HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-03-25Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
March 25, 2014
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (arrived 6:08 p.m.);
Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds;
C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Jeanne Grace, City Forester
Guest: Nina Bassuk, Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Applicants Attending: 313 Auburn Street Subdivision
John Tomkiewicz, Owner’s Representative
Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road
Andrew Terragnoli, Optima Design & Engineering, PLLC;
Jeff Hazel, Silvestri Architects
735 & 740 S. Meadow Square ―
Addition of Parking & Landscaping
Matthew Oates, Ithaca Development Associates, LLC
(Benderson)
Ridgewood Road Apartments
Steve Bus, CA Ventures, LLC;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch Architects;
Eric Haggstrom, Shepley Bulfinch Architects;
Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP;
Rebecca Hoffman, Phillips Lytle, LLP;
David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E.
Seneca Way Apartments
Aaron Baker, Ithaca Sign Works
Bryan Warren, Developer
1
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya announced that proposed signage for the 140 Seneca Way project would also be
reviewed by the Board, in accordance with the conditions of the October 25, 2011 Site Plan
Approval. No other changes were suggested to the agenda.
2. Special Order of Business —
Jeanne Grace, City Forester and Nina Bassuk, Shade Tree Advisory Committee
City Forester Jeanne Grace and Nina Bassuk of STAC briefly walked through Ithaca’s
Trees: Master Plan, Inventory, & Arboricultural Guidelines for the Public Trees of the City
of Ithaca, New York, noting that it has been updated over the years and recently overhauled.
The plan comprises three parts: (1) vision and goals; (2) arboricultural policies and
guidelines for planting and maintenance; and (3) tree inventories. They said it is highly
technical, and that STAC hopes it will become part of the guidelines for City projects, as well
as projects reviewed by the Planning Board and staff.
Bassuk noted the guidelines include specifications for such things as nursery stock, planting
sources, trees surrounded by pavement, minimum spacing for trees, and so on.
(Blalock arrived at 6:08 p.m.)
Grace noted it would be particularly important for the document to be used by the Planning
Board, since it oversees so much new development.
Cornish agreed it will be very helpful, especially for staff, which holds the initial
conversations with applicants.
Schroeder observed that the City Forester has in the past frequently recommended soil
remediation under certain conditions ― however, he believes this should be a standard
requirement without needing to be specifically flagged as a Site Plan Review condition. He
suggested including this provision in initial materials provided to Site Plan Review
applicants.
Cornish noted that one added complication is on-site enforcement of soil remediation
requirements. Grace agreed, noting that many times such things do not end up actually being
done. She added that the master plan also contains tree protection specifications (e.g.,
standards for protection around trees that are not to be moved during construction).
Archarya observed that the completion of the updated document comes at a good time, as it
coincides with the introduction of the 2014 Sidewalk Improvement District Work Plan.
2
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
3. Privilege of the Floor
Charleen Heidt, 107 W. Falls Street, spoke against the 128 W. Falls Street project. She
called the Board’s attention to a petition of 1,153 community members opposing the project.
Kathy Bartell, 102 W. Falls Street, spoke in opposition to the same project, noting she also
supported the petition. Much of feedback associated with the petition asks about the City’s
general plans for development and heightened density in the Fall Creek area. There seems to
be pressure to significantly increase density without any kind of defined plan.
Acharya explained that the City Zoning Code in fact does specify in detail what is and is not
possible for every part of the City, limiting the rights of people to build certain kinds of
structures in a given area. He said it is not the case that there is no zoning or plan in place for
the Fall Creek area.
Blalock added that he read a considerable number of petitioner comments, which appeared to
assume the project had already been approved, which is entirely false.
Jason Bartell, 102 W. Falls Street, also spoke in opposition to the above project, noting that
it represents a larger issue than just W. Falls Street. He said that while zoning regulations
may be in force, some community members are concerned with a perceived a lack of
transparency, as many developments seem to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, without
any regard to how they impact neighborhoods.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the 128 W. Falls Street
project, cautioning the Planning Board that it should brace itself for considerable opposition
to the project. He remarked that no one in Ithaca wants to see any kind of change, adding that
Ithaca has earned an unfortunate reputation as a CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually
Everything) community.
Laurie Damiani, 108 W. Falls Street, expressed opposition to the same project, stating that
411 E. Lincoln Street is an example of a tall building that should not be permitted. She said
any new development should be compatible with the character of the existing homes in that
neighborhood and not negatively impact people.
(Note: Another segment of Privilege of the Floor was held later in the meeting for the
Ridgewood Road Apartments project.)
4. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 313 Auburn Street (Tax Parcel #27.-1-15), Susan Mehr, Owner.
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the
existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,336 SF with
41 feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single-family home; and
Parcel B, measuring 3,614 SF with 28 feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in
3
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a single- or
two-family dwelling, a minimum street frontage of 35 feet, maximum lot coverage of
35%, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’,
respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property in order to build a new single-
family home, which she intends to occupy. Area variances have been granted for existing
and new deficiencies and Limited Site Plan Review will be required for the new single-
family home. 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.
Owner’s representative John Tomkiewicz summarized the proposed Subdivision.
