HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-07-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
July 22, 2014
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Acting Chair; Jack Elliott; Isabel
Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John
Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Applicants Attending: 115 Campbell Ave. ― Minor Subdivision
Steve Saggese, Applicant Representative
400 Spencer Rd. (Stone Quarry Apartments)
Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS);
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects;
Tim Seeler, Seeler Engineering, P.C
Seneca Way Signage
Bryan Warren, Warren Real Estate;
Aaron Baker, Ithaca SignWorks
358 & 370 Elmira Rd. ― Maguire Import Vehicle Display Lot
Tom Schickel, Tom Schickel Architects;
Tim Maguire, Maguire Family of Dealerships;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building) ― Renovations & Addition
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties;
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
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
205 Dryden Rd. ― Dryden South Mixed-Use/Apartments
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Pat Kraft, Owner
307 College Ave. (Collegetown Crossing) ― Mixed-Use
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Josh Lower, Owner
330 College Ave. ― Sketch Plan
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect
Dryden Rd./College Ave. Royal Palms Block ― Sketch Plan
John Novarr, Owner;
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Arvind Tikku; ikon.5 architects;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects
Acting Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Emily Nester, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting the large apartment building will actually appear as three stories from the street, not
two. She is also concerned with the potential environmental contamination on the site. The
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) indicates no environmental remediation would
be needed, which does not seem credible.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mary Yetsko, 409 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
strongly encouraging the Board to re-evaluate the entire the approval process for the project.
She agreed with everything the prior speaker said.
Margaret Sutherland, 410 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry
Apartments project, noting she agrees with both prior statements. She also objects to how
the FEAF was completed ― she thinks the project will in fact “affect public health and
safety.”
Jennifer Cleland, 33 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project, noting the Site Plan Review process for the project was flawed and should be re-
evaluated. She also objects to how some portions of the FEAF were completed.
Robert Stundtner, 333 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project, noting he agrees with the prior comments. Foremost among his concerns are the
potential traffic-related impacts of the project. A former chair of the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA), he expressed concern that the actions of both the Planning Board and BZA
were hurried, in this particular case. He does not believe either body fully addressed the
legitimate concerns of the neighbors. The project would triple the population of the
neighborhood, which cannot be accommodated without sidewalks.
Ben Kirk, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting the opponents of the project have been told the project is too far along in the approval
process for it to be denied. He believes the opponents of the project have been spurned and
their concerns dismissed out-of-hand. He referred the Board to a 7/21/14 article in The
Ithaca Voice. He stressed that the project’s opponents object to it based on its size and
anticipated impact, not the low- to moderate-income residents it is designed to house. He
believes it is crucial to review the overall project in light of the site contamination allegations
that have been made. It also does not fit with the character of the neighborhood and should
be significantly redesigned.
J.P. Vico, 338 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting he agrees with Mr. Kirk and hopes the Board will take the opponents of the project
seriously. He objected to the developer’s digging a drainage ditch near his property, which
would destroy all the nearby trees. The power lines that would be placed in the same
location are also a serious safety concern. He noted that local arborist Barbara Neal
concluded the project would remove or destroy at least 50% of the tree roots on the site.
Potential ground contamination is another serious concern.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry
Apartments project and other projects coming up before the Board. He remarked the
opponents of the project are opposed to it purely on principle, regardless of the extent to
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
which the procedures were followed. This is typical of the CAVE (Citizens Against
Virtually Everything) mentality that is so prevalent in Ithaca.
Claudia Georgia, 411 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project, noting she agrees with all the prior comments.
