HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-08-23Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
1
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
August 23, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya; Jane Marcham;
John Snyder
Board Members Absent: Bob Boothroyd; Tessa Rudan; Meghan Thoreau
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Applicants Attending: 5-Space Grey Court Parking Lot
Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture;
Ike Nestopoulos, Applicant & Owner
Seneca Way Apartments
Jeff Smetana, Developer;
Bryan Warren, Developer;
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP
107 Cook Street
Jason Demarest, Architect;
Tom Nix, Consultant;
Daniel and Margaret Gregoriu, Owners
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Lois J. Moore, 421 Utica Street, spoke in opposition to all variances requested in the zoning
appeal for the proposed new residential building at 411 E. Lincoln St., and provided two
written statements to the Planning Board. She said the proposed structure would not fit in
with the existing Fall Creek neighborhood due to its height and the parking level proposed
beneath it. She said that the proposed building’s front steps would begin on a mound of land
rising uphill from the East Lincoln St. sidewalk, and that this also would conflict with the
existing neighborhood context. She added that the setback on the west side of the property
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
2
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
should be at least ten feet to adequately protect the adjacent property owner. The Fall Creek
neighborhood has been increasingly popular for people purchasing single-family homes to
purchase, she said, adding that rental properties would not attract permanent neighborhood
residents.
Edward Ostrander, 421 Utica Street, spoke in opposition to all variances requested in the
411 E. Lincoln St. zoning appeal, and submitted a written statement to the Planning Board.
He said he had taught Design and Environmental Analysis at Cornell for 24 years, and that
his students had always been taught to design within constraints. He said he believed a
financially viable building can be built on this lot within the constraints of existing zoning
laws.
He said the structure proposed for 411 East Lincoln is out of character with the neighborhood
because it includes these design elements: (1) a multi-car underground garage; (2) a side wall
with 18 windows; (3) three floors of living space; (4) a building mass that dwarfs existing
houses; and (5) an uncharacteristic change in grade from the sidewalk to the front entrance.
Jan Frieswyk, 409 E. Lincoln Street, spoke in opposition to all variance requests for 411 E.
Lincoln St., and provided the Planning Board with a written statement. She said that the
proposed structure should be considered a four-story structure because it is four stories above
the existing grade of the site, and that buildings of this height are out of character with the
neighborhood. She said that the present schematic drawings do not show the intended
grading upward from the front sidewalk to the house or the grading on the sides or the back,
and that this raised grading is very important and related to drainage and safety. She added
that, for safety reasons, a ten-foot setback should be required on the west side of the lot,
adjacent to her own property. Frieswyk stated that the current owner of 411 E. Lincoln St.
knew the limitations of this site before he purchased it, and that it is not reasonable for him to
expect his neighbors to compromise their quality of life to solve his problems.
Dan Cogan, Fifth Ward Common Council member, submitted the following statement prior
to the meeting (via Jan Frieswyk) in opposition to the zoning appeal for 411 E. Lincoln St.
I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I am out of town on business. I
would like to have my comments read into the record.
I am writing to request that you not grant the variances requested for 411 East Lincoln
Street. I believe that the number of variances make it clear that the building will be out of
scale with the neighborhood.
Several years ago, at my urging, the Planning Department initiated a study to revise the
zoning in Fall Creek to make it more consistent with what is currently built there. As you
know, Fall Creek is a relatively dense neighborhood where houses are built very close to
the sidewalk and, oftentimes, to each other. Many houses do not meet the current setback
requirements. In addition, many of the houses have houses on small lots with accessory
buildings and so exceed the maximum amount of lot coverage. The Planning Department
developed an outline for a planned rezoning that would adjust zoning to bring more
buildings into compliance. When I brought the concept to the Fall Creek Neighborhood
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
3
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
Association, it received a very cool response. The majority of residents in attendance at
that meeting felt that changing the zoning would result in buildings out of scale with the
neighborhood.
