HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-05-27DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
May 27, 2014
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: C.J. Randall; Isabel Fernández
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 7 Ridgewood Rd. ― Student Housing
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Eric Haggstrom, Shepley Bulfinch Architects;
Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP
400 Spencer Rd. ― Stone Quarry Apartments
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
140 College Ave. ― Student Housing Addition Project
Jason Demarest, Jason K. Demarest Architect;
Betsy Po, Owner
205 Dryden Rd., Student Housing Project ― Sketch Plan
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects;
Pat Kraft, Owner
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
307 College Ave., Mixed-Use Apartments ― Sketch Plan
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects;
Josh Lower, Owner
Downtown Hampton Inn Hotel ― Sketch Plan
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building), Renovations & Addition ―
Sketch Plan
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties;
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya indicated that review of the Dowtown Marriott Hotel project will need to be
postponed, since the applicant was not able to attend the meeting as planned. At the
applicant’s request, the Planning Board will consider scheduling a Special Meeting to review
the changes to the project.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of 7 Ridgewood Rd.
Student Housing project.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Student Housing, 7 Ridgewood Rd., Steve Bus for CA Ventures, LLC. Review of
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2. 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 44 will be under the buildings
and 13 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 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 Certificate of Compliance from the Ithaca
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). The applicant may seek a Parking Variance
and Area Variances. 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.
Applicants Adam Walters and Eric Haggstrom updated the Board on the project’s current
status. Walters stressed that the principal challenge for the applicants was to minimize the
impact to the surrounding neighborhood. To that end, the applicants have reduced the
project footprint, established a tree preservation plan, and taken advantage of existing
vegetation to provide additional screening of the project. The project would sit in the bowl
of the site, so passers-by should not be able to see it over the lip of the bowl.
Applicant Trowbridge noted the applicants would employ native plants to revegetate the site
after construction.
Walters noted the applicants are also proposing a restrictive covenant for a portion of the site,
as requested by the Board, establishing a protected area with a lengthy set of prohibited uses
to bar future development. Only a very narrow set of reserved rights would be retained for
such things as pruning, removing invasive species, public health and safety considerations,
erosion control, and the right to transfer the property (subject to the same restrictions).
Schroeder asked if the document would be attached to the deed. Walters replied, yes, it
would both be recorded in the deed book and cited in the deed itself. Schroeder indicated the
City Attorney’s Office should examine the proposed document.
Walters noted that Exhibit D illustrates the exact area in question (subject to minor
refinements) in the green-shaded area.
Elliott observed the site survey shows a body of water in the general area of the old fish
pond. He asked if that would be included in the protected area. Trowbridge replied it is not a
natural feature. (It was part of the original decorative garden design.) Elliott asked if it
would be removed as part of the project. Trowbridge replied there would probably be no
reason to remove it and disturb the site unncessarily.
Walters noted the applicant also submitted the final Flora/Fauna Assessment report, which
confirmed no endangered species live in the area. There are a couple of other issues
mentioned in the draft FEAF, Part 3, which he believes need to be addressed. He
emphasized that the applicants would comply with all NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) requirements.
Regarding the aquifer recharge area issue, Walters explained that New York State has both
primary and principal aquifers. Primary aquifers are the most critical. The project site is not
on one of them. Walters added that the applicants discovered several mistakes in the NYS
DEC Environmental Resource Mapper (e.g., it listed the project site as a hazardous waste
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
site). The project team does not believe the site is in fact situated over an aquifer recharge
area. And, even if it were, it would only be a CEQR-related issue if the site were being
proposed to be used as a petroleum storage facility, mine, quarry, etc. Being situated over an
aquifer recharge area is not typically an issue for residential projects. Another potential issue
would be whether the project would divert an excessive amount of water; but that would not
be the case.
Elliott noted the applicant proposes placing an impermeable surface at the bottom of the site,
so that could conceivably be an issue. Trowbridge responded there would be storage
facilities underneath the parking lot, so it would not be feasible to have both a permeable
pavement and the stormwater retention system. During stormwater events, stormwater
would be stored under the site and discharged at the same rate it is now.
Walters indicated that the applicants would explore the issue further to alleviate the Board’s
concerns. Trowbridge added that the applicants are also expecting a report from T.G. Miller,
P.C. about the storage area.
Elliott responded that kind of information should also be included on the site plan.
Trowbridge agreed to do that.