Jones-Rounds asked if the forthcoming Site Plan Review application would simply be
reviewed at staff level, since it is single-family home. Cornish replied, yes.
Nicholas noted the owner addressed the concerns raised previously regarding the north
elevation and front porch, and said she will send the revised plans to Planning Board
members.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #27.-1-15, by Susan Mehr, owner and applicant, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax
parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,336 SF with 41’ feet of frontage on Auburn
Street and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,614 SF
with 28’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District,
which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a single- or two-family dwelling,
minimum street frontage of 35 feet, maximum lot coverage of 35%, and minimum front-,
side-, and rear-yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant
seeks to subdivide the property in order to build a new single-family home, which she
intends to occupy. Area variances have been granted for existing and new deficiencies;
and Limited Site Plan Review will be required for the new single-family home, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
4
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being that local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, has on February 25,
2014 declared itself the Lead Agency for the action, 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
February 25, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins
County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on
February 25, 2014 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment
Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff;
a plat entitled “Sketch Survey Map with proposed subdivision and setbacks based on
Survey Map for 313 Auburn Street, Ithaca, NY, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., March 5,
2006, certified June 1, 2009,” prepared by applicant and undated; and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on February 25, 2014 make a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this subdivision indicates the applicant received the required area
variances for relief from the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the
R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed minor subdivision of City of
Ithaca Tax Parcel #27.-1-15, by Susan Mehr, owner and applicant.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
5. Site Plan Review
A. Holiday Inn Express ― 4-Story Hotel, 371 Elmira Road, Optima Design for Ithaca
Hotels, LLC. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant has made numerous revisions to previous
submission. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with
approximately 76 rooms and a porous parking area with 76 spaces. The 1.58-acre project
site contains two contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office
5
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
building fronting Elmira Road, and an auto-body shop in the rear with access from
Spencer Road and large paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition
of both buildings and the removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site
improvements include retaining walls, a privacy fence, a water feature, landscaping,
lighting, a new sidewalk on Spencer Road and bike racks. The project is in the SW-2
Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Parcel
consolidation will be required.
Applicants Andrew Terragnoli and Jeff Hazel updated the Board on the project’s current
status, noting they have been working with different City departments to modify the plans
to meet City requirements. They presented updated project renderings, responding to all
the received comments. They still expect feedback from some City staff and anticipate
being able to accommodate those comments as well. The applicants also presented the
Board with some proposed building material colors, textures and physical samples.
Schroeder noted he agrees with County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx that the
Southwest Area Design Guidelines should be followed along Elmira Road with respect to
10-foot tree lawns and new sidewalks linking smoothly into existing ones, to ensure
pedestrian safety and comfort. Doing so would require modifying the site plan for this
project to include such a minimum 10-foot Elmira Road tree lawn. He noted the standard
Planning Board requirement is an 8-foot tree lawn. He added that since there are no
parked cars along Elmira Road to protect and distance pedestrians from moving traffic,
the c. 5-foot tree lawn shown on the current project drawings would place pedestrians too
close to this moving traffic. Schroeder noted City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue
also raised the issue of sight lines, which will need to be resolved so the street trees can
be correctly situated.
Jones-Rounds expressed confusion at the seemingly opposing viewpoints of the City
Transportation Engineer and County Planning Commissioner regarding the sidewalks.
She asked if the Transportation Engineer’s comments carry more weight than the
Planning Commissioner’s. Cornish replied, no. Jones-Rounds indicated, in that case, she
agrees with Schroeder.
Nicholas explained the City Transportation Engineer either wants the sidewalk to be on
City property, or for the applicant to grant the City a permanent easement on the portion
of the sidewalk that would be located on private property.
Schroeder observed it appears the Elmira Road right-of-way line extends straight up and
down from this project’s Elmira Road property line, in which case the sidewalks to the
north and south of this project site are already on private property. He said a safe and
comfortable pedestrian infrastructure should take precedence over necessarily having the
sidewalk on City property, since a permanent easement for a sidewalk located on private
property would still give the City all the rights it requires. Terragnoli responded he would
be pleased to handle it however the Planning Board would like, as long as everyone is in
agreement.
6
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Fernández noted the trees should remain where they are and the sidewalk should align
with the existing sidewalks along the road. Elliott replied it looks like that would
change the building footprint. Fernández responded it would only push the plantings
back 5 feet.
Nicholas asked the applicant if he is authorized to speak on behalf of the owner regarding
the easement. Terragnoli replied, yes. He would just be concerned with changing the
building footprint, given the setback requirement. Hazel added it would be very difficult
to change this footprint without losing guest rooms.
Schroeder said that if the sidewalk were located one foot away from the side of the
building, on the portion of the building closest to street, it appears from the drawings that
there would then be room for at least an 8-foot tree lawn. He emphasized that there would
be no need to change the building footprint to accomplish this.
Elliott asked if the applicant could treat the façade near the sidewalk with more detail. In
other words, rather than having a blank wall, it could be humanized in some way with
some additional details, recesses, plantings, etc., to give pedestrians something to look at.