I will note that the current request for 411 East Lincoln Street is for 5 variances: height,
area, side yard, lot width, and percent of lot coverage. This is even more than was
requested for 413 East Lincoln when it was first proposed, which needed minor variances
for area and side yard, and I don't know whether all of those were even granted. I copied
that original zoning appeal below. My personal opinion of 413 East Lincoln Street aside,
I have heard many residents express that it is too tall and is out of scale with the
neighborhood.
With the current appeal, I would like to point out that 43.9% lot coverage is actually 25%
more lot coverage than 35%, not 8.9%. On this lot, 35% lot coverage would result in a
footprint of 1,175 SF, while 43.9% lot coverage results in a footprint of 1,473 SF, a 25%
increase.
Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for your service to the city on behalf of
city residents.
Warmly,
Dan Cogan
Chair Schroeder explained to the speakers that the Planning Board has the authority to offer
recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding requested zoning variances, but that the
actual decisions on these variances would be made by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. Site Plan Review
A. 5-Space Parking Lot, 108-110 Eddy Street (Grey Court), Ike Nestopoulos, Applicant
& Owner. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct an
approximately 1,530 SF 5-space asphalt parking lot to be located at the corner of the
property facing the E. State Street/MLK, Jr. Street and Eddy Street intersection. Site
work will include removal of some existing grass, grading, and filling with approximately
120 CY of fill material, construction of a retaining wall that will vary from 11” to 3’7”
height, and installation of a curbcut on Eddy Street. The applicant is proposing a
vegetative screen along the west edge, the retaining wall, and Eddy Street. The property
is in the R-3a residential Zoning District and within the East Hill Historic District. The
project received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission in April 2005. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Acharya:
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
4
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for a 5-space parking area located at 108-110 Eddy
Street (Grey Court), submitted by Ike Nestopoulos, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 1,530 SF 5-space
asphalt parking lot to be located at the corner of the property facing the E. State
Street/MLK, Jr. Street and Eddy Street intersection. Site work will include removal of
some existing grass, grading, and filling with approximately 120 CY of fill material,
construction of a retaining wall that will vary from 11” to 3’7” height, and installation of
a curbcut on Eddy Street. The applicant is proposing a vegetative screen along the west
edge, retaining wall, and Eddy Street. The property is in the R-3a residential Zoning
District and within the East Hill Historic District. The project received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in April 2005, and
WHEREAS: due to its location in an Historic District, this is a Type 1 Action under both
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has
on August 23, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by planning
staff, a drawing entitled “Grey Court Parking Lot, Site Plan and Details (L1),” dated
8/11/11, and prepared by Schickel Architecture and “Retaining Wall Elevation,” dated
7/26/11, with no attribution, and other application materials, 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, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impacts 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, Schroeder, Snyder
Opposed: None
Absent: Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau
Acharya reiterated his contention that the review process was poorly handled in this
particular case. He does not believe the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) should be negotiating with applicants in order to issue them a Certificate of
Appropriateness. However, given that so much work has gone into the application and
the applicant has faithfully submitted to all of the requirements of the process, Acharya
indicated he would vote to approve the site plan.
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
5
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
Chair Schroeder emphasized that there should be communication and coordination
between the ILPC and the Planning Board when, in the future, projects need to be
reviewed and approved by both bodies. He said he does not believe any such
communication occurred in 2005, when the ILPC granted its Certificate of
Appropriateness for this project. He added, though, that the 5-car parking lot approved
then by the ILPC is far more attractive than the 8-car parking lot proposal the ILPC had
initially received.
Nestopoulos remarked that in a prior discussion the Planning Board also expressed a
concern with the fact that ILPC approvals apparently have no ‘sunset clause.’