Ann Sullivan, 169 Irving Pl., and Bryant Park Civic Association member, spoke in
opposition to both the 205 Dryden Road (Dryden South) and 307 College Avenue
(Collegetown Crossing) projects. She noted that City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue
identified the problems she is concerned with. She urged the Board to work to improve both
projects. For example, the Dryden Road-College Avenue intersection is one of the most
dangerous in the city. She suggested working with the Board of Public Works (BPW) to
eliminate street parking on Dryden Road, up to Linden Avenue, given how dangerous it is
there. She added that the parking and transportation plans for the two projects are inadequate
(e.g., the Collegetown Crossing plan mentions installing a bus stop on site, but far too close
to fire station).
Ken Deschere, 202 South Hill Terrace, and Community Advisory Group (CAG) co-chair,
spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. The NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been too eager to reclassify the site as no longer
hazardous to human health, when toxins are actually present at unacceptable levels in both
the soil and the ground water. The Planning Board needs to ensure all those concerns have
been properly addressed by the appropriate agencies.
Walter Hang, 218 Wait Ave., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
reiterating the comments he provided the Board in writing. He noted the site has been
investigated and soil staining/contamination were detected in 3,000 cubic yards of dirt. A
number of those chemicals exceeded applicable standards and there is no state-approved plan
to clean the site up. There should be no construction on the site until these issues have been
resolved.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Common Council Member, spoke in opposition to the Stone
Quarry Apartments project, noting that, while she understands the Board is only approving
the modified site plan this evening, given the abundance of evidence, she would urge it to
retract its Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law and re-assess the entire project. She believes the expressed concerns are
substantial and have existed for quite some time. The Board needs to change the way it
thinks about the project and respond to the information it has been receiving.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Subdivisions
A. 115 Campbell Ave. (Tax Parcel #32.-2-11), Bob & Florence Flumerfelt. Declaration
of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, &
Consideration of Subdivision Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 0.076-
acre parcel into two parcels: Lot A, measuring 0.43 acres (18,707 SF) with 91.7 feet of
frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Lot B, measuring 0.34 acres (14,810 SF) with 110 feet of
street frontage on Campbell Ave. and containing an existing home. The parcel has a current
Area Variance. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot
size of 10,000 SF, 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. The parcel
was consolidated in 2010, and the owners wish to subdivide into the original lots before
consolidation. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review.
The applicant’s representative Steve Saggese, Warren Real Estate, recapitulated the salient
details of the proposed subdivision. He noted the parcel is bisected by Campbell Avenue and
the owners would simply like to separate the portion on the west side (which was originally
separated) to facilitate selling the house.
Jones-Rounds emphasized for the record that the Board is only approving the act of
subdividing the land at this time ― not any future potential development plans.
Declaration of Lead Agency 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 #3.-2-11 in
the City of Ithaca, by Florence Flumerfelt, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 0.076-acre parcel into two parcels: Parcel
A, measuring 0.42 acres (18,141 SF) with 91.8 feet of frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel B,
measuring 0.34 acres (14,952 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and
containing an existing home. The parcel has a current Area Variance. The property is in the R-1a
Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 75
feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, and 25% or 50 feet but not less
than 20 feet, respectively. The parcel was consolidated in 2010, and the owners wish to subdivide
into the original lots before consolidation, and
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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
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 #3.-2-1, located at 115 Campbell Ave. in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Acting
Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #3.-2-11 in
the City of Ithaca, by Bob and Florence Flumerfelt, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 0.076-acre parcel into two parcels: Parcel
A, measuring 0.42 acres (18,141 SF) with 91.8 feet of frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel B,
measuring 0.34 acres (14,952 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and
containing an existing home. The parcel has a current Area Variance. The property is in the R-1a
Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 75
feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yard of 25 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet but not less than
20 feet, respectively. The parcel was consolidated in 2010, and the owners wish to subdivide into
the original lots before consolidation, and
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on July 22, 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
been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to
date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on July 22, 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 “Survey Map
Showing Lands of the Florence C. Flumerfelt Trust,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated
6/20/14; 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: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Randall, 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 #3.-2-11 in
the City of Ithaca, by Bob and Florence Flumerfelt, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 0.076-acre parcel into two parcels: the
first measuring 0.42 acres (18,141 SF) with 91.8 feet of frontage on Campbell Ave.; and the
second, measuring 0.34 acres (14,810 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
containing an existing home. The parcel has a current Area Variance. The property is in the R-1a
Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 75
feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yard of 25 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet but not less than
20 feet, respectively. The parcel was consolidated in 2010, and the owners wish to subdivide into
the original lots before consolidation, 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
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 July 22, 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: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on July 22, 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 “Survey Map
Showing Lands of the Florence C. Flumerfelt Trust,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated
6/20/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on July 22, 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 #3.-2-11, by Bob and Florence Flumerfelt, 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.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Vacancies: 1
4. Site Plan Review
A. Stone Quarry Apartments, 400 Spencer Rd., Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS). Consideration of Approval of Proposed Changes & Conditions. The applicant
received Site Plan Approval with conditions in November 2012. Funding is now in place for
the project. The applicant is seeking approval for changes to the approved site plan
regarding building façades, internal circulation, and grading.
