HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-12-20DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
December 20, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd
(arrived at 6:08); Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; Meghan
Thoreau
Board Members Absent: John Snyder
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning &
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning &
Development;
Lynn Truame; Historic Preservation & Neighborhood
Planner, Department of Planning & Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning &
Development
Applicants Attending: Fairfield Inn
Larry Fabbroni, Sr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors;
Larry Fabbroni, Jr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors
Means Restriction on Seven Bridges
Andrew Magré, Associate University Architect, Cornell
University;
John Keefe, Capital Projects & Planning, Cornell
University
208 Delaware Avenue
David Bravo-Cullen, Cornerstone Architects;
George Avramis, Owner
Collegetown Crossing (307 College Ave.)
Josh Lower, Applicant;
Jagat Sharma, Jagat P. Sharma Architect;
Rob Morache, New Earth Living, LLC
Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) 8-Car Parking Lot
Rick Manning, Rick Manning Landscape Architect;
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. Agenda Review
Schroeder suggested adding an agenda item to review and approve the language of the deed
restriction associated with the Fairfield Inn project at 359 Elmira Road. Nicholas
recommended reviewing zoning appeal #2867 earlier in the meeting than originally
scheduled, so the appellant is not forced to remain for the entire meeting. No objections
were raised.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke in support of the proposed Holiday Inn expansion project and
advocated generally for more development within the city. Separately, in relation to the
Cornell means restriction project, he insisted that more still needs to be done to discourage
jumping suicides.
Schroeder read the following letter regarding the 208 Delaware Avenue site plan review
application into the record, as submitted by Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Avenue:
I am writing with regard to the Site Plan Review (SPR) application for 208 Delaware Avenue, on
the agenda for the December board meeting. I had attended the November board meeting,
intending to speak on this matter (which was postponed), and I cannot attend this evening’s
meeting.
My comments are made from the perspective of a resident and owner of 200 Delaware Avenue
with my husband since 1979. The comments are general, as I have not viewed the proposal since
that of November, but they remain relevant in the hope of guiding your consideration of the
specifics of the current proposal.
The SPR application asks in #3 for a description of “any existing restrictions relevant to
developments on this property,” and the application of 9/26/11 indicated “None.” I would note,
however, in the settlement reached between the owner and the City in summer 2011, that while
the property enjoys a legally non-conforming use as a multiple-residence, the landscaping plan
should have “trees of a substantial size, along shared boundaries, and other vegetation appropriate
to and typical of a yard in an R-1 residential zoning district.” I would note that the character of
the property as R-1b is particularly important on this west side of Delaware Avenue, where it
abuts on the rear the more intensive R-3b use of Linden Avenue properties, a more intensive use
that is likely to continue in any future Collegetown rezoning. The impacts of landscaping given
these conditions is clear in a comparison of Tompkins County Department of Assessment
photographs of the property taken before and after changes made to the property within the past
two years.
My second concern in this application is with the proposed “shed.” The site previously had a
one-car garage, seen in the earlier assessment department photo. It is important to the balance
and character of this neighborhood that the replacement “shed” meet the specific terms of the
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
recent settlement and not be a potential added dwelling unit which could illegally increase the
currently legal non-conformity.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns regarding the landscape and shed proposed
for 208 Delaware Avenue.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Subdivision Review, Lot Consolidation & Subdivision, 620-628 Spencer Road &
357-359 Elmira Road, (City of Ithaca Tax Parcels: 129.-1-1, 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8,
129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-7.2 & 129.-1-10.2), Bill Manos, Applicant/Owner. Public
Hearing & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant proposes to
reconfigure the following tax parcels: 129.-1-9, equaling 15,864.3 SF (.364 acres),
frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-8, equaling 15,179 SF (.349 acres), frontage on
Spencer Road; 129.-1-7.2, equaling 13,146.3 SF (.302 acres), with no street frontage;
129.-1-6.2, equaling 34,875.1SF (.801 acres) containing an existing residence and with
frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-1, equaling 58,365.4 SF (1.340 acres), containing an
existing restaurant and with frontage on Elmira Road; and 129.-1-10.2, equaling
31,892.8 SF (.732 acres), containing an existing retail building and with frontage on
Elmira Road. The applicant proposes to create the following 3 new parcels: Parcel 1
(Fairfield Inn Building Site), equaling 76,953.3 SF (1.77 acres) with 185 feet of
frontage on Elmira Road and 201 feet of frontage on Spencer Road; Parcel 2, equaling
70,840.4 SF (1.63 acres) with 481 feet of frontage on Elmira Road; and Parcel 3
(current residence), equaling 21,529.3 SF (.494 acres) with 94 feet of frontage on
Spencer Road. The parcels are in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts. The SW-2
Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and the R-2a Zoning District has a
minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and 45 feet of street frontage for a single-family
detached dwelling. This consolidation and subdivision was a condition of Site Plan
Approval for the Fairfield Inn project, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead
Agency in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance on July 26, 2011. This action is consistent with that determination and
does not require further environmental review.