Regarding the tonight’s resolution for site plan approval, Schroeder suggested revising
the first condition so that it would require (a) tree protection during construction and (b)
painting of the existing shed.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
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 a 5-space parking area located at 108-110 Eddy
Street (Grey Court), submitted by Ike Nestopoulos, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 1,530 SF 5-space
asphalt parking lot to be located at the corner of the property facing the E. State
Street/MLK, Jr. Street and Eddy Street intersection. Site work will include removal of
some existing grass, grading, and filling with approximately 120 CY of fill material,
construction of a retaining wall that will vary from 11” to 3’7” in height, and installation
of a curbcut on Eddy Street. The applicant is proposing a vegetative screen along the
west edge, the retaining wall, and Eddy Street. The property is in the R-3a residential
Zoning District and within the East Hill Historic District. The project received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in
April 2005, and
WHEREAS: due to its location in an Historic District, this is a Type 1 Action under both
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and 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
June 28, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has
on August 23, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by planning
staff, a drawing entitled “Grey Court Parking Lot, Site Plan and Details (L1),” dated
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
6
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
8/11/11, and prepared by Schickel Architecture and “Retaining Wall Elevation,” dated
7/26/11, with no attribution, and other application materials, 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: although the City Traffic Engineer originally recommended (but did not
require) the installation of bike racks, after considering potential bike rack locations and
the fact that tenants currently lock bikes to an existing railing, and weighing the need for
additional vegetative screening against the need for a bike rack, the Planning Board
decided it was more important to provide additional visual screening than additional bike
parking, 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 proposed parking lot at 108-110
Eddy Street, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of revised drawing(s) showing the following:
a. tree protection for the existing trees along State Street, and
b. note that shed will be painted, and
ii. Approval in writing from the City of Ithaca Fire Department that the project
meets City standards for fire access, and
iii. Approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer that the proposed
drywell is sufficient for drainage needs, and
iv. Curbcut requires approval from the City Transportation Engineer.
In Favor: Acharya, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Opposed: None
Absent: Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau
B. Site Plan Review, Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf,
LLP, Applicant for Owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC. Discussion
Only — No Action.
The applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use building with
63,400 total gross SF with 5 stories and a 14-space basement level parking area on the
0.78-acre site. The building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first floor commercial space
and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd-5th floors.
Proposed site development will include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces,
landscaping, and a paved entry plaza. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the nearly
continuous existing curbcut into two curbcuts, one accessing the east surface parking lot
and the other accessing the western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install
a sidewalk and curb lawn along the length of the property. Site development will require
the demolition and removal of the existing building (former Challenge Industries). The
project is in the B-4 Zoning District and is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District.
This is a Type I Action §176-4(h)[4], (k), and (n) under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
7
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which
environmental review was completed in March 2011. As mitigation for potential impacts
identified during Environmental Review, the applicant has redesigned the northern façade
and interior of the building, removed pedestrian access along the northern portion of the
site, and is required to place a permanent deed restriction on the property so that no
building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the footprint of the
currently proposed building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by the City of Ithaca
zoning ordinance, in effect on March 29, 2011. This project has received variances for
height, setbacks, and parking, and requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Jeffrey Smetana of the developer group noted that the applicant has been heavily engaged
in addressing the various issues, concerns, and requests that emerged from prior Planning
Board meetings. A considerable number of changes have been made to the project, with
the principal issue being the relationship of the north elevation to the adjoining residential
neighborhood. Smetana also noted the applicant would like to address in greater detail
some of the required design revisions that have not yet been fully presented to the Board
and confirm with the Board that the design process is going in the right direction.
Architect Steve Hugo noted that most of the applicant’s efforts have focused on making
modifications to the north end of the building. Two dwelling units have been eliminated
at the northern end of the building’s top floor and moved to the south (E. State Street) end
of that floor; therefore, the building now steps down as it faces the residential
neighborhood to the north. In addition, there will not be an occupiable roof terrace on the
building’s north end.
Schroeder asked how high the rooftop mechanicals would project above the roof, to
which Hugo replied, very little: no more than a typical parapet wall, perhaps 3 feet. The
applicant specifically chose mechanical systems that are primarily internal.
