HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-06-24DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
June 24, 2014
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Isabel Fernández;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott
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;
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney
Applicants Attending: 305 Taylor Pl. ― Minor Subdivision
Ken Walker, Applicant
Hector St. ― Major Subdivision
Marilyn Ryan, Applicant
140 College Ave. ― Student Housing Addition Project
Jason Demarest, Jason K. Demarest Architect;
Betsy Po, Owner
120 S. Aurora St. ― Downtown Marriott Hotel
Mathew Jalazo, URGO Hotels
358 & 370 Elmira Rd. ― Maguire Import Vehicle Display Lot
Tom Schickel, Tom Schickel Architects
314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building) ― Renovations & Addition
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties;
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornell Health Services Facility
John Keefe, Cornell University;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Grace Chiang, Chiang O’Brien Architects
323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project
Steve Flash, Rampart Real, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
327 Eddy St. ― Sketch Plan Review
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects;
Steve Fontana, Owner
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Mayor Svante Myrick thanked Chair Govind Acharya for his service on the Planning Board
and the Board of Public Works (BPW), and expressed how much he has appreciated his
leadership.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke regarding Inlet Island, and the need
to develop it. He also asked about the future of Simeon’s after the tractor trailer accident and
expressed concern with the overall safety of the Commons.
Dennis Stein, Historic Ithaca, President, commented on the Carey Building Renovations and
Addition Project, noting that Historic Ithaca opposes the Area Variance for the project. The
project documentation does not provide enough information to justify the variance; and
approving the variance would obstruct the aesthetic appearance of the existing historic
structure. The massing of the new addition would overwhelm the original Carey Building.
Ed Finegan, 403 E. Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the Carey Building Renovations
and Addition Project, in terms of its massing and scale. It would be out of scale with the rest
of East State Street in that area.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Subdivisions
A. Minor Subdivision, 305 Taylor Pl., Kenneth & Sarah Walker. Declaration of Lead
Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, &
Consideration of Subdivision Approval. The applicants are proposing to subdivide
existing 3.64-acre site into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street
frontage on Taylor Place and containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B,
measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in
the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street
frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but
not less than 20 feet, respectively. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
and is subject to environmental review.
Applicant Ken Walker recapitulated the salient details of the proposed subdivision. He
indicated that he received the County’s GML comments letter containing the County’s
recommendation for a minimum 50-foot no-disturbance buffer for the stream.
Cornish explained that in its letter the County is quoting from the General Municipal Law
(GML) and is arguing that, if construction continues to take place right up to the borders of
City streams, the community will cumulatively begin to see significant negative impacts in
terms of storm water management, erosion, sedimentation, etc. Stream buffers would
prevent that from happening. Schroeder added that the nature of the County’s
recommendation is routine.
Walker asked what the rationale is behind the County’s request for a 50-foot buffer, as
opposed to some other distance. Randall replied that a 50-foot buffer is a standard mininum
buffer width. Various buffer widths are employed for various purposes, but a standard
mininum buffer should be nothing less than 50 feet.
Cornish noted that, even if a buffer were established, it should not make the lot unbuildable.
Any future structure would simply need to be appropriately sited to make room for the
buffer.
Schroeder observed that it looks like the existing house is fewer than 50 feet from the stream.
Acharya asked if Board members believe the buffer should instituted. He would not
personally be inclined to pursue the issue.
Jones-Rounds asked what possible mechanism could be employed, since the Board is only
considering a Subdivision application at this time. Acharya replied it would simply mean
that whover happens to buy the land would be required to comply with the buffer.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández indicated she does not see a problem with including the buffer.
Schroeder indicated his only potential concern would be that it appears to place the footprint
of the existing house in the buffer area, although the existing house would certainly be
grandfathered.
Jones-Rounds noted she supports the County’s recommendation.
Walker asked what the definition of the “top of the bank” is supposed to be. Fernández
replied it would depend on the GML’s own definition.
Schroeder remarked that instituting the buffer would make Parcel B un-developable (and
would also include a portion of the existing house). Given that any potential development on
the site could not be intensive, by any measure, he does not see a reason to include the
buffer.
Fernández suggested the buffer could be placed 50 feet from the center line of the stream (as
opposed to the top of the bank). Acharya replied that would seem to work fine.
Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández:
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 #57.-1-
2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and
containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet
of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires
a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front,
side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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
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
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of subdivision approval for City of
Ithaca Tax Parcel #57.-1-2.2, located at 305 Taylor Place in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder,
seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Acharya explained that a supermajority of votes will be required for the resolution to pass,
since the Board will not be accepting the County’s recommendation as written.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández:
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 #57.-1-
2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and
containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet
of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires
a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front,
side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested parties have
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments
received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in offical GML comments,
recommended that the City require a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer measured from the top of an
intermittent stream passing along the parcel’s northern boundary, and
WHEREAS: in the Planning Board’s judgment, such a buffer would have rendered Parcel B
either difficult or impossible to develop, and so the Board is therefore instead requiring a 50-foot
no-disturbance buffer (to be maintained as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of
this stream, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on June 24, 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision
Map, No. 305 Taylor Place, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C., and dated 5/8/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the
R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
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 #57.-1-
2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and
containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet
of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires
a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front,
side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the parcel to be subdivided has been properly posted and circulated in accordance
with Chapter 290, §290-9.C. (2), of the City Code, and
WHEREAS: a legally advertised Public Hearing for this Subdivision was held on June 24, 2014,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in offical GML comments,
recommended that the City require a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer measured from the top of an
intermittent stream passing along the parcel’s northern boundary, and
WHEREAS: in the Planning Board’s judgment, such a buffer would have rendered Parcel B
either difficult or impossible to develop, and so the Board is therefore instead requiring a 50-foot
no-disturbance buffer (to be maintained as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of
this stream, and
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 27, 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision
Map, No. 305 Taylor Place, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C., and dated 5/8/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 24, 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 resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the
R-1a 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 #57.-1-2.2, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, subject to the following conditions:
i. Subdivision map to be revised to show on both Parcel A and Parcel B a 50-foot no-
disturbance buffer (to exclude any disturbance including driveways and be maintained
as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of the intermitten stream which
follows the parcel’s nothern boundary, and
ii. Submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat (including the above no-
disturbance buffer), all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed
surveyor.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
B. Major Subdivision, Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, Hector St., Marilyn Ryan. Re-
Affirmation of Final Approval. The applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing
4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres (11,569 SF) with 100 feet of
street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres (11,497 SF) with 100 feet of
street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres (11,663 SF) with 110 feet of
street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres with 169 feet of street
frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell Avenue. The parcel is
in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, and a minimum
width at-street of 75 feet. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
for which the Board issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May
28, 2013. The applicant received final approval for the subdivision on May 28, 2013, which
expired because the subdivision was not filed.
Applicant Marilyn Ryan recapitulated the salient details of the proposed subdivision.
Nicholas indicated she verified that it is the precisely the same subdivision that was approved
by the Board on May 28, 2013.
Re-Affirmation of Final Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: on May 28, 2013, the Planning and Development Board granted Final Subdivision
Approval for a Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy
Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and
WHEREAS: the approved subdivision consisted of the following: to subdivide the existing
4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres (11,569 SF) with 100 feet of street
frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres (11,497 SF) with 72 feet of street
frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres (11,663 SF) with 110 feet of street
frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres with 169 feet of street frontage on
Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a
Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, and a minimum width at-street of
75 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Board did, on April
23, 2013 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified
in accordance with Chapter 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 April
23, 2013, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April 23, 2013
review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF),
Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; a plan entitled “Survey Map
Showing Portion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 10/11/12, with a revision date of 4/1/13,
and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and additional application materials, and
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: Tompkins County, the Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested parties
have been given the opportunity to review the information for this project and the Planning
Board considered any comments received, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognized that information received and
reviewed for this Subdivision indicated the resultant parcels conform with the City of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-1a Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on April 23, 2013 grant
Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on May 23, 2013 grant
Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#19.-4-7.2, submitted by Dorothy Sturtevant and Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, subject
to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and
signature of a registered licensed surveyor, and
WHEREAS: final approved and signed plats must be filed with the County Assessor within 90
days of Planning Board approval, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has on June 24, 2014 submitted paper copies of the approved plat, all
having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor, for signature, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby reaffirm the granting
of Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#19.-4-7.2, submitted by Dorothy Sturtevant and Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
4. Site Plan Review
A. Student Housing Addition ― Transportation Demand Management Plan, 140
College Ave., Jason Demarest for Betsy Po. Approval of 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.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Nicholas indicated the applicant could not be present tonight.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: the Planning Board granted site plan approval for a Student Housing Addition at
140 College Avenue in April 2011 and an extension was subsequently granted in April 2013,
and
WHEREAS: 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 the 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 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Plan is accepted by the Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has submitted a proposed TDM Plan by Jason Demarest, applicant
for owner, Po Family Realty, and
WHEREAS: the new and existing buildings fully comply with New York State Building Code
for new construction, and
WHEREAS: the Board did on May 27, 2014 review and accept as adequate a document entitled:
“Traffic Demand Management Plan – 140 College Ave.,” prepared by Jason Demarest and dated
5/22/14, with the understanding that this plan would be modified by adding a provision requiring
annual submission of a letter to the Building Division verifying compliance with the TDM; and
a letter of commitment from property owner Ching Po to the Planning and Development Board,
dated 5/21/14, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution approving the TDM Plan for the Student Housing Addition Project, 140 College
Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
i. The TDM shall be modified to add a requirement that the applicant, including
applicant’s successors or assigns, submit an annual letter to the Building Division for the
140 College Avenue property file (along with accompanying carshare receipts) that
documents compliance with the TDM plan, and
ii. A revised “Traffic Demand Management Plan – 140 College Avenue” document
including the above added requirement shall be submitted to planning staff for inclusion
in the project file.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B. Downtown Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora St., Mathew Jalazo, URGO Hotels.