Terragnoli asked for clarification on the absolute minimum distance to which the Board
would be willing to agree for setting back the sidewalk from the curb. Schroeder replied,
the 5-foot wide sidewalk should be 1 foot away from the portion of the building closest to
Elmira Road; judging from the drawings, this would allow at least an 8-foot-wide (and
perhaps somewhat wider) tree lawn.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project, saying
it is an attractive building and the City needs more hotels.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones-
Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for a 4-story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with
approximately 76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.58-acre project site contains two
contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting
Elmira Road, an auto-body shop in the rear with access from Spencer Road, and large
paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition of both buildings and
7
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site improvements include retaining
walls, a privacy fence, a water feature, walkways, landscaping, lighting, a new sidewalk
on Spencer Road and bike racks. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. Parcel
consolidation will be required, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on
November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
March 25, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff;
plans entitled “Site Plan Layout (C-1.0),” “Dimensional Site Plan (C-1.1),” “Site Details
(C-1.2 to C-1.7),” “Water Feature Details (C1.8 to C1.10),” “Site Grading Plan (C-2.0),”
“Site Drainage Plan (C2.1),” “Drainage Details (C2.2 to C 2.4),” “Site Utility Plan (C
3.0),” “Utility Details (C 3.1 & 3.2),” “Site Landscape Plan (C4.0),” “Landscape Details
(C4.1),” “Site Demolition Plan (C 5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C5.1),” and “Erosion
Control Details (C5.2),” all dated 10/15/13, with a revision date of 2/21/14, and prepared
by Optima Design and Engineering, PLLC, and “Exterior Elevations (A-201 & 202),”
dated 2/17/14, plus undated color renderings and drawings titled “Colored Elevations”
and “Exterior Materials” (i.e., materials board), and prepared by Silvestri Architects,
P.C.; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General
Municipal Law §239 review comments, recommended this project be modified to provide
a ten-foot tree lawn adjacent to the existing Elmira Road street curb, and the Planning
Board responded by requiring the applicant to move the proposed rebuilt Elmira Road
sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the portion of the building footprint
that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a significantly wider tree lawn, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
8
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for a 4-story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with
approximately 76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.58-acre project site contains two
contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting
Elmira Road, an auto-body shop in the rear with access from Spencer Road, and large
paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition of both buildings and
removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site improvements include retaining
walls, a privacy fence, a water feature, walkways, landscaping, lighting, a new sidewalk
on Spencer Road, and bike racks. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. Parcel
consolidation will be required, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (k), and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on
November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency for the 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
March 25, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
March 25, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff;
plans entitled “Site Plan Layout (C-1.0),” “Dimensional Site Plan (C-1.1),” “Site Details
(C-1.2 to C-1.7),” “Water Feature Details (C1.8 to C1.10),” “Site Grading Plan (C-2.0),”
“Site Drainage Plan (C2.1),” “Drainage Details (C2.2 to C 2.4),” “Site Utility Plan (C
3.0),” “Utility Details (C 3.1 & 3.2),” “Site Landscape Plan (C4.0),” “Landscape Details
(C4.1),” “Site Demolition Plan (C 5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C5.1),” and “Erosion
Control Details (C5.2),” all dated 10/15/13, with a revision date of 2/21/14, and prepared
by Optima Design and Engineering, PLLC; and “Exterior Elevations (A-201 & 202),”
dated 2/17/14, plus undated color renderings and drawings titled “Colored Elevations”
and “Exterior Materials” (i.e., materials board), and prepared by Silvestri Architects,
P.C.; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project, and
9
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General
Municipal Law §239 review comments, recommended that this project be modified to
provide a ten-foot tree lawn adjacent to the existing Elmira Road street curb, and the
Planning Board responded by requiring the applicant to move the proposed rebuilt Elmira
Road sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the portion of the building
footprint that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a significantly wider tree lawn and
smooth connections to the existing Elmira Road sidewalks on the adjacent properties, and
WHEREAS: on March 25, 2014, the Planning and Development Board determined the
proposed project would result in no significant impact on the environment, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to the proposed project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including signage,
lighting, landscape stairs and railing, retaining wall materials and paving
materials, and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of revised site plan showing sidewalk at base
of stairs that descend from Spencer Road ending at internal parking lot area
(rather than at parking space), and
iii. Submission to the Planning Board of revised drawings showing (1) final
placement of the Elmira Road street trees and (2) realignment of the proposed
rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the
portion of the building footprint that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a
significantly wider tree lawn and smooth connections to the existing Elmira
Road sidewalks on the adjacent properties, and
iv. Submission to the Planning Board of revised elevations showing location and
proposed treatment of all exterior utilities, and
v. Submission to the Planning Board of a rooftop plan showing any proposed
mechanicals, and — if these would be visible from the street — drawing(s)
showing either architectural integration of said mechanicals into the building or
screening of them from public view, and
vi. Submission of documentation that the two original parcels have been
consolidated to one parcel, and
vii. Submission of documentation that an easement has been provided to the City
for all portions of the rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk located on applicant’s
property, and
10
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
viii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Elliott suggested the Board may want to be more proactive about the tree requirements
for the project, given the City Forester’s earlier comments. Jones-Rounds noted the Board
could just ask the applicant to give special consideration to the Master Plan.