Adopted Final Approval Resolution:
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision involving of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcels, 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8, 129.-1-7.2, 129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-1, and 129.-1-10.2 in the City of
Ithaca, by Bill Manos, applicant/owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to reconfigure the following tax parcels: 129.-1-9,
equaling 15,864.3 SF (.364 acres), with frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-8, equaling 15,179
SF (.349 acres), with frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-7.2, equaling 13,146.3 SF (.302 acres),
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
with no street frontage; 129.-1-6.2, equaling 34,875.1 SF (.801 acres), containing an existing
residence and with frontage on Spencer Road; 129.-1-1, equaling 58,365.4 SF (1.340 acres),
containing an existing restaurant and with frontage on Elmira Road; and 129.-1-10.2, equaling
31,892.8 SF (.732 acres), containing an existing retail building and with frontage on Elmira
Road. The applicant proposes to create the following 3 new parcels: PARCEL 1 (Fairfield Inn
Building Site), equaling 76,953.3 SF (1.77 acres) with 185 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and
201 feet of frontage on Spencer Road; PARCEL 2, equaling 70,840.4 SF (1.63 acres) with 481
feet of frontage on Elmira Road; and PARCEL 3 (current residence), equaling 21,529.3 SF (.494
acres) with 94 feet of frontage on Spencer Road. The parcels are in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning
Districts. The SW-2 Zoning District has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and the R-2a Zoning
District has a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF and 45 feet of street frontage for a single-family
detached dwelling. This consolidation and subdivision was stated as a requirement in the Final
Site Plan Approval resolution for the Fairfield Inn project, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting
in creation of two or more additional buildable lots, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review. This action was stated as a requirement in the Final Site Plan Approval
resolution for the Fairfield Inn project, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency
in environmental review, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on July
26, 2011. This action is consistent with that determination and does not require further
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners
notified, in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C) (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on
November 22, 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 received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Board did on November 22, 2011 review and accept as adequate a drawing
entitled “Final Subdivision Plat Manos Properties,” prepared by Fabbroni Engineers and
Surveyors and dated 10/20/11, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the SW-2 and R-2a Zoning Districts, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on November 22, 2011 grant preliminary subdivision
approval to the project, now, therefore, be it
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant final
subdivision approval to the proposed consolidations and subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcels 129.-1-9, 129.-1-8, 129.-1-7.2, 129.-1-6.2, 129.-1-1, and 129.-1-10.2, located at 357-
359 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca, subject to the condition that the applicant submit three
(3) paper and one (1) mylar official copies of the final plat to the Planning Department.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
6. Zoning Appeals
APPEAL #2867 ― Area Variance: 602-612 W. Seneca Street
Appeal of Lawrence Frabbroni, on behalf of the owner James and Antoinette Iacovelli,
for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, the required building height of the
zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a three-story apartment building
located at 602-612 W. Seneca Street. The building will contain 24 apartments and a
commercial suite for a rental office. The building design is for residential use and, in
order to optimize energy efficiency, life-safety systems, and maintain a load basis that is
acceptable for the soil conditions for the parcel, the applicant proposes to provide 8-foot
ceilings for the building. The parcel is located in the WEDZ-1a zone, which requires
each story to be a minimum of 12’ in height. The proposed building will have 9’6” floor
to floor height causing a deficiency of 2’6” of the 12’ minimum height required, of each
floor, by the zoning ordinance. The height of the proposed building will be 28’6”, plus
the roof at 11’2½”, for an average height of 34’1¼”. The average height exceeds the
WEDZ-1a zone requirement having 34’1½” of the 24’ and 5’ cornice of the zoning
ordinance.
The property is located in a WEDZ-1a, West End Development Zone, in which the
proposed use as a multiple dwelling is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a
variance be granted before a building permit may be issued.
The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal and feels that the minimum
story height requirements for upper stories in this Zoning District should be revisited.
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4. Recreational River Permits — Fencing Associated with Means Restrictions Projects
on Stewart Avenue Bridge at Fall Creek, Thurston Ave. Bridge, and Beebe
Footbridge. Consideration of Completeness of Applications & Determination of
Public Hearing Date.