Applicants Joe Bowes, Peter Trowbridge, and Nathan Brown recapitulated the salient details
of the proposed project modifications.
Trowbridge walked through the proposed changes, noting the applicants have tried to address
the two major concerns expressed at the last Board meeting: (1) the walkways and fence
details along Spencer Road; and (2) the pedestrian crossing from the multi-family building to
the townhouses. Trowbridge explained that the applicants used the grading near the
townhouses, and the manner in which they step from north to south, to create on-grade
entrances from Spencer Road for half the units. The applicants also pushed the fence back
and changed the orientation of its panels to vertical, wherever there is an entrance to a
townhouse. In the first several townhouses, there will also be gates allowing residents to step
off the sidewalk and onto a landing.
Trowbridge noted there were also concerns that the planting plan was not diverse enough,
which the applicants have attempted to address.
Regarding the second major concern of the crossing between the mews and the multi-family
building, the applicants created bump-outs to narrow the crossing area across the parking lot.
Trowbridge noted there were also some concerns about preserving the trees along the
northern property line. In the applicants’ opinion, the tree roots do not extend beneath the
proposed building; so they are exploring tree perservation options elsewhere on the site and
along the property lines it shares with its neighbors.
Schroeder remarked his principal concern is to make the Spencer Road side appear less like
the rear of the project. It still looks like a gated community that is completely separate from
the street. He suggested eliminating the fence altogether and the opening could be more like
a traditional gateway, rather than being on the side. Trowbridge replied that the applicants
are concerned with the safety of any children in the townhouses, which is why they retained
the fence. He stressed that the fence is only 4-feet high, so it should still appear quite open to
the public. Schroeder responded he still does not see any need for a fence separating the
project from the street.
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott observed the project seems conflicted ― there are essentially two back yards.
Trowbridge replied that is correct, since the primary entrance is off the mews, which is
where one would enter each unit from inside the project.
Schroeder suggested replacing the fence with a hedge. Trowbridge replied that a hedge
would occupy two feet, while the fence would only occupy a few inches. The retaining wall
also requires a barrier rail.
Jones-Rounds asked if the fence has to span the entire length of the project. Trowbridge
replied, no, but the applicants felt that would be the safest option.
Jones-Rounds expressed appreciation for what the applicants have done with the fence and
the main entrance.
Jones-Rounds wondered how much more the Board should discuss the site plan
modifications, before discussing the recently raised environmental concerns. Trowbridge
replied the applicants would prefer to first complete the presentation on the site plan
modifications and proposed materials.
Fernández suggested the Board address the environmental issues at this time.
Bowes indicated that the applicants invited their environmental consultant engineer, Tim
Seeler, Seeler Engineering, P.C., to the meeting this evening. He stressed that INHS would
never design and build a project on a site it considers hazardous, nor could it receive funding
for the project through state and private lenders.