B. Modified Site Plan Review ― Addition of Parking & Landscaping, 736 & 740 S.
Meadow Square, James Boglioli for Ithaca Development Associates, LLC
(Benderson), Public Hearing & Modified Site Plan Approval. The applicant is
requesting changes to the site plan approved in 2009. The modifications consist of the
removal of an existing landscaped area to add 7 parking spaces, add / extend an
architectural wall to screen the parking spaces, add 3 street trees, and replace other
landscape plantings. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act. Staff has determined the project is consistent with the environmental review
completed for the project on May 26, 2009. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District.
Applicant Matthew Oates described the proposed project, noting it would consist of
adding 7 parking spaces and screening them from Route 13 by adding a new wall
consisting of brick pillars and open metalwork. Shrubs would be planted between these
brick pillars. Three trees would also be added in the vicinity.
Jones-Rounds observed that the view from the street would definitely be improved.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously,
Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and
approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing.
Elliott observed there would be new screening for cars, but not for the people on the
patio. He suggested adding plantings in front of the patio to humanize it a little more.
Oates replied they could certainly look into that possibility and see what might fit
between the sidewalk and the patio; however, there is not much space to work with.
Certainly, he said, they could probably at least plant some shrubs. Elliott responded they
could also use movable pots for the screening plantings.
11
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Schroeder suggested this be added as a condition of approval: that the applicant
collaborate with Planning staff to explore the possibility of extending the plantings to
include the patio area.
Adopted Resolution for Modified Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: a site plan and associated site improvements for the South Meadow Square
Outparcel retail development, located at 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, received
Final Site Plan Approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on May
26, 2009, and
WHEREAS: the approved site plan for 740 South Meadow Street consisted of a 28,663
SF of retail and restaurant space in two new buildings and a total of 95 new parking
spaces, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting modifications to the approved plan consisting of
the removal of an existing landscaped area to: add 7 parking spaces, add / extend an
architectural wall to screen the parking spaces, add 3 street trees, and replace other
landscape plantings. The parcel is in the SW-2 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
WHEREAS: on May 26, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,
acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, made a Negative Determination Of
Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the proposed modifications are consistent with the City’s CEQR findings
issued on May 26, 2009 for 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, therefore, it is not
necessary to reopen or amend those findings, 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
March 25, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the 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 Planning Board did on March 25, 2014 review and accept as adequate
plans entitled “Demolition Plan (C3),” “Site Plan (C4),” “Site Details (C4.1),” “Grading
Plan (C5),” and “Landscape Plan and Details (C6),” dated 2/13/14, all prepared by T.Y.
Lin International; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
12
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Modified Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, with the following condition:
i. If feasible, applicant shall extend the proposed new wall and plantings to the
north, so that these provide an attractive edge to the existing patio, and be it
further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board urges the property
owner to consider closing the access road in the future.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
C. Student Housing, 7 Ridgewood Road, Steve Bus for CA Ventures, LLC.
Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct three 3-story
residential buildings with a total of 45 units and 114 beds on the 2.43-acre parcel. A total
of 57 parking spaces is proposed, of which 42 will be under the buildings and 15 will be
surface parking screened with a pergola. Bicycle parking and trash receptacles will also
be underground. Building design is based on a Prairie architectural style and will feature
green roofs. Site development includes construction of an access road, retaining walls,
raised walkways, exterior common spaces, landscaping, lighting, signage, and other site
amenities. Vehicle access is proposed via a driveway on Ridgewood Road and pedestrian
access via walkways to both Ridgewood Road and Highland Avenue. The site is largely
undeveloped woodland, with an abandoned pool and small adjacent outbuilding.
Construction will require removal of 95 trees and 1.4 acres of associated vegetation. The
eastern side of the parcel, along with the naturally landscaped portion of a neighboring
parcel at 150 Highland Avenue, will be maintained in an undeveloped state. The project
is located the R-U Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Historic District, and will
require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC). This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h){4}, (k) & (n), and B.(2) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review.
Developer Steve Bus explained the current iteration of the proposed project. Architect
Finley gave an overhead slide presentation of the project. He explained that, when the
original Site Plan Review Application was submitted, the City originally appeared to be
moving forward with proposed re-zoning of the area; so the project was specifically
designed to meet those requirements. The applicants now understand that the re-zoning is
no longer planned, for the time being, so the zoning remains R-U. He said the project’s
zoning analysis has been updated accordingly. Trowbridge emphasized the proposed
design would actually meet both R-U and R-3aa zoning requirements.
Jones-Rounds inquired into the status of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) approval for the project.
13
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Walters replied that the applicants have attended several meetings of the ILPC. At the last
such meeting, Commission members were concerned they did not have enough
information to fully evaluate the proposal. It was collectively agreed the applicants would
proceed with their Site Plan Review application at the Planning Board, and then formally
apply to the ILPC for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Trowbridge stressed that the applicants have tried to minimize the footprint of
construction to create a smaller area of disturbance. He said they have used site walls on
the north and south to minimize grades, and the buildings have been set into the grade.
Finley added they originally intended to combine the adjacent parcel (150 Highland
Avenue), but it has been decided that is no longer necessary.