Adopted Recreational River Permit Resolution — Stewart Avenue Bridge at Fall Creek:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya:
WHEREAS: an application for a Fall Creek Recreational River Permit has been submitted to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board by Cornell University, and
WHEREAS: the permit is required due to an incursion of vertical fencing into the designated
Recreational River Area as part the means restriction project on Stewart Avenue Bridge at Fall
Creek, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is acting as a delegate for the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, pursuant to Title 27,15-2714.3hh of
the State of New York Environmental Conservation Law, and
WHEREAS: the proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets,
supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the
bridge. Eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-walls will be attached to the north and south sides of the
panel system and will be located below bridge deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be
approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from
the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is composed of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-
grade stainless steel cable netting with a 140 millimeter grid (6 inch) attached to a horizontal steel
strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net and wing-walls will have a high-
performance black coating to reduce visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be painted to
match the existing bridge paint color. The project includes installation of sections of eight-foot high
black chain-link or mesh net fencing at all abutments, thermal sensors located below bridge deck
level on each side of the bridge, a new blue-light phone with a security camera located at the
southeast corner of the bridge, and signs with crisis line information. All temporary black grid
fencing and fence posts currently in place will be removed and the existing stone wall located at the
southeast corner will be repaired. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on November 22, 2011 make a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance for the project, and
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has reviewed the application for completeness and has, with
assistance of City staff, found the application to be complete in accordance with the requirements of
621.4(d), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby finds that the
Recreational River Permit application for the means restriction project on Stewart Avenue Bridge at
Fall Creek is complete, and be it further
RESOLVED: that a public hearing on the application will be held by the Planning and
Development Board at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby directs the City of
Ithaca Planning staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completeness of the application
in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and distributing the application to all involved agencies and
the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence public review of the project.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Adopted Recreational River Permit Resolution — Thurston Avenue Bridge:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: an application for a Fall Creek Recreational River Permit has been submitted to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board by Cornell University, and
WHEREAS: the permit is required due to an incursion of vertical fencing into the designated
Recreational River Area as part the means restriction project on Thurston Avenue Bridge at Fall
Creek, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is acting as a delegate for the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Title 27,15-2714.3hh of the
State of New York Environmental Conservation Law, and
WHEREAS: the proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets,
supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the
bridge. Eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-walls will be attached to the northwest and southeast
ends of the panel system and will be located below bridge deck level. The proposed mesh nets will
be approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out
from the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is composed of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch)
marine-grade stainless steel cable netting with a 140 millimeter grid (6 inch), attached to a
horizontal steel strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The nets and wing-walls
will have a high-performance black coating to reduce visibility, and the galvanized steel struts will
be painted to match the existing bridge paint color. The project includes the installation of new
black chain-link fencing at the bridge abutments. All temporary black grid fencing and fence posts
currently in place will be removed from the bridge and abutments and informational plaques that
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
were removed and stored when the temporary fencing was installed will be put back in their original
locations. The project also includes installation of thermal sensors located below bridge deck level
on each side of the bridge, a new security camera located on an existing light pole north of the
bridge, and signs with crisis line information. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did, on November 22, 2011 make a Negative Determination of
Environmental significance for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has reviewed the application for completeness and has, with
assistance of City staff, found the application to be complete in accordance with the requirements of
621.4(d), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby finds that the
Recreational River Permit application for the means restriction project on Thurston Avenue Bridge
at Fall Creek is complete, and be it further
RESOLVED: that a public hearing on the application will be held by the Planning and
Development Board at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby directs the City of
Ithaca Planning staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completeness of the application
in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and distributing the application to all involved agencies and
the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence public review of the project.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Adopted Recreational River Permit Resolution — Beebe Footbridge:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: an application for a Fall Creek Recreational River Permit has been submitted to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board by Cornell University, and
WHEREAS: the permit is required due to an incursion of vertical fencing into the designated
Recreational River Area as part the means restriction project on Beebe Footbridge at Fall Creek, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is acting as a delegate for the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Title 27,15-2714.3hh of the
State of New York Environmental Conservation Law, and
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the proposed means restriction system comprises horizontal stainless steel mesh nets,
supported by steel struts projecting from the bottom of the bridge structure at each side of the
bridge. An eight-foot high vertical mesh wing-wall will be attached to the northwest side of the
panel system and will be located below bridge deck level. The proposed mesh nets will be
approximately 15’0” below the top of the existing bridge guardrail and will project 15’0” out from
the edge of the guardrail. The mesh net system is composed of 3 millimeter (0.19 inch) marine-
grade stainless steel cable netting with a 140 millimeter grid (6 inch) attached to a horizontal steel
strut system made of 5” diameter galvanized steel pipe. The net and wing-wall will have a high-
performance black coating in order to reduce its visibility and the galvanized steel struts will be
painted black. The project includes installation of black chain-link or mesh net fencing at bridge
abutments. The project also includes installation of thermal sensors located below the bridge deck
level on each side of the bridge, a new blue-light phone with a security camera located at the
northeast corner of the bridge, and signs with crisis line information. This project is in the U-1
Zoning district, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on November 22, 2011 make a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has reviewed the application for completeness and has, with
assistance of City staff, found the application to be complete in accordance with the requirements of
621.4(d), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby finds that the
Recreational River Permit application for the means restriction project on Beebe Footbridge at Fall
Creek is complete, and be it further
RESOLVED: that a public hearing on the application will be held by the Planning and Development
Board at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby directs the City of
Ithaca Planning staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completeness of the application
in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and distributing the application to all involved agencies and
the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence public review of the project.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
5. Site Plan Review
A. Means Restriction on Seven Bridges
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. Means Restriction on Stewart Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek, Stewart Avenue
over Fall Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca, Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
2. Means Restriction on Stewart Ave. Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, Stewart
Avenue over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca,
Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham:
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Means Restriction on Thurston Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek, Thurston
Avenue over Fall Creek, Cornell University, Applicant, City of Ithaca,
Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
4. Means Restriction on Suspension Bridge over Fall Creek, Cornell University
between University Ave. & Fall Creek Drive over Fall Creek, Cornell
University, Applicant & Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
5. Means Restriction on Beebe Dam Footbridge over Fall Creek, Cornell
University Campus between Forest Home Drive & Cradit Farm Drive,
Cornell University, Applicant & Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6. Means Restriction on Stone Arch Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, College
Avenue over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
7. Means Restriction on Trolley Footbridge over Cascadilla Creek, Cornell
University between Oak Avenue & Hollister Drive over Cascadilla Creek,
Cornell University, Applicant & Owner.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
(The text of this resolution may be obtained by contacting the Planning &
Development Department.)