Schroeder suggested that Planning staff contact DEC, flag the issue for them, and ask them if
it will require further investigation. Nicholas replied she would be happy to do that.
Acharya asked about the status of the project’s ILPC review. Walters replied that the
applicants had their first meeting before the Commission on 5/20/14. At that meeting,
Commission members expressed considerable concern regarding the massing and scale of the
buildings, as well as the impact to the community. Walters remarked that the applicants need
to do a better job of demonstrating the effectiveness of the screening and visibility protection
mitigations they are proposing. They are currently considering conducting a series of
balloon tests on the site for that purpose. The Commission’s other principal concern was the
project’s visibility from Ridgewood Road (specifically, as one drives up the hill and
approaches Building 1), which the project team will investigate. Walters noted that none of
these developments should affect the project review timeline. The Commission will have 65
days from the date of the Planning Board’s Negative Declaration to make its decision on a
preliminary Certificate of Appropriateness.
Schroeder suggested the Board’s environmental review should include the investigation of
the view from Highland Avenue; so the balloon test should also be incorporated into the
environmental review.
Elliott asked if the ILPC could conceivably reject the project. Walters replied that he would
have to say, no. While he understands there are several major concerns with the project, he
thinks it will ultimately be approved.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Blalock, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the document.
Schroeder remarked that the revised document captures everything discussed at the last
meeting, with one exception. On page 6, under impact #10 (“Will proposed action affect
views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community?”), in the third item
down (“Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known
to be important to the area.”), it was agreed the impact would be that the project will affect
scenic views as a “Potential Large Impact” (“Will affect scenic views known to be
aesthetically important to the area.”) That impact should also be discussed as an issue in the
Part 3. Cornish noted it could be included under “Other Impacts,” which would probably be
more correct. Schroeder agreed.
No other discussion took place. No objections were raised to the revised document.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the document.
Schroeder noted the project description should be updated. It should also refer to “[…]
undeveloped portions of 150 Highland Avenue.” Under “Impact on Land,” the proposed
gabian baskets should be referenced.
Jones-Rounds noted the aquifer issue could be described, as well. Walters replied the
applicant could provide more information on that, which staff may choose to include.
Cornish noted that for this particular project a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) should specifically be required for the environmental review.
Schroeder noted the points listed under “Mitigations to Impacts to Land Proposed by
Applicant” would be better placed under “Mitigations to Impacts to Land Proposed by Lead
Agency.”
Walters remarked that, since it is a Type I action, the Lead Agency is prohibited from
imposing any conditions per se on the project. The applicants may agree to make certain
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
changes to the project as part of a transparent process. Cornish agreed that what is being
discussed is a series of mitigations, not conditions.
Walters asked if the Board needs any further information on drainage. Acharya replied he
does not think so, but the City Environmental Engineer should be able to determine that.
Schroeder suggested that p. 3 include language about the specific protocol that would be
used for removing invasive species. Trowbridge replied the applicants would remove a
significant portion of the invasive species, but they would never be able to remove
everything. Only the most destructive invasive species would be removed. He will provide
the Board the language for what is being proposed.
Schroeder noted the view from Highland Avenue should be addressed under “Impact on
Aesthetic Resources.”
Cornish asked the applicants what method would be used to protect the area of non-
disturbance. Trowbridge replied that construction fencing would be erected. He will provide
the details to the Board.
Walters asked if the Board was satisfied with the demonstration of plant material resistance
to deer damage. No concerns or objections were raised.
Jones-Rounds suggested including a reference to the ILPC controversy. Schroeder agreed
that would make sense. Nicholas indicated she would draft a synopsis of the ILPC’s review
of the project.
Schroeder noted that under the third mitigation on p. 4, beginning with “Incorporating green
roof elements […],” there is in fact only one green roof being proposed. Trowbridge added
that planters would also be added to the roofs of all the buildings.
Cornish asked about the elevation of the nearest house and whether those residents would be
able to see people on the green roof when it is being used. Trowbridge responded the nearest
house is on the south side of the project site. The applicants have explored adding more
screening and potentially making off-site improvements to help screen that south side.
Elliott observed that rooftop gathering spaces can be genuine public nuisances and sources of
noise. Walters replied there would be rooftop security cameras and roof accessibility would
be limited to 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.
Schroeder noted those details should be added to the required mitigations. There were no
objections.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked that the rooftop gathering spaces appear larger than necessary. Walters
replied the applicants believe they are reasonably-sized, based on what could be considered a
standard comparable project.
