meeting, and asked staff to prepare a brief list of the ideas brainstormed this evening. He
suggested that ideally the Building Commissioner would join the Planning Board at next
month’s discussion.
B. Changing the Code to Allow Only One Primary Use Per Lot
Schroeder noted that this was a suggestion from the Building Commissioner, and
suggested that it would be most productive to discuss this when the commissioner was
present to explain her concerns.
Cornish remarked that she is aware of no other municipality that allows more than one
primary use per lot. Marcham suggested the Board also seek clarification on how lot
consolidations are being handled.
7. Approval of Minutes
Snyder left the meeting prior to the vote below.
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham, the minutes of the April 26, 2011 meeting
were approved by the Board.
In favor: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Boothroyd, Kay, Snyder
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Schroeder reported on the results of the May 4, 2011 Common Council meeting and its
impact on the four Collegetown initiatives that were discussed at the Planning Board’s
March 8, 2011 special meeting. He noted that roughly 28 percent of Collegetown
property owners, determined by land area, had lodged protests against the zoning
changes, thereby triggering a requirement that those changes be approved by three-
quarters of Common Council (eight votes).
Therefore, though the “Collegetown Area Form Districts” got seven votes, it did not get
the eight votes it needed to pass. However, the “Collegetown Overlay Zone Height
Incentive District,” the “Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone” revisions, and the
“Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Add Chapter 160,
Entitled ‘Design Review’ ” all did get sufficient votes to pass.
Since all of the ordinances were meant to be passed as a package, and were written that
way, the three measures that did pass have been suspended by the Common Council (and
may subsequently be repealed) until a version of the form-based code can finally be
passed.
18
Approved at the June 28, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Discussions about how to achieve that result are ongoing.
B. Director of Planning & Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
A written report was included in the agenda mailing. It was clarified that the discussion
of “curb lawns” in this report actually concerned “curb gardens.”
9. Adjournment
At this point Marcham left the meeting, and — with no quorum remaining — the meeting
was perforce adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
19