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Boothroyd asked whether it would be difficult for a person landing in one of the nets to
move around, to which Keefe replied, yes, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to
maneuver themselves either within or out of the netting.
Schroeder expressed his appreciation for all of the work the design team invested in the
project and lauded its willingness to accommodate the concerns of both the Planning Board
and other city officials. The project is an excellent example of what close collaboration
between Cornell University and the City can achieve.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B. Site Landscaping & Shed, 208 Delaware Avenue, Maria Avramis, Applicant &
Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The
applicant proposes to install new sidewalks, a patio with retaining wall, two parking
spaces, a new retaining wall along the south property line, a 14’x20’ shed with
concrete pad, landscaping, including grass, shrubs and trees, and a green retention
area. The lot was previously cleared of vegetation. This project is subject to site plan
review as part of a Stipulated Settlement between the City and the applicant. The
project is in the R-1b Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City
of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Bravo-Cullen recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Regarding the
recently submitted landscape plan, he noted the intent is now to plant Wichita
junipers to maximize the amount of year-round screening, in response to some Board
members’ concerns with the plants at the end of the driveway. Burning bushes will
also be employed, as well as some ornamental grasses near the shed; and a window
has been incorporated into the rear of the shed.
Schroeder asked if it would not be appropriate to add at least one bike rack to the
design, to which Avramis replied, while he could certainly do that, in his experience
students actually tend to prefer to bring their bikes indoors. Alternately, in this case,
they could also lock them onto the railing on the front porch.
Schroeder asked about the color for the concrete block system, to which Bravo-
Cullen replied it would be one of the two submitted. Rudan remarked that the darker
the color the better, to make the concrete blocks appear less ‘concrete-ish’.
Schroeder asked the applicant to select a genuinely earthtone shade, to which the
applicant agreed.
Nicholas asked about the use of the Norway spruce. Bravo-Cullen indicated that,
after consulting with Cayuga Landscape, the decision was made to use the Norway
spruce, since it grows faster than blue spruce.
Rudan suggested the text of the resolutions explicitly define the shed as a storage
shed.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Adopted Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for the installation of site landscaping and a shed by Maria
Avramis, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to install new sidewalks, a patio with retaining wall, two
parking spaces, a new retaining wall along the south and west property lines, a 14’x20’
storage shed with concrete pad, landscaping including grass, trees and shrubs, and a green
retention area. The lot was previously cleared of vegetation. This project is subject to site
plan review as part of a Stipulated Settlement (Index Number: 2011-0481), dated 9/15/11,
between the City and the applicant. The project is in the R-1b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
installation of site landscaping and a shed to be located at 208 Delaware Ave. in the City of
Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion
by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Adopted CEQR Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for the installation of site landscaping and a shed by Maria
Avramis, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to install new sidewalks, a patio with retaining wall, two
parking spaces, a new retaining wall along the south and west property lines, a 14’x20’
storage shed with concrete pad, landscaping including grass, trees, and shrubs, and a green
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
retention area. The lot was previously cleared of vegetation. This project is subject to site
plan review as part of a Stipulated Settlement (Index Number: 2011-0481), dated 9/15/11,
between the City and the applicant. The project is in the R-1b Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on December
20, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff, and plans entitled
“Proposed Site Plan (ST1),” “Existing Conditions Site Plan (EC1),” and “Proposed Grading
and Drainage Plan (GD1),” all dated 10/14/11, and “Proposed Landscape Plan (L1),” dated
10/14/11 and revised 12/14/11, and “Proposed Shed Elevations (SA1 & SA2)” (versions with
10-foot rather than 12-foot eave height), dated 12/12/11, and prepared by Cornerstone
Architects, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and all comments have been considered, now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed installation of site landscaping and shed 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, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for the installation of site landscaping and a shed by Maria
Avramis, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to install new sidewalks, a patio with retaining wall, two
parking spaces, a new retaining wall along the south and west property lines, a 14’x20’
storage shed with concrete pad, landscaping including grass, trees, and shrubs, and a green
retention area. The lot was previously cleared of vegetation. This project is subject to site