Approval with Conditions of Façade & Materials Modifications.
Applicant Mathew Jalazo explained that the applicant understands the Planning Board’s
previously expressedconcerns and will try to address all of them as best it can.
Schroeder noted he would like to tighten the language in the resolution regarding the curtains
in the windows of the northeast corner rooms, so that they require Planning Board approval.
He believes there are also conditions from the 2012 approval that have not been met.
Nicholas replied that all the conditions which could feasibly be met by the applicant, at this
point in the process, have been met.
Schroeder remarked that the Board never received a drawing showing the wider sidewalk
width. Nicholas replied, that is correct, but the applicant actually did submit it; she simply
did not forward it to the Planning Boad.
Schroeder asked if the applicant will be screening the transformer that is set into the
retaining-wall area, south of hotel, as requested. The applicant was supposed to work with
Planning staff on that issue. Jalazo replied the applicant did submit that document, but since
the land upon which it would be situated does not belong to the applicant, that will be
submitted to NYS DOT for its approval. He added the applicant did submit an overall
landscaping plan for that area.
Jones-Rounds requested that, given some of the sensitivities associated with the project, all
submissions be provided together, so the Board has the opportunity to discuss them all at a
single meeting, rather than separately. Acharya agreed that is a good idea. There were no
objections.
Blalock noted the resolution should call for submission and approval of all outstanding
documents.
Fernández noted the Green Street elevation suggests the project would have a significant
negative impact. Jalazo replied those particular elevations are difficult to generate
electronically, so the actual renderings were not updated. The Green Street façade, however,
has not changed. It will not be pink brick, as illustrated on the rendering. Fernández
responded that it is the blank unadorned façade she opposes, not the color. She also opposes
the transformers on that façade.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornish explained that those details were already approved by the Board. The Board is only
charged today with approving the subsequent modifications to the previously approved site
plan.
Schroeder also pointed out that the transformers will be screened and the applicant will be
submitting a planting plan for that slope, as required in the resolution.
Jones-Rounds asked the City Attorney to provide a brief overview of which project
components the Board is legally authorized to approve or reject tonight.
City Attorney Aaron Lavine replied the Board can choose to approve or reject the project for
various reasons, but a court of law would review any denial of the Site Plan Review
application and determine if the reasons cited have a rational basis in the record. For
example, the Board could reject the project because it believes it will generate intolerable
additional traffic volume or because it does not comply with the City Zoning Code.
Jones-Rounds asked if if would hold up in court if Fernández were to reject the project on the
basis that she does not think the design is attractive enough.
Lavine replied that serious aesthetic concerns are an appropriate criterion for review of a
project; however, generalized community opposition to the project would not be an
appropriate criterion.
Cornish reiterated the Board already approved the project ― except the project modifications
that took place since that approval. Some of the objections Fernández has raised, therefore,
cannot be considered, at this stage in the process.
Fernández noted she only objects to the Green Street façade. She would at least like to state
for the record that, while she loves the project in principle, she really dislikes the Green
Street façade.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicant would be able to move forward with the project as it was
originally approved, if the Board were to reject the modifications tonight. Lavine replied, in
theory, yes, but in actuality, no.
Acharya noted he is personally swayed by the fact that the project is so superior to the
current conditions of the site.
Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could require landscaping for the façade. Schroeder
replied, that is on NYS DOT property.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds asked if there were any conceivable reason the state would not approve the
landscaping. Cornish replied it would depend on the results of a visibility study, among
other things.
Jalazo noted that landscaping was part of the original site plan submission. Only the state
DOT and NYSEG approvals remain to be obtained for that to move forward.
Schroeder suggested situating taller plantings on the DOT property. Jalazo replied that could
be done, as long as it would not negatively impact the area under the bridge.
Schroeder also suggested requiring revised elevations and perspectives showing the exact
color(s) being used to replace the previous brick pattern (on all four sides).