Jones-Rounds asked how many living units have been eliminated from the original
proposal. Walters replied that the project has gone from 192 to 114 beds.
Trowbridge said the applicant has been working with City Transportation Engineer Tim
Logue to study bicycle / pedestrian issues. They have agreed, said Trowbridge, that a
continuous sidewalk connection should be provided from the Fall Creek Suspension
Bridge to the project, and Logue appears satisfied. Trowbridge added that all bicycle
parking would be undercover in the garages, and would exceed City requirements. He
further added that the site would include 42 motor vehicle parking spots in the garages
and 15 on site, for a total of 57, and noted that the applicants are meeting all zoning
requirements.
Jones-Rounds suggested at least one above ground bicycle rack for non-residents.
Trowbridge replied, yes, they could do that.
Randall asked if the paving would be porous. Trowbridge replied, no, since there is very
little area to work with and that would require subsurface containment.
Trowbridge noted the applicants have performed a tree assessment and will be mitigating
all the vegetative removal.
The applicants noted there would be a variety of living units (e.g., studios, 1-4
bedrooms), with a mix of unit types per floor; each building, though, would have the
same general floor layout. The buildings would emerge from a stone base, said the
applicants, and be characterized by a Prairie-style architectural design, visually
reinforcing the horizontal scheme of the buildings and providing a greater articulation of
the façades. The applicants said the building materials would include either natural cedar
or fiber panels (in a combination of stained and unstained).
Schroeder observed he likes the stone; but the quality of the stone would be critical. Real
stone, he said would be far preferable to artificial stone. The applicants replied they are
exploring a real stone veneer.
14
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
The applicants said they have eliminated previously proposed rooftop mechanical units
and will instead simply install more in-unit systems. Jones-Rounds asked if those would
protrude from the windows. Bus replied they would be PTAC units with a louver system,
so they should not protrude.
The applicants said they have also articulated the porches differently. Since the site is so
low, with a stone base and natural material / wood rising above that, the intent is to have
the buildings blend with the trees as much as possible.
Jones-Rounds asked if the green roofs would remain. Trowbridge replied, yes.
Schroeder suggested expanding the green roof areas. Trowbridge replied the applicants
were planning on having occupiable spaces on the roofs, so they would need to determine
if that would be possible. Schroeder said expanding green roof area would be most
crucial for the easternmost building, since it would be most visible from the higher
elevation of Highland Avenue.
Bus noted the occupiable roof areas could have a turf-like area, which would serve the
purpose of providing more greenery. Fernández strongly recommended against using
artificial turf ― it would be far better to have live plants with real ecological value.
Walters replied they would explore that.
Walters remarked the applicants have tried to provide the Planning Board with everything
it has asked for, or could conceivably need. If there is any additional information the
Board would like, he said, it should let the applicants know.
Cornish asked if Bob Wesley would update his flora and fauna report. Walter replied,
yes.
Schroeder asked the applicant to revise the drawings to eliminate the roof-top
mechanicals which are no longer intended and to illustrate the aforementioned air-
handling louvers.
Elliott noted the geotechnical study mentioned nothing regarding radon; he knows there
is a strong vein of it running through Cayuga Heights. That should definitely be
investigated, since there are some significant hot spots. Bus responded there are no real
subsurface areas on the site for radon to collect; however, the applicants will make sure
the question is resolved, one way or the other.
Schroeder expressed appreciation for the improvements that have been made to the
project since it was first presented to the Planning Board last October. He said the Frank
Lloyd Wright architectural influences have succeeded in making the proposed buildings
look simultaneously modern and traditional. He pointed out, however, that the project
would require cutting down a significant number of large, healthy, high-quality trees,
which would be a significant environmental impact. He suggested mitigating that loss by
15
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
establishing a binding conservation easement on the steep forested slope descending from
Highland Avenue, to permanently preserve the latter as green space. He also suggested,
as further mitigation, that the applicant be required to remove any invasive plants on the
entire site, including the 150 Highland Avenue lot.
Jones-Rounds said she assumes the applicant received City Transportation Engineer
Logue’s memorandum, describing his concern about the need for a 5-foot-wide (rather
than 4-foot-wide) sidewalk. Trowbridge replied, yes. He said the applicants would
address that.
At this juncture, Acharya remarked he would like to address the petition organized by a
Cornell Heights resident, Walter Hang. He said that, contrary to what may have been
implied in the petition, the Planning Board’s Declaration of Lead Agency status would
merely represent the formal mechanism through which the Site Plan Review process is
initiated. He added that the Declaration of Lead Agency has no other purpose and does
not represent any kind of substantive action on the part of the Board. As a result, he said,
there is absolutely no legal or procedural basis for postponing the Declaration of Lead
Agency.
Privilege of the Floor (Continued)
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project, noting
that there would be many opponents of the project.
Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court (up the block from the proposed project), spoke in
opposition to the project and presented some prepared comments. He urged the City to
block the project and any others like it in Cornell Heights. He does not believe student
housing is appropriate for the neighborhood, which he said is primarily comprised of
modest family homes.