plan review as part of a Stipulated Settlement (Index Number: 2011-0481), dated 9/15/11,
between the City and the applicant. The project is in the R-1b Zoning District, and
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted 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 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: 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
December 20, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on December
20, 2011 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff, and plans entitled
“Proposed Site Plan (ST1),” “Existing Conditions Site Plan (EC1),” and “Proposed Grading
and Drainage Plan (GD1),” all dated 10/14/11, and “Proposed Landscape Plan (L1),” dated
10/14/11 and revised 12/14/11, and “Proposed Shed Elevations (SA1 & SA2)” (versions with
10-foot rather than 12-foot eave height), dated 12/12/11, and prepared by Cornerstone
Architects, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on December
20, 2011 determine that the proposed installation of site landscaping and a shed to be located
at 208 Delaware Ave. in the City of Ithaca will result in no significant impact on the
environment, 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 installation of site landscaping and
a shed to be located at 208 Delaware Ave. in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following
condition:
i. the “small block” wall system shall have a tan or brown earthtone color; the
applicant shall choose the specific color within this range.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
C. Sketch Plan – Collegetown Crossing (307 College Ave.)
Sharma recapitulated the salient details of the proposed application and presented a
series of draft drawings. Situated to the south of the Collegetown fire station, the
proposed building would fill the entire footprint from Linden Avenue to College
Avenue and encompass 46,000 gross square feet on 6 floors.
Sharma indicated the objective of the design is to create as inviting a building as
possible, including multiple publicly accessible features, such as a pedestrian arcade
running from Linden Avenue to College Avenue. Two store fronts would be located
on the College Avenue side (one of which is likely to be a new GreenStar Natural
Foods Market store). The building will also feature a bike rack and a TCAT bus
waiting area.
Sharma noted the building would be composed primarily of brick, which would be
broken up to some extent by the incorporation of the arcade. To further break up the
massing of the building, the fifth floor would be set back; and Sharma is also
exploring adding banding elements to the walls and creating shadow lines to make
the blank wall appear more interesting (for which the owner has agreed to sacrifice
some bedrooms). Courtyards would also be located at regular intervals to provide
light and ventilation to the rooms.
Sharma noted the applicant is also exploring incorporating solar panels into an
awning for the building, which would also shield the building from direct sunlight.
Sharma indicated the building would fill the entire lot, up to the property line, so
scaffolding will likely not be an option during construction. Given the small lot size,
Sharma noted, neither on-site nor off-site parking is being proposed for the project
and the applicant will be seeking the associated variance.
Morache remarked he is working on the parking- and transportation-related aspects of
the project. He is currently preparing a comparative analysis to identify the impacts
of parking vs. the impacts of no parking, but he believes the negative impacts
associated with including parking considerably outweigh any negative impacts
associated with its omission. Morache indicated that a lease provision would be
employed to help track resident vehicle ownership and use; and alternative
transportation methods would be explained and promoted in the tenant orientation
materials.
Schroeder asked if documentation would be obtained to validate that tenants have in
fact secured legal parking spaces, to which Morache replied, yes. A penalty would be
imposed for non-compliance. Morache noted the applicant conducted a survey,
which indicated that 39% of respondents owned a vehicle. The survey also
demonstrated that people’s willingness to bring their vehicles to Ithaca appears
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
directly correlated to the cost of parking. The applicant is investigating the
possibility of providing TCAT bus passes and Ithaca Carshare usage credits to any
interested residents, as well as other ways to promote alternative transportation
methods. Streetscape improvements will also be explored.
Lower observed that one of the things students consistently express an interest in
seeing in Collegetown is a full-service grocery store. As a result, Lower is
negotiating with GreenStar (which signed a letter of intent) to lease a large piece of
commercial space in the building.
Cornish asked why the eastern façade does not have windows, to which Sharma
replied the building would be right on the property line, so they would not be
permitted, per City Code. Schroeder remarked something should still be done to
break up the massing of that particular façade, to which Sharma agreed, noting that he
would work with Code Inspector Niechwiadowicz on some alternative designs.
Rudan asked if all the bedrooms would have windows, to which Sharma replied, yes.
Cornish asked if the applicant planned on incorporating any green landscaping at all,
to which Sharma replied that this would be difficult, given the proximity of the fire
station and the proposed TCAT bus stop. Certainly, however, the applicant could
explore the issue.