Jalaza indicated the applicant is perfectly willing to update the renderings, as long as those
changes are limited to the items listed in the resolution. He also remarked that the Nichiha
cement board system has already been approved, but its design has not. Schroeder agreed
that is the case. The resolution would only call for approval of the proposed color and
pattern of Nichiha panels.
Cornish asked if the applicant has selected a particular stonework. Jalazo replied, yes, a
Coronado Stone product.
Façade & Materials Modifications Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials, lighting, and building façade changes
for the Marriott Hotel at 120 S. Aurora Street, which was approved by the Planning Board on
November 13, 2012, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of
Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant
enough to require re-opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site
Plan Review application, and
WHEREAS: the changes consist of the following: reduction in the projections on the second-
floor and roof levels; substitution of Llenroc cladding with Coronado Stone; replacement of
metal panel system with Nichiha cement board system; change in signage; elimination of
projecting brick pattern around windows, LED lighting, flagpoles, and site retaining wall and
Llenroc planters on south side of the building; and relocation of Commons-facing door and
addition of canopy to said door, and
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Board did on June 10, 2014 review a memo from Mathew Jalazo to JoAnn
Cornish dated May 10, 2014 titled “Project updates narrative” describing applicant’s proposed
changes to the project; and elevations illustrating these changes, entitled: “Elevation – Aurora
Street,” “Elevation – North,” “Elevation – West,” “Elevation – Green Street,” and “Materials,”
all prepared by Cooper Carry, and dated June 10, 2014, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes
proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions and modifications:
i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations of all building
facades and of street-level perspectives showing darker / lighter alternating brick color ―
to replace previously alternating projecting brick pattern ― around all windows in all
portions of the building with brick cladding, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations showing canopy
above redesigned north door, and
iii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials boards (and photos
of boards) showing all building materials, including glass, proposed color and pattern of
Nichiha paneling system, and color and arrangement of the proposed Coronado Stone
product as it will be installed, and
iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of cutsheets, samples or illustrations,
plus a partial rendering, showing proposed curtains to be located in the windows of the
northeast corner rooms, these curtains to have a pattern presenting an abstract waterfall-
like effect as viewed from exterior; said curtains (including substantially similar
replacement curtains as needed) shall be a permanent part of the building design, and
v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised landscape plan showing
plantings of varying heights in location of eliminated Llenoc planters, and
The following applicable, unsatisfied conditions from the November 13, 2012 Modified Final Site
Plan Approval:
vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing increased
clear sidewalk width at the Aurora Street hotel entrance — to facilitate free pedestrian
movement north and south along Aurora Street, easy movement in and out of the hotel
entrance, and adequate space for loading and unloading operations at the adjacent loading
zone — by means such as further recessing the revolving door into the building, and/or
repositioning the curb here somewhat to the east by straightening its alignment and/or
reducing the width of the adjacent loading zone lane on Aurora Street from twelve feet to
eleven feet, and
vii. Submission to Planning Department staff of screening of transformer set into retaining-
wall area south of hotel, and
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
viii. Applicant to seek approval from the NYS Department of Transportation for
implementation of a planting plan on the hill below the northwest corner of the Aurora
Street bridge similar to that shown on drawing C300 dated 09/05/12, and
ix. The Planning Board urges the applicant and the Board of Public Works to cooperate so
that applicant may install signage on streets near the hotel informing motorists that the
hotel can be entered directly from the Green Street Parking Garage decks, and
x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and
xi. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
C. Maguire Imports Vehicle Display Lot, 358 & 370 Elmira Rd., Schickel Architecture
for Maguire Family Limited Partnership. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public
Hearing. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing vehicle display and service lots,
pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot, add four tree islands, and a bio-retention
area. The project will increase parking by 188 spaces, from 664 to 852, on the 10-acre site.
Site development will require removal of approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation. This is a
Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4
B.(1)(d) and B.(2), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
Applicant Tom Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the
applicant already added 12,000 SF on the site and added a staff parking lot. The applicant
also performed considerable stormwater mitigation for the project. He noted that, while the
project is not LEED-certified, the applicant is committed to implementing it in accordance
with sound environmental practices. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
has been submitted to the City Environmental Engineer. Schickel added that there was an
issue that was submitted to SHPO for clarification, as well as to NYS DEC, about
endangered species; however, the applicant does not anticipate this would be a problem.
Schickel noted the applicant has also addressed the City Transportation Engineer’s
comments regarding the purpose of the project. The main purpose of the project is that the
business has been very successful and has experienced considerable growing pressure on the
site (e.g., it is very hard to maneuver on the site, drive in and out, etc.). The current proposed
project is intended to alleviate those problems.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schickel explained that a major portion of the project is for expanding the display parking
area. In its initial Site Plan Review application, the applicant did not distinguish between old
and new paving. That has now been rectified.