Hugo noted that an effort had been made to ‘animate’ the south façade as much as
possible. The building features glazing along E. State Street at the lower level where the
relocated fitness center is now planned.
The rear stair tower is no longer located at the northernmost end of the building. Instead,
it has been incorporated further south into the building itself, sacrificing some
commercial space. As a result of this change, plus the aforementioned removal of two
apartments from the northern end of the top floor, the northern end of the uppermost story
of the building now ends 20-30 feet further south (and thus away from the adjacent
residential neighborhood) from where it initially ended.
Hugo said the applicant had also relocated the roof terrace so that it would look out
toward the Ithaca Commons (as opposed to the previous roof terrace location at the
building’s southeast corner).
He added that the exterior architecture of the building will reflect its interior spaces.
Hence, the commercial floor will be largely glazed and semi-transparent, looking out into
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
8
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
the city.
Hugo noted that efforts were also being made to further articulate the north elevation to
make it thematically consistent with the rest of the building, while also addressing the
need for it to be sensitive to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The goal, he said, is to
create a more pleasing, variegated composition on this elevation, breaking up the mass of
the building in what might be described as a more playful way. The façade elements here
will display a certain degree of variation, being recessed to varying extents. Hugo also
stressed that adjacent neighboring back yards will never be visible from the building’s
interior.
Schroeder observed that the horizontal area between the two levels of mansard roof on
the north end of the building would benefit from being broken up visually. Hugo replied
he would look into making that change.
Landscape architect Peter Trowbridge then led the presentation of the proposed site and
landscape plan changes. In response to an earlier suggestion, Trowbridge said he had
performed a complete assessment of the site’s existing vegetation, documenting its trees
and shrubs and the condition of each to determine which might be saved.
Trowbridge then displayed the revised landscape plan to the Board, emphasizing that
much vegetation will be preserved along the northern property line. Fortuitously, the
areas of vegetation to be preserved feature the trees with the greatest diameter at breast
height. Other areas where new vegetation is required will feature relatively fast-growing,
native perennials at ground level and a few new trees.
Trowbridge said tall vertical light columns were being considered to line the curve of
East State Street and Seneca Way, thereby helping to define that edge of the site. These
light columns are also envisioned as an artful means of providing a gateway into the city
and a beacon from downtown. The columns would also substitute for the absent street
trees, which had to be eliminated to provide adequate sight lines for passing automobiles.
Trees have been added, however, near the main entrance and in the parking area.
Marcham remarked that she does not think that we are ready for this kind of lighting in
downtown Ithaca, that it is too contemporary. Trowbridge said one such light column
already exists downtown, across Tioga Street from Starbucks, in case anyone would like
to view it.
Acharya observed he was going to express precisely the opposite opinion — he very
much likes the light columns. Moreover, he said, they would do a marvelous job of
highlighting the transition into downtown and they also have the potential to help
heighten the artistic features of the site. He said his only concern was how these light
columns would be maintained. Separately, Acharya stressed he still believes the number
of parking spaces should be reduced.
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
9
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
Schroeder said he likes the way the retaining walls bordering the eastern parking lot have
been treated in the new site plan, especially on the northern edge of the property, pointing
to their stone facing and the increased retention of existing trees they allow. Schroeder
stated he also likes the proposed light columns; they represent a net improvement to the
design, and would lend the streetscape more consistency and a visual rhythm.
Smetana informed the Board that attorney Randal Marcus is generating the permanent
deed restriction language for the property. He said it should be fairly straight-forward,
stating simply that no building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the
footprint of the currently proposed building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by
the City of Ithaca zoning ordinance in effect on March 29, 2011. Schroeder asked
Smetana to provide the Board with a copy, to which Smetana agreed.
Trowbridge indicated that written comments from City Traffic Engineer Tim Logue and
Fire Chief Tom Parsons are also expected very shortly.