Lower noted he performed a foot-traffic count, which indicated maximum foot-traffic
is approximately 9,000 people per day. This will make it a challenge to create any
kind of greenscape that would endure. Thoreau suggested using concrete planters in
some way.
Rudan remarked she would almost prefer to see the same project designed without
employing the Linden Avenue property. Otherwise, the whole project simply looks
too tight for the space.
Acharya remarked he thinks the project is a great idea and needs but a few
modifications. He likes the proposed use of solar panels; however, it would seem
more logical to place them on the roof, to make the most of the sunlight. Acharya
also expressed concern with the lack of a loading dock.
Morache responded to concerns about the lack of greenscape by suggesting the use of
greenery on the façade itself. Furthermore, he suggested the use of polychromy on
the façade to improve its appearance.
Lower remarked that the lack of a loading dock and the addition of the bus stop had
both been examined by City and TCAT officials, who tentatively seemed to approve
them. Cornish noted it may certainly be feasible to omit a loading dock and include
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
the TCAT bus stop/shelter in that location, but the issue will need to be more
thoroughly investigated. Lower added that both the downtown Greenstar store and
the Collegetown Wilson Farms store currently use on-street loading without any
apparent complications.
Schroeder remarked that parking is probably the single most significant
environmental issue associated with the project, as initially proposed. The key
consideration will be the extent to which the proposed parking mitigation strategies
would be enforceable. Rudan agreed, stressing that no reliable data currently exists
to shed light on the real feasibility of what the applicant is proposing with respect to
parking.
Acharya indicated he would see it as a negative impact, if the applicant were to
provide all of the parking ordinarily required. Schroeder stressed that the critical
issue is the extent to which the lack of parking would have a negative impact on
surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Rudan added that it is also a fairness
issue, given that adjacent property owners have all generally adhered to zoning
requirements. Moreover, in her opinion, parking spillover seems inevitable. Acharya
responded he would like to see some data to support that.
Cornish remarked that the discussion serves to illustrate that the city definitely needs
a comprehensive parking study, as well as a thorough re-examination of the City’s
parking requirements.
Historically, Rudan observed, numerous Collegetown storefronts have failed,
especially if they are stepped back or are not in a highly prominent location; so she
would be concerned with the viability of the proposed commercial storefronts.
Strictly speaking, Cornish remarked, the use of the storefronts does not fall within the
purview of the Planning Board.
Schroeder encouraged the applicant to emphasize the pedestrian arcade and alleyway
as much as possible. Nineteenth Century European arcades and gallerias, for
example, may serve as a good model to follow. He thanked the applicant for its
presentation.
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
D. 8-Car Parking Lot for Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU), 634 W. Seneca
Street, AFCU Applicant & Owner. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant
proposes to install an 8-car parking lot for staff use on the 3,600 SF parcel at the
northeast corner of N. Fulton and W. Seneca Streets. The project includes the
demolition of the existing 2-story building on the site, installation of 2,840 SF of new
paving, 760 SF of new landscaping, a new curb cut on N. Fulton Street, drainage
improvements, signage, and lighting. Circulation through the parking lot will be one-
way, with the proposed parking entry at the existing curbcut on Seneca Street and the
exit at the new curbcut on Fulton Street. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning
District. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is
subject to environmental review. The project requires an area variance from the Board
of Zoning Appeals and a NYS DOT highway work permit.
Manning recapitulated the salient details of the project. He noted the applicant is
requesting permission from the DOT for installation of the new curbcut and exit onto
N. Fulton Street. No new curbs will be added to the site. The project will include
rain gardens (to be dug deeper than the tree roots). In addition, Manning noted, a
small rock garden will be created, matching the signature AFCU rock garden adjacent
to the main building. Manning noted that although the parking lot will most likely
contain eight spaces, the final number may be reduced to seven. No tree lawn is
planned for the project, since it would merely serve to separate the parking lot from
the sidewalk. A zoning appeal for an area variance will be submitted (probably in
time for the February 2012 BZA meeting).
Thoreau indicated her primary concern is to make the sidewalk as safe as possible.
She proposed using an ornate fence, tree lawn, or even some skinny planters to buffer
the sidewalk from the road and ensure pedestrian safety.
Schroeder observed the existing building appears to extend onto public land. He
asked if the sidewalk along Fulton Street would be reconstructed to any extent, to
which Manning replied, no.
Schroeder remarked that the sidewalk should certainly be reconstructed in a safe
manner. Manning responded that he appreciates Schroeder’s suggestion and will
examine the issue further. He cautioned that, if the sidewalk is brought in further, a
significant portion of the buffer will have been lost.