Schickel noted the entire roof will be employed to harvest rainwater into tanks for use in
washing facilities and toilets; so that water would not contribute to the water on the site. The
applicant is proposing putting asphalt pavement over one foot of gravel paving. Some
damaged trees will also be replanted. Fourteen of the parking spaces would be recaptured
from the existing parking lot. A small amount of asphalt paving would be removed for the
tree islands.
Schickel noted that, while the applicant appreciates the benefits of shade trees, they would be
genuinely incompatible with the display purpose of the lot. The applicant initially added a
bio-retention area to serve as the primary treatment for water run-off, which would slightly
decrease water run-off (although the total run-off would increase slightly over time).
Jones-Rounds asked how many staff persons are on site at any one time. Schickel replied
there are 315 total, with approximately 150 on site at any one time. (Not all of them perform
work related to this particular facility.) The parking lot is very full and the applicant
definitely needs the additional space.
Schickel mentioned the applicant would be planting numerous trees. Jones-Rounds
responded that any newly planted trees should be protected with individual barriers.
Randall asked what changes were made in the area of 358 Elmira Road, since the Project
Review Committee met. Schickel replied that they added 2 elm trees in the middle of the lot.
No other plantings were made.
Randall remarked that she assumed the applicant’s photographic aerial submission
represented what is actually on the site now; however, the Conservation Advisory Council
(CAC) now informs the Board that some of the trees that are depicted have in fact been cut
down, which she is very concerned about. Schickel replied that those trees had been cut
down for months. Randall indicated that is entirely new information for her.
Acharya noted it would be helpful to have a brief summary of any trees that have been cut
down and when they were cut down. Schickel replied they were cut down sometime in
Spring 2014. The owner indicated he had the right to cut them down.
Acharya responded that cutting the trees down was definitely not a part of the Site Plan
Approval. He asked if the current proposal conforms to the Southwest Design Guidelines, in
terms of green space. Cornish replied that 12% is recommended. Schickel noted that the
applicant has approximately 20% green space.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds asked what kind of asphalt would be used. Schickel replied it would be
largely impervious material. There is considerable traffic on the site and porous asphalt is
expensive. The bio-retention area seemed enough to meet the requirements of the Southwest
Design Guidelines.
Schroeder asked about the City Environmental Engineer’s comments. Nicholas replied she
spoke to him and he expressed some comments. He indicated that, while the general
approach of the SWPPP was satisfactory, more information is needed. He also believes that
the soils on the site do not make porous pavement a good choice.
Schroeder noted that the Board is not in a position to move forward with the Preliminary and
Final Approval this evening. He reiterated his request that the applicant work with a
landscape architect to improve the proposed landscaping. He also encouraged the applicant
to follow the CAC’s shade trees suggestions.
Cornish added that the applicant should clearly distinguish the existing trees from the
proposed trees on the drawings.
Schroeder expressed some confusion with the CAC’s comments about the additional bio-
retention area. He would like some clarification on that.
Nicholas responded that the City Environmental Engineer did not indicate that there actually
needs to be another bio-retention area. Schickel noted the applicant would be concerned
with adding another bio-retention area.
Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a parking and display lot expansion, to be located at 370
and 358 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca by Schickel Architecture, applicant for Maguire
Family Limited Partnership, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant recently acquired the 1.34 acre property at 358 Elmira Road
(Talmadge Tires) and proposes to increase the total number of parking spaces from 664 to 850, a
net gain of 186 spaces. The proposal is to enlarge the existing parking lot by 142 spaces (from
47 to 189 on the newly acquired property), add 44 spaces (from 267 to 311) to the service
parking area, and pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot. The project includes a total
of 29 new trees; nine within the parking areas and twenty trees along the edges of the property
and in the bio-retention area. Site preparation has included the removal of 1.5 acres of
vegetation containing over 25 mature trees. The site is within the SW-2 Zoning District and
requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1)(d), (2) and B.(2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 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
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, to be located at 358 and 370 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
D. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State St., Carey Building
Associates. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to
add 5 floors to the existing 2-story building. The addition will have approximately 3,600 SF
of office space on the 3rd floor and 14-16 micro-apartments on the 4th and 5th floors.
Design plans call for stepping the building back and providing 2-3 larger units on the 6th and
7th floors. The owner intends to retain retail use on the 1st floor and renovate the 2nd floor
for office space, and to provide a new entrance on the north façade of the building. The
proposed building includes outdoor terraces on the 3rd and 6th floors. The project is in the
CDB-60 and CDB-100 Zoning Districts, and requires an Area Variance for height. This is a
Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-
4 B.(1)(h) and B.(1)(k), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and
is subject to environmental review.