Walter Hang, 218 Wait Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, asking the Planning
Board not to take any action on the project. He noted it is inconceivable the Board should
proceed without the final site plans or additional meetings. He noted there is considerable
community support for improved protection of Cornell Heights and general opposition to
this project. The City should not be approving projects on a case-by-case basis. He
concluded by stating that neighborhood residents are considering litigation, if any action
is taken by the Board.
John Dennis, 893 Cayuga Heights Road, spoke in opposition to the project, saying he
has known the site for many years. A former emergency medical technician, he sees too
many risks associated with the curve of the road, for the proposed additional density. It is
a particularly dangerous road, with a very steeply sloping landscape. He noted he also
chairs the County’s Environmental Management Council (EMC) and he will supply some
written comments.
16
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Jones-Rounds remarked to Dennis that a traffic study has in fact been generated for the
project (and it has been posted to the City website).
Acharya asked if the applicants would like to move forward with the Declaration of Lead
Agency. Walters replied, yes; they would like to move forward with the environmental
review and the Planning Board is the appropriate agency. He added the applicants will be
meeting with community members and be seeking to develop the project in a way that is
both thoughtful and respectful.
Schroeder agreed there is no legitimate basis not to proceed with the Declaration of Lead
Agency and environmental review. It would, in fact, be improper not to proceed, he
added. He noted that the applicants have provided the Board with a substantial amount of
information concerning the project and that the project fully complies with zoning.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require a Lead Agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental
law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for apartments to be located at 1 Ridgewood Road, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct three 3-story residential buildings with a total of
45 units and 114 beds on the 2.43-acre parcel. A total of 57 parking spaces is proposed, of which
42 will be under the buildings and 15 will be surface parking, screened with a pergola. Bicycle
parking and trash receptacles will also be underground. Building design is based on a Prairie
architectural style and will feature green roofs. Site development includes construction of an
access road, retaining walls, raised walkways, exterior common spaces, landscaping, lighting,
signage, and other site amenities. Vehicle access is proposed via a driveway on Ridgewood Road
and pedestrian access via walkways to both Ridgewood Rd. and Highland Ave. The site is largely
undeveloped woodland, with an abandoned pool and small adjacent outbuilding. Construction
will require removal of 95 trees and 1.4 acres of associated vegetation. The eastern side of the
parcel, along with the naturally landscaped portion of a neighboring parcel at 150 Highland
Avenue, will be maintained in an undeveloped state. The project is located the R-U Zoning
District and the Cornell Heights Historic District, and will require a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h){4}, (k) & (n), and B.(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review, 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, now, therefore, be it
17
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed
project.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
D. 140 Seneca Way: Signage Review (Site Plan Review Approval Condition)
Developer Brian Warren, Warren Real Estate, and Aaron Baker, Ithaca Sign Works,
presented the proposed signage designs.
Fernández asked if the monument sign must be illuminated. She suggested some subtle
LED lighting, so it would not just look like a glowing plastic box. Elliott agreed, noting
light pollution should be minimized. Warren replied he does not have a problem
minimizing the light.
Schroeder said that the overall project’s aesthetic appeal was significantly hurt when the
originally proposed projecting sunscreens on the three principal facades were abandoned.
He said he thinks the monument sign looks too suburban, and is inappropriate for the site.
He suggested a classier, more urban design for some signage on the curving front of the
building, rather than a freestanding sign. He said the proposed signage above the front
door, on the other hand, looks fine.
Acharya suggested installing the monument sign on the east façade. Warren replied it
would be difficult to do that, given the placement of the two tenants.
Cornish asked if the sign would be double-sided. Warren replied, yes. Fernández
suggested a stainless steel material, adding it is mainly the material she objects to.
Acharya agreed. Baker replied he could do something along those lines.
Schroeder observed the sign would be immediately adjacent to an elegant historic
building, so it should be built of natural materials, like stone, metal, wood, etc. Jones-
Rounds suggested a flag sign that alludes to the style of the aforementioned Argos Inn.
Baker replied he likes that idea, assuming the budget allows it. He also suggested
possibly retaining the currently proposed sign materials, but narrowing the sign
significantly to give it a more streamlined and elegant appearance.
Elliott recommended the sign visually continue the curve of the Seneca Way building,
adding that a connecting beam could even be employed between sign and building.
18
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Fernández noted adding landscaping around the sign would significantly improve its
appearance. Schroeder observed the site landscaping as a whole needs to be enhanced,
anyway. He agreed that continuing the curve, as Elliott suggested, would be good.
On a separate subject, Schroeder remarked he is extremely concerned with the white
vapor coming from two vents on the front pedestrian level of the building; these vents
were not on the approved drawings. He said for pedestrians to encounter such emissions
while walking along a public sidewalk makes an exceedingly bad impression in the
downtown area, precisely in an area where the City is trying to encourage pedestrian
activity. He urged Warren to find some way of re-routing this exhaust. Warren replied he
does not know what options would be available to accomplish that.
Jones-Rounds agreed with Schroeder, noting the exhaust emerges directly into pedestrians’
faces. Cornish added that the City has received numerous complaints about the situation.
Jones-Rounds suggested screening the vents, or re-routing them to vent higher up.