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Adopted Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and
state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review,
the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for an 8-car parking lot to be located at 634 West Seneca
Street by Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU), applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to install an 8-car parking lot for staff use on the 3,600
SF parcel at the northeast corner of N. Fulton and W. Seneca Streets. The project includes
the demolition of the existing 2-story building on the site, installation of 2,840 SF of new
paving, 760 SF of new landscaping, a new curbcut on N. Fulton Street, drainage
improvements, signage, and lighting. Circulation through the parking lot will be one-way,
with the proposed parking entry at the existing curbcut on Seneca Street and the exit at the
new curbcut on Fulton Street. The project is on the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. This is an
Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The
project requires an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and a NYS DOT
highway work permit, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the
proposed 8-car parking lot to be located at 634 West Seneca Street (AFCU) in the City of
Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6. Zoning Appeals
APPEAL #2865 ― Area Variance: 519 N. Aurora Street
Appeal of New Earth Living, LLC, on behalf of the owner Susan Cosentini for an area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant is proposing to consolidate the two parcels located at 519 and 523 North Aurora Street
and construct three new single-family dwellings on the parcel. The Aurora Street parcel currently
contains a single-family dwelling located at 519 North Aurora Street that will remain on the
parcel, bringing the total number of dwellings to four, on the Aurora Street lot. The applicant is
proposing to bring affordable housing to the Fall Creek area by offering the property as a
cooperative land share. Each home will be resident owner-occupied, but the property will be
organized as a cooperative. The proposed placement of one of the new dwellings will be located
facing Aurora Street. The two remaining dwellings will be constructed as one-family homes and
will be located at the rear of the property along the alley. The required parking for the four
single-family dwellings will be provided for, at the rear of the property, and will be accessed from
the alley off of Marshall Street. In order to provide a large common open space, the applicant
proposes to place the two detached dwellings 5’ 1” from the rear property line. The ordinance
requires a rear yard setback of 25% or 31’9” for the property. The applicant was granted a
similar variance, Appeal #2790, on June 2, 2009, for the project. Recent downsizing changes
have brought the need to revisit the Board for approval. The changes from the previous variance
are: the proposed two-family home facing Aurora Street will now be a single-family dwelling.
The proposed attached two-family dwelling, with garages below, will now be two detached
single-family dwellings.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted;
however, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a Building Permit may
be issued.
Members of the Planning Board reiterate their recommendations, repeated below, for the
previous appeal in May 2009, and continue to recommend the approval of this appeal for the
following reasons:
• The proposed use of the alley is a recognized New Urbanist approach to add housing density
with minimal neighborhood impacts and is particularly appropriate for this project to avoid
any increased parking impacts on the neighborhood, and
• The proposal improves the conditions of the alley in terms of lighting and aesthetics, and
• The proposal is part of a well conceived overall plan.
APPEAL #2866 — Parking Variance: 109 Dryden Road
Appeal of Stephen Fontana for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, off-street parking
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2000, the applicant constructed a new 4-story building
with 7 apartments located at 109 Dryden Road. The required parking for the building is 9 spaces,
6 of which are on the property and a permanent lease was secured for the remaining 3 spaces at
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
317-21 Eddy Street. During a recent housing inspection, the applicant was informed that the
spaces he had previously rented at 317-21 Eddy Street were no longer available. The applicant
then leased spaces at 805 E. Seneca Street and 410 Eddy Street to meet the parking requirements.
Both the Seneca Street and the Eddy Street properties have existing parking deficiencies and the
spaces that are on the property cannot be leased. The applicant has made a good faith effort to
meet the parking requirements, but has found that there are no legal leasable spaces within 500
feet that can be leased. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Board relax the parking
requirement from 9 spaces to 6 spaces for 109 Dryden Road.
The property is located in a B-2b business district in which the use is permitted; however, Section
325-39 requires a variance be granted before a Certificate of Compliance may be issued.
Based on the chart in the appellant’s letter, it would appear to be reasonable to grant the
variance. The Planning Board has recommended to Common Council that the off street parking
sections of the of the City Code be reexamined.
7. New Business
A. Revisions to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance – Discussion
Truame remarked that the process of revising the landmarks preservation ordinance
(Chapter 228 and 73) was initiated approximately 1½ years ago by her predecessor. The
realization that a number of issues or problems consistently arose created the impetus for
the endeavor. Truame noted that the ordinance was written in 1975 and has undergone only
a few revisions since. The primary purpose of the revisions is to clarify and streamline the
language of the ordinance, while adding affirmative maintenance and early design sections.
The concept memo that was sent to the Planning Board on 10/31/11 recapitulates the
changes that are being proposed.
Marcham indicate she is concerned with the apparent extent of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission’s (ILPC) review, under the new revisions. It appears
significantly broader than her original understanding of the breadth of the ILPC’s purview.
It seems to provide the ILPC with the authority to review any changes made to a property,
including such things as landscaping. It seems markedly different from the way that
properties were reviewed 30-40 years ago. Marcham believes people would be surprised at
how inclusive the new language is.
Truame replied there is no intent to increase the purview of the ILPC’s review. While the
proposed language does refer to the site of a property, as a whole, it is only within the
context of exterior changes.