Applicants John Snyder and Frost Travis recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project. Snyder reported that the building previously featured an arched front, which has
now been pulled back as much as possible. The building will also now feature wing walls.
The applicants explored the possibility of having a green roof, but adding all that extra
weight would have been too problematic.
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Snyder indicated the applicant did explore bringing the side of the building down further, as
requested at the last Board meeting; however, it is right at property line and it simply did not
make any aesthetic sense to do that within such a small area.
Schroeder indicated the first set of submitted drawings showed a 12-foot easement. He asked
if that was part of the existing City parking lot. Travis replied, yes. As a result, there would
be fewer spaces associated with the project.
Jones-Rounds indicated the current project proposal is much improved. She suggested using
stone along the top façade. She also recommended adding some architectural detailing above
the front window ― something reflecting the style of the original building that would tie the
two buildings together. She also observed that the side windows seem dull and suggested
adding window sills, to which Snyder agreed.
Acharya asked about the rationale for the blank façade on the East Elevation. Snyder replied
the applicants could explore doing something further with that. Schroeder agreed that
something should be done with it. Travis replied that should be feasible.
Schroeder asked why the applicant is not proposing a wing wall on the west side, too.
Snyder replied he would explore that.
Schroeder noted that viewing the elevator-housing portion of the building makes him want to
see the whole top portion of the building brought one floor lower. The elevator-housing
portion of the building just makes the entire building look out-of-scale.
Schroeder asked if the project requires design review. Cornish replied, yes. Schroeder
suggested scheduling the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting before the next
Planning Board meeting.
Blalock expressed confusion as to why the easement only extends up the existing building.
Travis replied that is a Building Code requirement. Schroeder suggested someone discuss
that issue with the Board of Public Works. Extending the public easement all the way up
could only benefit the city as a whole. Blalock agreed.
Fernández asked why the entrance is in the back of the building and suggested moving it to
the corner. Travis replied that the plans are already too far along to consider that. The
combination of the opening of the business incubator project and the engineering challenges
associated with the building would make that alteration particularly disruptive. He does not
see how it could be done.
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Snyder explained that the applicant already explored numerous configurations for the stairs.
The lateral brace frame is already in the best position. Travis noted the applicant has
discussed coordinating some components of the project with the proposed new Hampton Inn
& Suites project, so the east side of the project will likely become the entry for both
buildings. There should definitely be a defined visual sense of the entryway for both
buildings.
Jones-Rounds asked about the signage. Travis replied it would be in the front, on the State
Street façade.
Schroeder recommended borrowing some additional abstract architectural ideas from the
Carey Building façade. Snyder replied, okay.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for building renovations and a five-story addition to be
located at 314-320 E. State Street, also known as the Carey Building, by Carey Building
Associates, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to add 5 floors to the existing 2-story building. The
addition will have approximately 3,600 SF of office space on the 3rd floor and 14-16 micro-
apartments on the 4th and 5th floors. Design plans call for stepping the building back and
providing 2-3 larger units on the 6th and 7th floors. The owner intends to retain retail use on the
1st floor and renovate the 2nd floor for office space, and to provide a new entrance on the north
façade of the building. The proposed building includes outdoor terraces on the 3rd and 6th floors.
The project is in the CDB-60 and CDB-100 Zoning Districts, and requires an Area Variance for
height, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h) and B.(1)(k), 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
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Site Plan Approval for the
proposed project, to be located at 314-320 E. State Street in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing.
Dennis Stein, Historic Ithaca, President, summarized the points he made earlier in the
meeting.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project.
Julie Schroeder, Carey Building tenant, spoke in opposition to the project, noting it is
overwhelming and out of character with the original building. She is also concerned with the
additional parking pressure that would be imposed on the area.
Ed Finegan, 403 E. Seneca Street, spoke in in opposition to the project, noting it is
overwhelming. He would prefer if one of the stories were removed.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-
Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Schroeder asked the applicant for a perspective image of the building that includes the east
side of the Commons.
E. Cornell Health Services Facility, Cornell University Campus, John Keefe for
Cornell University. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant
proposes to build two additions to the existing building for a total expansion of 73,600 SF.
One addition will be a 4-story, 55,000-SF building facing Campus Road and connected to the
two wings of the health center. The second addition will be 18,600 SF on the southeast
corner of the existing building. The project also includes construction of a new entrance on
Ho Plaza and internal renovations. Site development includes a revised drive off Campus
Road, landscaping, site amenities, and utility improvements. This is a Type I Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(b) and (n), an
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Applicants John Keefe, Peter Trowbridge, and Grace Chiang recapitulated the salient details
of the proposed project. Chiang walked through an overhead presentation of the project.
Schroeder asked the applicant to modify the pedestrian area near the entrance to give one a
sense that it is a continuous sidewalk through the vehicle entrance. Trowbridge replied that
the applicant would explore that.