Bowes explained that the very first step INHS takes when it examines a site is to analyze the
environmental impacts of what was on the site previously and any potential impacts on future
residents. For this project, INHS performed a Phase 1 environmental assessment, followed
by a Phase 2 assessment, which explored additional areas it wanted to study. INHS then
contacted the DEC and communicated its areas of concern. The DEC indicated that those
areas of concern did not meet its thresholds for further investigation or action, and the case
was closed. At that point, INHS created an environmental management plan to ensure the
two areas of concern they identified would be appropriately resolved and cleaned up. All
these efforts were undertaken to make the site eligible for the “unrestricted use” DEC
category.
Elliott asked what kind of remediation measures would be involved.
Seeler responded that his reports for the site have been made available. The reports were
conducted in 2012, shortly after which the applicants contacted the DEC with the
information and initiated a series of discussions. At that time, DEC staff did not believe the
site conditions rose to a significant level of concern and they closed the spill case. INHS
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
then started developing a plan to address the concerns with the soil and groundwater
contamination. The plan called for removing the most heavily-contaminated soil around the
multi-family buildling and another location under the planned building footprint.
Seeler indicated the plan’s outcome would be for the site to meet the “unrestricted use”
standard. Since some contaminants were discovered in the groundwater, the aplicants would
remove and treat any excavated material that could potentially penetrate into the
groundwater. To address concerns about the long-term potential for contaminant migration,
INHS will place physical controls in the buildings themselves to control vapour movement
(e.g., vapour barriers, active sub-slab depressurization systems to extract vapours and expel
them outside the building). Seeler explained that all these recommendations were made in
January 2013. INHS has been incorporating them into its plans ever since. INHS submitted
its plans to the DEC, which declined to review them, explaining that the project was not
developed enough to warrant review at that time.
Seeler indicated the whole process would be completed with the verification sampling report.
Bowes explained that the contaminated soil to be removed only represents about one dump-
truck’s worth of material and that process should take about 3 weeks.
Fernández asked if the mitigation would include use of an enclosed tarp. Seeler replied, no.
There is no plan to place any kind of enclosure over the excavation area; however, it would
be constantly monitored by staff using organic vapor analyzers to identify potential concerns.
Cornish asked who would monitor the clean-up process. Seeler replied, his own firm.
Cornish asked if the DEC would retain jurisdiction over the site. Seeler replied, yes. The
DEC could become involved at some point; however, no specific regulation addresses this
particular level of contamination, unless the state actively chooses to get involved. Cornish
asked what would happen if the site were not cleaned up. Seeler replied that all levels of soil
contamination (except one) meet the “residential use” standard; so it is conceivable the rest
of the site could be developed, while leaving the one area of concern undisturbed.
Bowes explained that since INHS will already be excavating the site, it decided to go above
and beyond what was required, and remove all the problem soil.
Cornish asked what would happen if INHS were in the middle of the project and discovered
something completely unanticipated. Seeler replied that the plan would call for INHS to stop
any work and assess the conditions, followed by measures which could include anything
from obtaining additional samples to implementing emergency action to prevent the flow of
material. Such an incident would also require communication with the DEC and the
Tompkins County Department of Health (which it would be INHS’ responsibility to initiate).
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández observed there would be no independent third party involved other than Seeler
Engineering, the developer’s own client.
Jones-Rounds asked what long-term plan would be in place for monitoring the site. She
wondered if it would be within the Planning Board’s purview to request or require that the
developer involve the DEC in the process from the very beginning.
Seeler responded the long-term management of the site would not require more soil sample
collections. The physical controls in the building would prevent any volatile chemical from
migrating from the groundwater into the building space. Those physical controls would only
require routine inspections and maintenance (which could be handled by any number of
companies).
Jones-Rounds asked if the City Building Division would receive reports about any changes
to the site conditions. Seeler replied the property owner typically performs the certifications
and maintains them on file for public inspection.