Regarding the proposed monument sign, Warren asked how he should proceed. Baker
indicated he could work on accommodating the Board’s requests. He suggested altering
the sign so that light is only allowed to escape through the cut-out lettering, but retaining
the same materials.
Elliott responded that would still produce light pollution. He suggested simply using
downlighting and using a greater number of smaller lights, rather than big ones. He
recommended consulting HOLT Architects, since they designed the rest of the project.
Warren indicated he is amenable to doing something along the lines of a hand-drawn
design Elliott had just given him (using the extension of the front building curve idea).
He asked how long it would take for the Board to approve the sign; he would prefer it be
as soon as possible. Acharya replied, approval could be given as soon as the applicant
sends the final design (which could be e-mailed). Baker agreed to do so.
Elliott said the new sign should be illustrated within the broader context of the existing
building façade (with a point of view further back so the drawing shows the existing
building along with the proposed sign).
Baker asked about the façade sign above the main west entry. Schroeder replied that
particular design is fine. There were no objections.
6. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2935 ― 409 Campbell Avenue: Area Variance
Appeal of Cheryl Thompson, architect for Raymond Craib and Cynthia Brock the owners of
409 Campbell Avenue, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 11, front yard
setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
19
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
The property owners of 409 Campbell Avenue discovered some time ago that their garage
foundation is in serious disrepair and negatively impacting the house and garage structure.
The only way to repair the attached garage is to demolish the garage, build a new foundation
and then rebuild the garage. Since the garage is attached to the main building it is imperative
that the garage be located in the same location when it is rebuilt. However, the southwest
corner of the garage is 18.9 feet from the front yard property line. This is 6.1 feet short of the
25 foot required front yard setback. In addition to rebuilding the garage the applicant
proposes adding more living space to the back yard portion of the garage and the northeast
corner of the house. These additions will not impact the rear and side yard setback
requirements or any other required district regulation.
The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-1a Zoning District where the proposed use
is permitted, however Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted for the deficient
front yard before a building permit can be issued.
Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal.
Appeal #2939 ― 409 Campbell Avenue: Special Permit
Appeal of Cheryl Thompson for Raymond Craib and Cynthia Brock owners of 409 Campbell
Avenue for a temporary special permit for an accessory apartment, as required by the Zoning
Ordinance under Section 325-10 Accessory apartments.
The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is a legally non-conforming use. It is a two family
residence in an R-1a zone. This zone limits residential uses to single family homes. It also
allows accessory apartments by a special temporary permit granted by the BZA. The owners
want to repair the foundation of the garage and increase the garage and house footprint. As a
non-conforming use, the owner’s would have to be granted a use variance to enlarge the
garage and living space. To avoid the more stringent requirements of a use variance and the
possibility of being denied by the Board, the applicant proposes changing the existing
apartment to a legal accessory apartment which is a permitted use in the R-1a use district.
This would then allow the applicant to appeal to the Board for an area variance for the front
yard deficiency caused when the garage is rebuilt in its current location.
According to the applicant, the current apartment meets the specifications required for an
accessory apartment. The owners of an accessory apartment must have owned the house for 5
years before they can apply for an accessory apartment permit. The property was purchased
in 2001. The size of the apartment must be less than 33% of the main living area. The
applicant states that the proposed accessory apartment occupies only 24% of the main living
area. The apartment can be used by not more than 2 persons. The apartment is used by one –
an in-law. If the street façade is changed, the façade must retain the appearance of a single
family home. The applicant has stated that the appearance of the street façade, which will be
slightly altered when the garage is demolished and rebuilt, will still appear to be a single
family home. Off-street parking is required for the accessory apartment and the main living
unit. The house and apartment require two parking spaces. There are 4 spaces on site.
The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-1a zone where accessory apartment is a
permitted use. The variance for an accessory apartment must be granted in order for the
owners to be able to repair and enlarge their property. The BZA must use the standards of
325-9D in considering the decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
20
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal.
Appeal #2936 ― 202 Second Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Laura Taylor owner of 202 Second Street for area variance from Sections 325-8
Column 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard other front
yard, and rear yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is seeking to build a porch and an addition, for a total of 276 SF, to the north
side of her single-family home located at 202 Second Street. The property at 202 Second
Street has several existing deficiencies. These are deficient lot size, excessive lot coverage,
two deficient front yards, and a deficient rear yard. The proposed porch and addition will
have a deficient front yard and will increase the already excessive lot coverage.
The property at 202 Second Street has an existing lot area deficiency. Required is a lot that is
3,000 SF. The existing lot is 2,897 SF, 103 feet less than the minimum lot size required for a
single family home in the R2b zoning district. Moreover, the existing buildings at 202 Second
Street have a lot coverage of 41% where 35% is the maximum lot coverage allowed in the
R2b use district. The proposed porch and addition will increase this deficiency by 6%
creating a lot deficiency of 47%.
The property at 202 Second Street is a corner lot and has two front yards. One faces Monroe
Street and the other faces Second Street. These front yards are required to be 10 foot deep.