Schroeder asked if the project requires design review. Cornish replied, yes.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for renovations and expansion of the Gannett Health Services
Building by owner, Cornell University, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build two additions to the existing building for a total
expansion of 73,600 SF. One addition will be a 4-story, 55,000-SF building facing Campus
Road and connected to the two wings of the health center. The second addition will be 18,600
SF on the southeast corner of the existing building. The project also includes construction of a
new entrance on Ho Plaza and internal renovations. Site development includes a revised drive
off Campus Road, landscaping, site amenities, and utility improvements. The project is in the
U-1 Zoning District and requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(b) and (n), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, 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
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, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds,
seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
F. 323 Taughannock Blvd. Mixed Use Project, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash.
Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 10,592-SF parcel,
which currently contains a vacant 1-story building (formerly known as the Tradewinds
Lounge) and approximately 10 surface parking spaces. The proposal is to develop a new 3-
story mixed-use building with ground-floor office space, bike storage, 18 covered parking
spaces, and 20 1- and 2-bedroom market-rate residential apartments on the 2nd and 3rd
floors. Site amenities include a rooftop terrace, a publicly-accessible pedestrian promenade
contiguous to the Old Cayuga Inlet, lighting, signage, landscaping, and site furnishings. The
applicant also proposes to make changes to the adjacent City parking lot in front of the
building to allow better ingress and egress, provide 4 additional City-owned parking spaces
(9 total), a public sidewalk directly in front of the building, and 2 planting islands with large
shade trees. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and B.(1)(k), an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. This project
will require approval from the Department of Public Works, for modification to the parking
lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NYS Canal Corporation.
Applicants Steve Flash and Noah Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project. Demarest walked through an overhead presentation of the project.
Demarest explained that the design was inspired by both the history of the waterfront and
some existing nearby buildings. The public access to the waterfront would be enhanced,
with a walkway, benches, etc. The first floor would comprise masonry, with more traditional
wood clapboard siding and a mixture of large windows and balconies above. He indicated
the soil condition is very poor, so the entire structure would be made as light as possible.
Fernández asked if the applicant could flip the windows from north to south. Demarest
replied he explored that, but it would not have been as space-efficient (and the north side
would overlook an alley, as well).
Blalock asked if the applicant would consider installing balconies over the water, assuming it
had the legal right to do so. Demarest replied, yes. That would be a great enhancement and
he could explore the possibility.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked that the applicant could ask the BPW to permit the balconies in the City
right-of-way.
Schroeder observed that both the Comprehensive Plan and the Inlet Island Design Plan
(1998) call for a possible vehicular or pedestrian bridge bridge at that location, so that should
be kept in mind.
Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application
for site plan approval for 20 waterfront apartments to be located at 323 Taughannock Blvd., by
Steve Flash, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to redevelop the 10,592-SF parcel, which currently contains
a vacant 1-story building (formerly known as the Tradewinds Lounge) and approximately 10
surface parking spaces. The proposal is to develop a new 3-story mixed-use building with
ground-floor office space, bike storage, 18 covered parking spaces, and 20 1- and 2-bedroom
market-rate residential apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Site amenities include a rooftop
terrace, a publicly-accessible pedestrian promenade contiguous to the Old Cayuga Inlet, lighting,
signage, landscaping, and site furnishings. The applicant also proposes to make changes to the
adjacent City parking lot in front of the building to allow better ingress and egress, provide 4
additional City-owned parking spaces (9 total), a public sidewalk directly in front of the
building, and 2 planting islands with large shade trees. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning
District and requires design review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and B.(1)(k), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this project will require approval from the Department of Public Works, for
modification to the parking lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
NYS Canal Corporation, now, therefore, be it
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
project.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
D. 327 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma ― Sketch Plan
Applicants Jagat Sharma and Steve Fontana presented a brief overview of the project, noting
the amount of square-footage would not have been possible without the new Collegetown
Area Form Districts (CAFD) zoning.
Sharma explained that one lot would extend from Eddy Street to the right-of-way. It would
be a 6-story bulding and would be stepped back at ground-level. Composed of three layers,
the architecture would be borrowed from 309 Eddy Street, fitting the context of the
surrounding brick buildings. The crown of the building would feature a balcony and corner
windows.
Fernández remarked that the air-conditioning vents seem particularly unsightly on the façade.
Sharma replied that he discussed the issue with his engineers, who indicated that a central air
system would be extremely expensive.
Schroeder suggested finding some alternative, at least for the front-facing systems. Sharma
replied that all the surrounding building have similar vents.