Schroeder noted, under “Impact on Transportation,” the traffic study should be mentioned, as
well as the new route from Ridgwood Road to Highland Avenue. It could also describe how
the proposed easement would protect the pedestrian path.
Schroeder observed that the “Impact on Growth & Character of Community or
Neighborhood” section mentions lot coverage. It should also mention something about the
original single-building design now having been broken up into three buildings, which is a
significant improvement in terms of environmental impact and impact to the Cornell Heights
Historic District.
B. Stone Quarry Apartments, 400 Spencer Rd., Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS). Updates & Review of Conditions. The applicant Received Site Plan Approval
with several conditions in November 2012. Funding is now in place for the project. The
applicant will present project changes and discuss conditions in anticipation of a construction
start-date in early Fall 2014.
Applicants Joe Bowes, Peter Trowbridge, and Steve Hugo updated the Board on the project’s
current status.
Bowes noted the project received funding from NYS in April 2014. Once the project team
investigated the details of the project more thoroughly, it discovered the original design
would overload the soil. The project design was modified slightly to remove as much weight
as possible (e.g., tweaking the grading, reconfiguring the walkways, etc.). The overall
project design and specifications, however, remain identical.
Trowbridge noted the project team assumed in 2012 they would have to provide much more
fill on-site (primarily on Spencer Road), which would have meant situating the townhouses
further to the left. Given the poor quality of the soil, however, they have brought the units
back to the current condition on the site and are not adding anything new. The greatest
impact to the Spencer Road side would be to the entryways from Spencer Road, and the rear
porches. The applicants explored building stairs instead, but they would have disrupted the
greenspace. The project team now proposes retaining the residential fence near the sidewalk
with a retaining wall below it, running from west to east. They have also divided the
serpentine walk in two (adjacent to each of the townhome units), rather than having the
sidewalk running down the middle. This now gives them more available greenspace (which
is probably an improvement). The number of plantings has remained the same, but they have
been redistributed around the landscaped area. The original doors into the multi-family
buildings have also been consolidated into lobby space. Finally, on the north end of the
building, they added a few more stairs.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked that the Planning Board asked the applicants in 2012 not to make the
project look like the backs of buildings facing the street. Removing the sidewalks is a
serious negative impact that makes the whole project resemble more of a suburban project. It
represents a significant loss. Jones-Rounds agreed. Schroeder asked if three walkways
could be re-established and another walkway from the wall added. Trowbridge replied those
are good observations and the applicants could certainly explore those suggestions. They
would also explore articulating the façade a little more.
Jones-Rounds observed that the rear now seems lacking. She suggested adding something to
bridge the gap between the project and passers-by on Spencer Road. The currently proposed
walls seem excessive.
Hugo responded that the project team would return to the Board with some proposals for
additional screening (e.g., a green screen for the wall).
Acharya asked why the applicants no longer plan on having any openings. Trowbridge
replied that on the western end, the first-floor elevation is three feet below the sidewalk, so
the riser tread would have extended almost the full depth between the sidewalk and the units.
Schroeder suggested just having a few openings to the street. The entrances could also be
made to look more like porches. Trowbridge replied those are good suggestions.
Acharya asked if there would still be porches. Bowes replied, yes. Elliott remarked that the
units would extend deeper and deeper, as one progresses west. Bowes insisted they would
look like front porches.
Elliott asked if there would be any basements. Bowes replied, no, it would simply be slab-
on-grade. Elliott responded that constructing basements would remove more of the bearing
load on the soil and allow the project to resemble the original proposal. Hugo replied that the
applicants went through a lengthy investigation of the various options (e.g., geofoam), but to
excavate and build occupiable basements would have been prohibitively expensive.
Bowes added that the project team tried striking the right balance for making the project both
financially and technically feasible, without making major changes to the façade.
Elliott observed that the project now looks almost like a gated community.
Jones-Rounds noted that the fence is 4-feet tall in both designs and she asked if the
applicants could shorten it. Trowbridge responded that would look too short from the street
side and it would not provide enough privacy to the people on the inside. Acharya wondered
if there would be a genuine need for so much privacy.
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds suggested a living wall. Trowbridge replied that he thinks they could plant on
the wall.
Trowbridge noted the applicants could lower the fence a little and could probably do a few
other things to address the Board’s concerns.