The front yard facing Monroe Street is 1.6 feet away from the front yard lot line. This is an
existing deficiency of 8.4 feet. On Second Street, the existing front porch is .9 feet from the
front lot line. This is an existing deficiency of 9.1 feet. The new porch and addition will also
face Second Street. The porch will be setback 7 feet from the front yard lot line, a deficiency
of 3 feet.
The existing single family home also has a deficient rear yard. Required is a 20-foot rear yard
setback. The existing rear setback is 17.5 feet and is 2.5 feet shy of meeting the minimum 20-
foot rear yard requirement. Finally, the garage on the lot does not meet the setback
requirements for framed accessory buildings under Section 325-25 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Accessory wood frame structures are required to have a three-foot rear yard and three-foot
side yard. As built, the garage is approximately one foot from the rear yard and two feet from
the side yard; these are deficiencies of two feet and one foot respectively.
The property at 202 Second Street is in an R-2b zone where the proposed use is permitted.
However, Zoning Ordinance Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted by the
BZA for the deficiencies before a building permit can be issued.
Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal as the proposed changes will
improve the property and make it look more contextual.
Appeal #2937 ― 4 Hudson Place: Area Variance
Appeal of Jalil and Ariana Buechel owners of 4 Hudson place for a use variance from
Column 2 permitted primary uses, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
21
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
After looking for a home in Fall Creek for three years in order to be near their grandchildren,
the Jalil and Ariana Buechal purchased 4 Hudson Place in 2008. The following year, the
house next door to their grandchildren in Fall Creek was listed for sale and the Buechels
purchased this house. The Buechel's then began renting the house at 4 Hudson Place. Since 4
Hudson Place is in an R2a zone, the Buechel's are restricted to renting this house to three
unrelated persons or to a family or functional family.
The Buechel's have been renting to three students, but have been losing money every year
even though they are receiving $625/ month from each tenant for the 3 bedroom furnished
house which includes utilities. To date they have already lost $18,512. They also tried to sale
the house in 2012, but received no purchase offers. The property is in an R2a where the
maximum number of unrelated persons in a single family home is restricted to three persons.
The Buechel’s are seeking approval to rent 4 Hudson Place to four unrelated persons.
However, renting a house to four unrelated individuals is only a use permitted in zones
allowing multiple dwellings. The use of a single family home for four unrelated persons is
not a permitted use in the R2a zone and the Buechal's would have to be granted a use
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for an additional occupant to legally
reside at 4 Hudson Place.
The Board cannot recommend approval of this variance, in part because the application
contains conflicting financial information.
Appeal # 2938 ― 143 Maple Avenue: Sign Variance
Appeal of Coal Stove Ventures, LLC, owners of 143 Maple Avenue for variances from the
Sign Ordinance from Section 272-6B (1), size of sign and 272-9A, minimum setbacks for
signs from public highways and public right-of-ways and the requirement that a sign cannot
be located in the required side yard setback.
Coal Yard Venture has erected two signs at 143 Maple Avenue. One sign is for Coal Yard
Café, the other is for Coal Yard Apartments, also located at 143 Maple Avenue. The sign for
the Café is 7.25 SF in size and the apartment sign is 4.375 SF. Section 272-2B(1) limits each
sign in a residential district to 5 SF apiece if the property where the sign is located has a
building frontage of 50 feet or less. The property at 143 Maple Avenue has 44 feet of street
frontage. The sign for the Café is 2 feet from the front yard property line, which is where the
Maple Avenue’s right-of- way ends. Section 272-9A states that such signs shall be located 10
feet from any public highway or street right- of- way.
The sign for the Coal Yard Apartments is one foot from the side yard property line and the
Recreation Trail. It is also located 9.3 feet South of Maple Avenue. Section 272-9A requires
that this sign be set back 10 feet from public highways or street right-of- ways. Therefore,
this sign violates the provision, being less than 10 feet from the Maple Avenue street right- of
-way and being only one foot from the Recreation Trail, a public highway. Also, Section 272-
9A states that the required side yards cannot be diminished by a sign being located in the
required side yard. The required side yard setback is 10 feet, which is measured from the side
yard lot line to the nearest building. The sign is one foot from the east side yard lot line,
which cause a side yard deficiency of 9 feet.
22
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
The property 143 Maple Avenue is in an R-3b use district where the proposed signs are
permitted. However, Sign Ordinance Section 272-18 states that the Board of Zoning Appeals
may grant variances for Sign Ordinance deficiencies guided by the general “purpose” of the
Sign Ordinance Chapter, as well as:
1. Size of Sign;
2. Number of letters;
3. Other signs;
4. The Character of the neighborhood and;
5. Public interest
Members of the Board recommend approval of the café sign only.
7. New Business
A. Appointment of New Comprehensive Plan Committee Members
Adopted Resolution Appointing New Comprehensive Plan Committee Members
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: vacancies due to resignation and changes in the composition of Common Council
have reduced the originally intended number of Planning Board and Common Council members
on the Comprehensive Plan Committee, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby appoint C. J.
Randall (Planning Board member) and Stephen J. Smith (Common Council member) to serve on
the Comprehensive Plan Committee.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Abstained: Randall
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
23
Approved at the April 22, 2014
Planning and Development Board Meeting
9. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, the revised draft February 25, 2014
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
10. Adjournment
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
24