Flash noted that providing free air conditioning for the tenants would end up being very
wasteful. There would be no incentive to save energy. Acharya agreed that renters should
be made to pay for all their electricity use.
Fernández urged the applicant to find another more creative solution.
Jones-Rounds suggested installing some attractive balcony-like grates that could shield the
units.
Schroeder asked about the building connector at the top. Assuming there is no need for it,
the applicant could remove it so the buildings would look like different buildings. Sharma
replied he would remove it.
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds suggested adding a cornice along the top of building. Sharma replied he could
do that.
Schroeder asked for more color variations on the building. Sharma replied he would do that,
as well.
Blalock suggested using some aluminum or steel flashing for the grating over the air-
conditioning units. He also asked about the status of the utility pole. Sharma replied that a
single property owner is not authorized to remove the pole. Schroeder recommended asking
Common Council to require the utility to remove it.
Jones-Rounds asked about the parking situation. Sharma replied there would be no parking,
although there would be bike racks. Jones-Rounds asked if one bike rack could be placed in
the front of the building. Sharma replied, yes.
Schroeder asked if the applicant could have the limestone bands continue on through, across
the sides of the building. Sharma replied, yes.
Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could see the rear façade design. Sharma replied, yes.
Fernández suggested the applicant fully explore installing energy-efficient fixtures and ways
of maximizing water efficiency, and so on. Flash replied, absolutely.
5. Zoning Appeals
APPEAL #2947, Area Variances ― 418 W. Court Street
Appeal of Andrea Volckmar, owner of 418 W. Court Street, for Area Variances from Section
325-8 Columns 4, 7, 12, and 13, Off-Street Parking, Width-at-Street, Side Yard, and Other
Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to remove and replace an existing 13’ x 5.75’ deck in poor condition,
located in the rear yard of 418 W. Court Street, with a new 18’ x 16.5’ deck. The proposed
new deck will not create any zoning deficiencies; however, the property has no parking and
has existing yard deficiencies. Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-32 C. (2), requires non-
conforming structures with no parking to obtain variances for the zoning deficiencies, before
any addition to the property is approved for construction. The property at 418 W. Court Street
has no parking spaces; and one parking space is required. The street-width of the property is
33.3’; and a street-width of 35’ is required. Finally, the house has existing side yard
deficiencies. One yard is 3’ deep; and a side yard of 10’ is required. The other existing side
yard is 2’ deep; and required is a side yard of 5’.
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The property is located in the R-2b Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted;
however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be
issued.
The Board supports granting this variance because all the deficiencies are preexisting.
APPEAL #2948, Area Variance ― 441 N. Aurora Street
Appeal of Norbert Nolte for Meryl and Bailey Phipps, owners of 441 N. Aurora Street, for an
Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column, 4, 11, 12, and13, Off-Street Parking, Front
Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to remove approximately 98 SF from the front porch at 441 N.
Aurora Street, a 4-bedroom single-family home. This will allow an 11’-wide x 19’7”-deep
parking area at the southwest corner of the property. According to Zoning Ordinance,
Section 325-20 D. (5) (a), the minimum dimensions of a parking space are 8’ x 18’. The
four-bedroom home currently has no parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires two
spaces for dwellings with 4 to 5 bedrooms. The property also has existing front and side
yard deficiencies. The front yard is setback 0.5’ from the front yard property line; and a 10’
front yard is required. The side yard is 2’ deep and the other side yard is 0.65’; and side
yards of 10’ and 5’ are required.
The property at 441 N. Aurora Street is located in the R-2b Zoning District, where accessory
parking is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Zoning Variances be granted
before a Building Permit can be issued.
The Board does not support removing a porch to add front yard parking. The front porch
contributes largely to the attractiveness of the house and contextuality in the neighborhood.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya announced this meeting will be his last Planning Board meeting. As far as he
knows, a replacement for his seat has not yet been identified.
B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya reported that the City’s Odd-Even Parking regulation was discussed. The regulation
is being proposed for elimination by the Odd-Even Parking Task Force. One possible
alternative would be to prohibit parking on every street, one day a week (so that about one
fifth of Ithaca City streets would be closed to parking on any given weekday).
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
C. Planning Division Director
Cornish reported that the County will be soliciting RFPs for development of the former
Tompkins County Public Library building. There has been considerable interest on the part
of local residents who want condominiums.
Cornish noted she will be participating in the meetings regarding the feasibility study and
financial plan for the relocation of the NYS DOT Maintenance Facility. The intent is to
identify a consultant for the the feasibility study by the end of July 2014.
Schroeder suggested the Board draft a letter to the owners of the Simeon’s building,
encouraging them to preserve it as much as possible. There were no objections.
7. Approval of Minutes: May 27, 2014
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft May 27, 2014 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Jones-Rounds, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
29