C. 107 Cook Street – Sketch Plan
Project consultant Tom Nix explained that the proposed project results from the
devastating fire that destroyed the original house on this site in May 2011. The old house
has been demolished and a new one will be constructed on the original site. Nix said the
proposed new building would require a zoning variance.
Architect Jason Demarest walked Board members through the principal features of the
project, noting that the submitted drawings and specifications simply represent the very
first design attempt. As currently composed, the new house would include brick walls at
the basement level, with clapboard siding and trim for the first and second floors, topped
by a third floor behind a mansard roof.
Demarest noted that much of the inspiration for the design comes from the building at the
corner of Cook and Eddy Streets; he said he also examined some features of Cascadilla
Hall. Demarest noted he likes the gables on the Cook and Eddy house and would like to
incorporate some steeply pitched gables into the design, as well.
Schroeder asked about the mansard roof material, to which Demarest replied it would
consist of decorative architectural multi-ply shingles, with an almost scalloped
appearance.
Demarest said the old building had eight units with an allowed total of 18 occupants.
Nine parking spaces were required, but only five were provided, resulting in a deficiency
of four spaces.
The new building would also have eight units, but only 14 occupants. The break-down
would be two two-bedroom units on the first through third floors, plus two one-bedroom
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
10
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
units in the basement. Eight parking spaces would be required, and six provided, resulting
in a deficiency of two spaces.
Schroeder stated that the current design could be made to work. However, he suggested
that the new building be redesigned to include a first-story front porch projecting out
from the building on the Cook Street façade. Schroeder said this would make the building
much more contextual with the existing houses in its vicinity. He observed that the recent
proposed Collegetown zoning amendments, which were not ultimately approved, would
have required both a front porch and a gabled roof.
Demarest agreed with this suggestion. However, he said a hardship element exists. With
the extent of required parking in the back, Demarest said he would be hard-pressed to
move the north face further south to allow room for the porch.
Acharya asked why the building could not, in fact, be moved back, to which Nix replied
it is already exactly on the required front yard setback line from Cook Street.
Schroeder said a parking space could perfectly easily be eliminated in the back to allow
the building to be moved back on the site, thereby allowing the requisite space for a front
porch. In addition, Schroeder suggested there be more of a slope to the mansard roofs to
make them more closely resemble standard mansard design, and that the windows on this
level be modified to look more like mansard roof dormers and less like bay windows.
Demarest agreed with Schroeder’s suggestions and said he would try to incorporate them
into the design.
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2858 — 411 E. Lincoln Street: Area Variance
Appeal of George Frantz on behalf of the owner Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc. for an area
variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, lot width at street, Column 9, height in feet, Column
10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 12, side yard dimension, and Column 14/15, rear-
yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-
family dwelling on the parcel located at 411 East Lincoln Street. The parcel currently
contains an existing dwelling that will be demolished to make way for the new three-story
building. The proposed three-story building measures 36’ 9” above finish grade, exceeding
the maximum allowable height by 1’ 9” of the 35’ required by the zoning ordinance. The
proposed building will exceed the allowable lot coverage by 8.9%, having 43.9% of the
maximum 35% lot coverage required by the zoning ordinance. The building will be
positioned 2.58’ from the east side property line, causing a side-yard deficiency of 7.42’ of
the 10’ required by the zoning ordinance. The rear-yard setback of the proposed building will
be 22% or 22’ 3” of the 25% or 50’ required by the zoning ordinance. The parcel has an
existing deficiency in lot width at street of 33.2’ of the 35’ required by the zoning ordinance,
which will not be exacerbated by the proposed new building.
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
11
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
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.
Note: Appeal #2858 was not reviewed at 8/10/11 BZA meeting, because applicant did not
comply with zoning ordinance requirement that calls for a letter be sent to neighbors within
200 feet of property, informing them of appeal. Letter should have been sent 5 days before
Planning Board hearing, to provide interested parties an opportunity to express their opinions
to Planning Board.
Members of the Planning Board have the following concerns about this project.