Schroeder asked if it would be possible to construct bump-outs for pedestrians, so they are
not walking through the full width of the parking lot (especially since the applicants will be
gaining a space originally required to be a loading zone). Trowbridge replied, yes, the
applicants would explore re-arranging some of the bump-outs.
Blalock asked about the planned right-of-way on Spencer Road. Bowes replied that the City
allocated $40,000 in its budget to perform an analysis of the Stone Quarry Road and Spencer
Road connections. The plan remains to create some kind of connection, so that people would
not be walking through other people’s property.
Hugo walked through the project elevations, noting the applicant would likely return in in
July with material samples, colors, etc.
Schroeder remarked that the elevations are generally better than before, except for the lower
butterfly roof. Hugo replied that the applicants could take another look at that.
C. Student Housing Addition Project, 140 College Ave., Jason Demarest for Betsy Po.
Consideration of Proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The
applicant received Site Plan Approval for the project in April 2011 and was granted an
extension in April 2013. In January 2014, the City adopted §325-45, Collegetown Area
Form Districts, which changed the zoning of the parcel from R-3b to CR-4. Under
provisions of the CR-4 District, no off-street parking is required, if: (1) buildings fully
comply with New York State Building Code for new construction; and (2) a TDM plan is
accepted by the Planning and Development Board.
Applicant Jason Demarest explained that the project has been moving forward and he has the
contractor in place. The original site plan provided four on-site parking spaces, with another
eight required spaces provided through off-site parking leases; however, the off-site parking
leases will expire before construction begins and most of them are not renewable. Since the
new Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) zoning requirements permit relief from
minimum parking requirements, subject to the Board’s approval of a TDM plan, that is what
the applicant now proposes.
Demarest explained that there is no need for additional parking. Only 3 of the 12 people in
the building actually rent parking spaces. The property is also only two two blocks from the
center of Collegetown, a TCAT bus goes by the property, an Ithaca Carshare space is nearby,
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
and there will be six bike rack spaces available on-site. (Jones-Rounds asked if the bike
racks would be coverable. Demarest replied, yes.)
Jones-Rounds asked how many of the nine other residents have cars. Demarest replied that
he does not know. Po remarked that some of the other residents with cars may be leaving
them at a nearby fraternity house. They do not really use their cars most of the time, so she
believes they often keep them there.
Jones-Rounds asked what method would be used to manage the distribution and use of the
Ithaca Carshare passes. Demarest replied that the Ithaca Carshare passes would be
incorporated into the lease. There would be 24 passes.
Schroeder noted the question of enforcement has been of particular concern in the past, since
it would be difficult for the Building Division to enforce. He suggested the Board explicitly
require submission of an annual letter (with accompanying receipts), which would permit the
City to determine if the TDM plan is actually working. Cornish agreed that would probably
be acceptable, as long as the onus is on the property owner to provide the necessary
information.
Acharya noted that this TDM plan is exactly the type of thing he envisioned for a small
project. It is a good example/model.
Elliott asked about the white archway in the middle of the yard. Demarest replied the
applicant will work very hard to get rid of it.
Acharya noted the TDM plan does require formal written Planning Board approval; so some
language should be added requiring the applicant to annually submit a letter with
accompanying receipts to the Buildling Division.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Approval
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, it was tentatively agreed to approve
the proposed TDM Plan.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Randall
Vacancies: None
Cornish noted the whole issue will need be revisited at the next Planning Board meeting, so
that a draft resolution can be generated with the appropriate language.
C. 205 Dryden Rd., Student Housing Project, Jagat Sharma ― Sketch Plan
Applicants Jagat Sharma and Pat Kraft presented a brief overview of the project.
Sharma noted the project would include: a 5-foot front setback; a 10-foot rear yard setback;
ground-floor retail spaces; two 4-bedroom apartments in the upper five floors, 40 beds, and
an inner courtyard. It would also feature projecting balconies and bay windows on the north
and south sides. The building would be constructed of a light-colored brick and limestone.
Elliott asked if the plan could be flipped, since the primary façade should really be on the
west side, rather than the east, allowing more light into the courtyard space at appropriate
times. Sharma replied, yes
Cornish asked if there would be a 0-foot sideyard. Sharma replied, yes. Cornish cautioned
there may be Building Code issues associated with that.
Schroeder asked if there are any other building proposals for the other parts of the block.