Schroeder remarked that in some cases landscapes can and should, in fact, be considered to
fall within the ILPC’s purview — if they can be identified as having historical importance.
He referred to the 2005 Redbud Woods case as a prime example of this. (Redbud Woods
retained many original Warren Manning landscape design elements and formed a part of the
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
landscaping of Robert H. Treman's historic estate.) Schroeder remarked that this kind of
situation would seem to be a valid subject for ILPC review.
Truame remarked she could certainly envision a situation in which the setting of a historical
building would be incorporated into the ILPC’s review process, but not a situation in which
a landscape would be independently reviewed or designated in any way.
Marcham remarked she thinks people will simply end up being confused with the whole
process and not know what changes they are/are not permitted to make with/without ILPC
review.
Truame stressed that there is no intent to expand the ILPC’s purview.
Boothroyd asked if any arbitration alternatives were available to property owners, to which
Truame replied, yes, both an economic hardship application process, as well as a an Article
78 appeal process.
Acharya noted it does appear the ILPC has a broad amount of discretion, to which Truame
agreed. She remarked, however, that — in addition to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Preservation Planning — the National Park Service also
serves as a source of guidelines and case laws that can be used to place the ILPC’s review
within the larger context of accepted historic preservation planning practices.
Schroeder noted he appreciates Marcham’s concerns and suggested perhaps including some
language in the revised ordinance that further delineates how the Commission is to be
guided, to which Truame agreed.
Rudan expressed concern with the language, “[…] strengthen the economy of the city,” in
228-2(f). Truame noted it is the same language that was created in 1975. Rudan observed
perhaps that language could also be better defined.
B. Planning Board Response to IURA Letter
Board members reviewed the draft letter. No substantive changes were made and no
objections were expressed.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
C. 2011 Report & Updated Housing Totals
Nicholas walked the Board through the 2011 housing report and updated housing totals.
She noted that certain assumptions needed to be made in creating the documents (e.g., the
number of student units, which could only be identified according to the information
provided by developers). Nicholas noted that there is a reasonably clear trend of
significantly increased numbers of available low-moderate income rental units and that the
city will likely continue to see consistent construction activity, through 2013.
Cornish remarked that another study by the Danter Company, entitled “Downtown Ithaca
Housing Demand Analysis,” may also be a useful source of information; she would be
happy to provide it to any interested Board members.
8. Old Business
A. Update on Parking Ordinance Revisions
Schroeder remarked that the Board’s proposed parking-related revisions to the Site Plan
Review Ordinance did not end up being reviewed by the Planning & Economic
Development Committee this month, as originally intended, due to some unresolved issues
associated with the changes. The Planning Board working group that drafted the revisions
will meet again and resolve any remaining issues (e.g., 8-foot setback requirement may not
be realistic in many situations).
B. Implementation of Design Review Ordinance
Schroeder remarked that the Design Review Ordinance had been passed unanimously by
the Common Council. At this juncture, he noted, the assumption is that any design review
will initially be conducted by the Project Review Committee, prior its review by the full
Planning Board. Ultimately, however, the intent is to establish a well-defined set of
procedures to finalize the design review process.
C. Site Plan Review Ordinance Revisions
Nicholas noted all Site Plan Review Ordinance revisions had been drafted and finalized,
except any parking-related changes, which still need to be resolved. Once those issues have
been resolved, the complete set of revisions can be presented to Common Council.
D. 359 Elmira Road (Fairfield Inn) Deed Restriction Language Approval
Schroeder noted that the Preliminary and Final Approval Resolution for the Fairfield Inn
project requires the Board’s approval of the deed restriction. Board members reviewed the
language of the deed restriction.
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Thoreau, the deed restriction language drafted by
the City Attorney was approved.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
9. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Schroeder reported that he has been re-appointed to the Planning Board, although he
presumes he will not be re-appointed Chair. He added he believes the BPW Liaison
seat on the Board will no longer be filled by Acharya, which Cornish confirmed.
B. Director of Planning & Development
Cornish reported that the department continues to work hard on the dredging project,
for which a Public Hearing was held on 12/12/11. Public comments will continue to
be accepted until 1/6/12.
Cornish remarked that the Commons redesign project continues to move forward, with
a public meeting planned for February 2012, to reconcile some remaining issues that
were raised at the last public meeting.
The Comprehensive Planning Committee continues to meet regularly.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
A written report was not submitted. Acharya noted that at the last BPW meeting the
Board recommended the sale of the City-owned Cherry Street property, although the
Board did not have an opportunity to make a determination about the City-owned
Seneca Street property. Acharya also remarked that the Occupy DeWitt Park appeal
will be heard tomorrow (the permit had been denied by the Superintendent of Public
Works, which the BPW may choose to overturn).
10. Approval of Minutes ― October 25, 2011
On a motion by Thoreau, seconded by Boothroyd, the October 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes
were unanimously approved.
In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: Snyder
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11. Adjournment
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
27