• The request for additional height is not large compared to the allowable height, and
Board members feel the appellant should be able design the building within that
allowable height
• The applicant should provide a grading and drainage plan to ensure that roof run-off
does not affect the adjacent property
• Board members are concerned about the effect of the side-yard variance on
neighbors’ views and privacy
• Neighbors have expressed concerns that notification was not properly done
Appeal #2860 — 410 Elmira Rd.: Area Variance
Appeal of Widewaters Route 13 II Company, LLC for area variance from Section 325-29.2
(B) (3), building setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, located at 410
Elmira Road, is located in an SW-3 zone district that requires a building or buildings be
positioned with a maximum setback of 34 feet from the curb and a minimum setback of 15
feet and the building must occupy 35% of the lot’s street frontage. The lot width at the street
is 292.28 feet and 35% of the frontage or 102.3 feet is required to comply with the zoning
ordinance. The existing building width is 102.5 feet, but only 69 feet of the building is within
the 15’-34’ setback from the curb, causing a deficiency of 33.3 feet of building occupying the
lot’s street frontage. The zoning ordinance allows a third of the required 35% building
frontage to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. The applicant is seeking relief
from this requirement due to the typography and site constraints of the existing structure. The
existing floor elevation of the building is 4-5 feet lower than the curb height and installing an
architectural wall 3-4 feet in height would not visually meet the intent of the Planning
Board’s guidelines for the southwest district.
The property is located in an SW-3 business use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-40 requires a variance be granted to bring the property into
compliance.
Members of the Planning Board feel strongly that the Southwest Area Design Guidelines and
the SW-3 zoning requirements should be adhered to, so that the vision for development in this
area is carried out. However, 410 Elmira Road poses a unique situation. The building and
associated parking lot are at a lower elevation than the sidewalk, tree lawn, and roadway by
at least 3 feet. A black pipe railing exists along the inside edge of the sidewalk, to prevent
falls, and visually serves the same purpose as an architectural wall. The construction of an
architectural wall to fulfill the zoning requirements would not be seen from the street and
would therefore not form a continuous street wall, as was intended by this requirement. In
addition, the building houses both a mattress store and a drive-through bank. If the wall
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
12
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
were constructed as an extension of the building, it could pose a hazard to drivers using the
drive-through and may suffer continuous damage from vehicles.
5. New Business
A. Project Review Committee Rotation Schedule
Resigned Board member David Kay’s former slot on the Project Review Committee is
now being replaced each month by a one of those Planning Board members who are not
standing committee members, in an informal rotation. (The standing members are
currently Chair Schroeder and Marcham.)
Snyder said he might be able to be the rotation member at the September 20, 2011 Project
Review Committee meeting. He will need to check his calendar first, however.
Should Snyder not be available, Schroeder said an e-mail request for a volunteer should
be sent by staff to the entire Board.
6. Old Business
A. Waterfront Zoning Revisions
Schroeder summarized the recent proposed changes to the ongoing project to revise the
Waterfront Zoning. He noted that various people had expressed serious concerns about
the setback requirements previously proposed; the previous proposal, for example,
required building setbacks from the shoreline only for those lots greater than 110 feet in
depth. This, however, was a very artificial criterion, said Schroeder; first and foremost
should be the desired relationship of buildings to the shoreline at various waterfront
locations.
The newly-revised ordinance would split the Waterfront into two separate zones:
(1) In the areas that have the form of a narrow urban canal with many close-in buildings
(such as the Old Cayuga Inlet east of Inlet Island and the portion of Six Mile Creek just
west of Route 13), there would be no setback requirement. Most of the lots in this area
are smaller, to begin with, so any setback here would be difficult to achieve — and public
access at or near the waterfront will be provided through much of this area by the future
Cayuga Waterfront Trail.