Cornish replied that she believes so, but nothing has been confirmed. Schroeder indicated it
would be good if there could be some coordination of the design of the two courtyards. He
asked the applicants how tall the building would be. Sharma replied, 62 feet.
Nicholas noted she already met with the City Sidewalk Program Manager about coordinating
the sidewalks.
Schroeder noted there is also an issue concerning the unsightly street utility poles. He
suggested that issue be carefully considered as the projects are being reviewed. He added
that the sidewalks on Dryden Road should be widened. All of these kinds of issues need to
be explored and coordinated.
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott noted he does not see any space for risers. He assumes the HVAC system would be
internal. Sharma replied that is a big point of discussion, which has not yet been resolved. A
central system would be too expensive, so the applicants are trying to identify an appropriate
hybrid system.
Schroeder suggested the applicant accentuate the architectural idiosyncracies of the design of
the top of the building.
Elliott requested a drawing showing the perspective looking down the street and the other
side of the street.
D. 307 College Ave., Mixed-Use Apartments, Josh Lower & Jagat Sharma ― Sketch
Plan
Sharma presented a brief overview of the project, noting it is essentially the same as the prior
proposal, with a few changes to comply with the new CAFD zoning requirements. He noted
the building has been brought all the way to the College Avenue property line. The City
Director of Zoning Administration reviewed the project and indicated that everything
appears acceptable. The west elevation would remain unchanged, except the opening has
been brought up to the street line. The proposed pedestrian walkway from College Avenue
to Linden Avenue would also be retained.
Acharya asked about the parking spaces. Sharma replied there would be five parking spaces
in the rear. The new units would be part of of the MU-2 Zone, which does not require
parking. Cornish noted that the Board would need verification of that from the Director of
Zoning Administration.
Elliott observed that the elevation depicts window air conditioning units. Sharma replied,
yes, that is correct. Elliott noted the Board would need more details about that. It would be
preferrable to have central air or some other alternative.
Schroeder expressed concern with the northwest corner, which appears so plain. He
suggested adding another set of block windows, or something else, to add some visual
interest. Sharma repied he would look into that.
Schroeder noted there is also the issue of the sidewalk width and the telephone pole. The
minimum width from curb to building should be 12 feet. Sharma replied that if the telephone
pole served only 307 College Avenue, the applicants could remove it; however, it serves 5
other buildings.
Schroeder wondered if the curb could not be moved further out. Having a wide enough
sidewalk will be very important to the future of Collegetown. Some kind of solution needs to
be found, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder asked about the status of the street trees. Lower replied that TCAT will be
installing a bus shelter, so street trees would not be possible. Schroeder noted there is no
genuine need for on-street parking spaces. Cornish noted she is not sure what the City would
be ready to commit to, in terms of moving those curbs; however, the Board could certainly
ask the City to explore the issue.
E. Downtown Hampton Inn Hotel, Scott Whitham ― Sketch Plan
Applicant Scott Whitham presented a brief overview of the project, noting it would include a
circular entryway, some retail space on the corner, a restaurant, a bar, a pool, and some lobby
space.
Jones-Rounds noted she would prefer to see more varied building textures. The massing
would also be a concern for her, especially as seen from the other side of Seneca Street. The
site is one of the gateways into Ithaca: it should look particularly good.
Schroeder noted it appears somewhat gray and gloomy-looking on one façade, compared to
the other. He suggested adding more color or points-of-interest on the façade visible from
State Street. He also suggested adding some street-edge definition along the sidewalk in
front of the entrance.
Elliott agreed with Schroeder about adding color or a lighter tone. He suggested adding
more landscaping and increasing the floor-to-floor height. He asked for an illustration
showing the building in context with more buildings (e.g., the Park Building and the
Community School of Music & Arts Building).
Blalock suggested the applicants contact Contemporary Trends about sharing the vehicular
loading area. Whitham replied he has already been in touch with them. They may be
amenable to something like that.
Elliott suggested eliminating the parking along the left to make it more like a grand avenue.
The current illustration makes the State Street entrance look more like a working alley.
Schroeder suggested adding a mural, like the one that was demolished.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
F. 314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building), Renovations & Addition, Frost Travis & John
Snyder ― Sketch Plan
Applicants Frost Travis and John Snyder presented a brief overview of the project, noting
they are trying to coordinate its design as much as possible with the second-floor renovation
currently underway for the downtown business incubator.