(2) In the areas fronting the broad Flood Control Channel — e.g., Farmers’ Market,
Department of Transportation (DoT) site and the west side of Inlet Island — building
setbacks from the shoreline, or from the inner edge of the future Cayuga Waterfront Trail
easement, would be required. Such setbacks are already required by the Flood Control
Channel easement on Inlet Island, and setbacks from the proposed Cayuga Waterfront
Trail on the relatively large DoT site will ensure that space exists on the inland side of the
trail there for the planting of trees and the provision of amenities appurtenant to the trail.
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
13
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Schroeder said the process to create a new City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan will
recommence soon, and that preparatory to this the Planning Board will have to appoint
and charge a reconstituted Comprehensive Plan Committee. There have been
suggestions that this committee be smaller, and — in any case — the Planning Board
will have to name replacements for former members who have dropped out of the
process due to the delays associated with the need to abandon the originally-selected
comprehensive plan consultant firm and choose another. Schroeder said the current
intention is for the Planning Board to approve a resolution appointing and charging a
reconstituted Comprehensive Plan Committee at its September 27, 2011 Planning
Board meeting, thereby allowing that reconstituted body to begin meeting in October.
B. Director of Planning and Development
Senior Planner Nicholas reported on the following four items:
(1) In 2009, the Planning Board approved a site plan for a temporary access road and
parking area located between University and Central Avenues, next to the Johnson
Museum, where an addition was being built. One of the conditions of approval was
that this temporary road and parking area be removed after the addition was complete, with
the Libe Slope landscape then being restored to its prior state. Cornell has indicated it is
now ready to do this, but has submitted some minor changes to the Board for its
review. Nicholas distributed a handout of the proposed changes, which slightly alter a
previous pedestrian path alignment near University Avenue, widen the paths, and add
a new branch path to Central Avenue.
Acharya said that he thinks the changes are good. Schroeder said it may be helpful to
add some plantings close to the new path at the location where the temporary access
road met University Avenue, to emphasize the pedestrian nature of this new (and
wider) path.
(2) Regarding the Cornell Means Restriction application, Schroeder noted at the recent
Project Review Committee meeting that the full impact of this project could not be
effectively assessed by the Board until some actual netting and fencing samples had
been installed and viewed by Board members. It was then decided that, for this and
other reasons, it would be desirable for the Planning Board to tour each of the
affected bridges. This will most likely occur on two separate dates.
Acharya said that the applicant’s submission was not as detailed as he would have
expected. Schroeder agreed, stating that the Board needs to be able to understand in
Approved at the February 28, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
14
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2011\0823
detail precisely how the nets or fences will be arranged on or under the bridges and
their approaches.
Nicholas said the applicant will provide revised details of each bridge design before
the Board’s site visits. Schroeder added that the applicant should provide illustrations
showing the proposed means restriction on bridges as seen from adjacent bridges (for
example, the Suspension Bridge and the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek can
each be viewed from the other).
(3) Nicholas reported an Article 78 lawsuit had been filed against the Planning Board
regarding the Collegetown Terrace Apartments Project. She said any and all
communications relating to this suit should be directed to the City Attorney. She said
she would e-mail the relevant documents to the Planning Board.
(4) Nicholas noted that the site plan review process for the new City Water Plant is
expected to begin shortly. At the end of September, a joint City committee will be
established to review the project design.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
A written report was submitted.
BPW Liaison Acharya noted there has been considerable discussion between the
Mayor and a couple of BPW commissioners regarding the scope of the City Charter
review and the comparative legal authority of the BPW vs. the Common Council. The
discussion originated from the perception that the BPW essentially functions as a
separate governmental entity, which is not ultimately responsible to the Common
Council (and, being unelected, therefore not accountable to Ithaca City voters). One of
the subjects of discussion was the lengthy “water plant rebuild vs. Bolton Point”
dispute, and the questions that subsequently arose about whether the BPW should have
been the sole acting authority in the matter.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Snyder, the minutes of the August 3, 2011 special
meeting were unanimously approved by the Board.
In Favor: Acharya, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder
Opposed: None
Absent: Boothroyd, Rudan, Thoreau
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Acharya, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.