Travis noted the applicants would like to see the Mayers store re-open, but the owner chose
to close the business during construction and may choose not to return. The project would
need a 12-foot easement along the east side; and the main entrance would be on the north
side. The applicants will seek a zoning variance for the 6th and 7th floors, which will be
housing units. Travis noted the applicants specifically designed the project using the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as a reference.
Snyder noted the back façade would be remodeled and there would be three roof-top
mechanicals (screened or concealed).
Schroeder suggested that the building should possess some degree of compatibility with the
buildings in the Historic District. In the current proposal, the addition on the top appears to
unnecessarily dominate the building below. He suggested having it project less or adding a
finer level of detail to the façade. Acharya agreed.
Jones-Rounds suggested borrowing some more architectural references from the original
building.
Elliott suggested adding a bump-out on the east side so the building would hang over and
down, perhaps forming an arcade, so some part of the building reaches the ground. Snyder
replied that is a great suggestion, although the applicants do not envision that wall being
completely blank.
4. Zoning Appeals
APPEAL #2942, Area Variance ― 208 Esty Street
Appeal of John Mawdsley for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the
ground floor of the property located at 208 Esty Street. The 270 S.F. addition will be located
on the east side of the dwelling and the applicant proposes to extend the existing front porch,
an additional 10 feet, which will provide a walk out feature to the new addition. The
proposed 10’ porch extension will be constructed in line with the existing front porch, which
is located 5’- 6” from the front property line. As a result, the front yard will be deficient 4’-
6” of the required 10’ front yard dimension of the zoning ordinance.
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit
may be issued.
Planning Board members felt that the addition is contextual wit the house and the
neighborhood and recommend this appeal be granted.
APPEAL #2943, Parking Variance ― 246 Floral Avenue
Appeal of Nathaniel Greenspun on behalf of the owner Liu Chunhua for an area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 4, off-street parking, Column 11, front yard requirement of the
zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes construct an addition to the dwelling located at 246
Floral Avenue. The 150 S.F. single story addition will be located on southwest corner of the
existing dwelling and be used as a bedroom. The dwelling currently has three bedrooms and
adding an additional bedroom requires a total of two parking spaces. The building is situated
on a steep embankment above the road elevation making it difficult to provide any parking
on the property. The property has zero spaces provided, of the two spaces required by the
ordinance. The property has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by
the proposed project.
The property is located in an R-2c residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building
permit is issued.
Planning Board members recommend this appeal be granted.
APPEAL #2944, Area Variance ― 228 W. Spencer Street
Appeal of Christopher Anagnost on behalf Theron L. Johnson Trust for Area Variance from
Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 10, Percentage of Coverage, Column 11, Front
Yard, Column 12/13, Side Yards, Column 14/15, Rear Yard, and 325-20 D. (5)(a), Parking
Space Size Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a
single-family dwelling on the vacant lot located at 228 W. Spencer Street. The lot has been
vacant since 1976, when the previous owner Fernando Macera was ordered to demolish the
unsafe structure located on the lot.
The current owner has attempted to sell the lot, but there has been no interest for the irregular
nonconforming lot by any of the adjoining property owners. Therefore, the applicant would
like to develop the property by constructing a three-level dwelling on the non-conforming
parcel. The property is deficient in lot area having 1596 SF of the 3,000 SF required by the
ordinance. To optimize the deficient lot and provide adequate square footage for the dwelling
unit, the applicant proposes to construct the dwelling with a 600 SF footprint. Even with this
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
small footprint, the lot coverage will result in a 2.5% deficiency of the 35% required by the
ordinance. The building will be placed 2.5’ from the front property line, which creates a
deficiency of 7.5’ of the 10’ front yard requirement. The side yards will also be affected,
having a deficiency of 2’ on one side yard and 1’ on the other side yard of the 10’ and 5’ side
yard requirements of Zoning Ordinance. The structure will be positioned 8’ from the rear lot
line, creating a deficiency of 12’ of the 20’ minimum rear yard requirement. In order to
provide required parking, the applicant proposes to allow adequate room for a compact car in
the garage. The ordinance requires parking spaces be a minimum of 8’ in width and 18’ in
length; the proposed is 10’2” x 16’, a deficiency of 2’ in length, of the requirement.
The property is located in an R-2b Residential Use District in which the proposed use is
permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a Building Permit
may be issued.
Planning Board members recognize the unusual shape of the parcel and feel that the
appellant has done a good job of designing the building. Planning Board members
recommend this appeal be granted.
APPEAL #2945, Special Permit ― 331 Floral Avenue
Appeal of Chrys Gardener from Cornell Cooperative Extension on behalf of the owner for a
Community Garden special permit as required by Section 325-9C (1)(L) of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to install a community garden at the property located at
311 Floral Avenue. The property is owned by the City of Ithaca and is located between the
flood control channel and Floral Avenue. The gardens will be in close proximity to neighbor
residents and three apartment complexes. The proposal includes installing 25 plots measuring
approximately 15’ x 12’, a perimeter fence, and a flower bed for pollination and beautifying
the project area. There is a 50’ x 75’ parking area on the property for ease of access.
The property is located in a P-1 public use district in which the proposed accessory use is
permitted. However, Section 325-9C (1)(L) requires that community or neighborhood
gardens be permitted only by special permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Planning Board members are strongly in favor of this proposal and recommend this appeal
be granted.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5. New Business
A. Planning Board Report on Proposed Expansion of East Hill Historic District
Acharya noted the proposal seems fairly straight-forward. Schroeder agreed.
Resolution Approving Proposed Expansion of East Hill Historic District
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2014, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to
recommend expansion of the local East Hill Historic District to include the five properties
fronting on Orchard Place that are not currently included within the district, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, stipulates that the
Planning and Development Board shall file a report with Common Council with respect to the
relation of such designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public
improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board shall file the attached report with respect
to the issues stipulated in the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board supports the expansion of the local East
Hill Historic District to include the entirety of Orchard Place.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Randall
Vacancies: None
Schroeder remarked the report should refer to recommendation 5. M. from the 2009
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines. There were no objections.
B. Planning Board Comments on Proposal to Create Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Floating Zone District
Acharya remarked it is a great proposal. Charging Common Council with approving the
PUD applications (as opposed to the BZA) should also serve to make it a more consistent
process.
Schroeder asked if the proposal was primarily conceived for the benefit of the proposed
development of the Emerson Power Transmission site.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornish replied, yes, more or less. The thinking was to propose it only for “Industrial” zones
to begin with, since there have been some concerns it would be a way of circumventing
existing zoning requirements. An effort is also being made to anticipate how it might benefit
other kinds of projects (e.g., Aurora Street Pocket Neighborhood, which could potentially
have been a PUD). She noted the Town of Ithaca already has a similar mechanism in place.
The Emerson Power Transmission project would therefore submit applications to both the
City and the Town, on parallel tracks.
Resolution in Support of Proposal to Create Planned Unit Development (PUD) Floating Zone
District
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board did on May 27, 2014 review the 5/26/14
memorandum from City Economic Development Planner Jennifer Kusznir and accompanying
documents, regarding a proposal to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Floating Zoning
District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board supports the aforementioned proposal.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Randall
Vacancies: None
C. Potential Special Planning Board Meeting
Nicholas explained that the Downtown Marriott Hotel applicants have indicated that their
construction schedule is very tight and they are asking the Board to schedule a special meeting
to review the project modifications.
Blalock noted it would be best to have the whole Board present at the meeting.
Schroeder indicated the Board also needs more detailed drawings of the project, in advance of
any meeting.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya announced he will be resigning from the Board. The June 24, 2014 Planning Board
meeting will be his last meeting. No replacement for his seat has yet been identified.
B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Acharya reported that BPW ultimately decided to approve the proposed purchase of 967 E.
State Street for use as a construction office during construction of the new Water Treatment
Plant; however, the BPW prohibited it from being demolished and turned into a driveway
entrance for the plant.
Acharya reported that BPW discussed the proposed stormwater utility and associated fee
structure. The purpose of the stormwater utility user fee would be to establish a municipal
fund dedicated solely to stormwater management. Each residential unit would be assessed
$43 per year, while multi-family and larger properties would be assessed based on square
footage of impermeable surface. Property owners would also be able to apply for credit,
where appropriate. Acharya noted it should be a very good system. The City spends
approximately $1 million every year on stormwater management-related work.
C. Planning Division Director
Cornish reported that some Common Council members, City staff, and community members
recently took a tour of the site for the proposed 7 Ridgewood Road Student Housing
apartments project in the Cornell Heights Historic District. Community members appeared
pleased that City officials were taking such an active interest in seeing the site first-hand.
7. Approval of Minutes: April 22, 2014
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott, the draft April 22, 2014 meeting minutes as
edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Randall
Vacancies: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
19