Bowes emphasized that once all the soils have been removed the entire property would meet
the “unrestricted use” threshold, so it would be completely safe.
Jones-Rounds asked what role the Planning Board could play in asking the applicant to
collaborate with an independent party, for both the initial excavation portion of the project
and subsequent long-term maintenance.
Assistant City Attorney Krin Flaherty remarked that at this stage in the process both the DEC
and the Department of Health have indicated the site is safe; so there is nothing the
City/Board could do to involve either of those state agencies. Only if further contamination
were discovered would the property owner be required to engage the relevant agencies and
comply with their requirements.
Elliott noted the 7/21/14 The Ithaca Voice article suggests the environmental investigation
remains open. Seeler replied there has been some confusion about the project and some
people do seem to have been misinformed. Just this afternoon, Seeler confirmed with the
DEC that neither of the two original spill investigations remains open. The first spill report
was closed, while the the second one was erroneously associated with this particular site,
which was not the case.
Blalock asked Flaherty to confirm that the Planning Board is not currently charged with
reconsidering the entire Site Plan Approval for the project at this time. Flaherty replied that
is correct. The City would not have the authority to do so.
Blalock suggested the applicants devise a system for maintaining an ongoing line of
communication with the neighbors and other concerned residents in order to reassure people.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Bowes replied that INHS is definitely interested in keeping the neighbors involved in every
aspect of the project, including community meetings.
Jones-Rounds expressed conflicting views about the project as it currently stands. On the
one hand, in her experience, significant community opposition to new residential projects
typically only seems to emerge when the projects happen to involve low-income housing, or
a more modest type or scale of housing. At least, this appears to have been the pattern in the
past. The Planning Board wants to ensure that is not the situation in this case. She also
explained that the Planning Board is obligated to reconcile a wide variety of opinions and
independent perspectives in order to impartially evaluate the project. The Board is not, as
some have suggested, dismissing the neighbors’ concerns. She is definitely concerned about
the new contamination information. While INHS may have been aware of the situation since
2012, it seems like completely new information to the Planning Board and the neighbors.
She would like more information from the DEC before making any conclusions. She
suggested the Board formally request that the DEC be involved in the process (even if it may
decline the request). She would not feel comfortable making a decision on the project until
the Board has considerably more information than it has.
Schroeder agreed. He has not had the opportunity to review everything that has been
presented or referred to this evening, especially the information that was only made available
today. The Planning Board needs time to familiarize itself with the issues so it can make an
intelligent assessment.
Elliott agreed. It seems more work is required to assure all parties that the site is genuinely
environmentally benign.
Randall asked the applicant to submit its environmental management plan to the Planning
Board. She also asked the City Attorney’s Office to generate a memorandum on the
applicability of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act, §617, in this particular
case (i.e., the nature of Negative Declarations and how a municipal Planning Board should
address a modification to an original site plan application).
Fernández agreed with the other Board members.
First Ward Common Council Member Brock announced that she just spoke with DEC
Regional Spill Engineer Richard Brazell, who indicated there is one active spill on the site
and that there will shortly be two.
Blalock noted the action before the Board at this time is whether to approve the site plan
modifications. Cornish responded that the action could also be tabled until the next meeting.
Blalock noted the Board is not in a position to address the environmental issues that have
been raised.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Randall moved to table the Consideration of Approval of Proposed Changes and Conditions.
Jones-Rounds agreed.
Flaherty remarked that tabling the action is certainly an option available to the Board. She
reiterated that the Board should not be re-evaluating the environmental assessment. That
would not be appropriate, based on DEC and Department of Health information received to
date.
Schroeder seconded the motion to table consideration of the project at this time. There were
no objections.
Blalock asked for confirmation of what the Planning Board is requesting from the various
parties.
Jones-Rounds replied: (1) a statement from the DEC about the status of any open or closed
spills associated with the site; (2) a rationale for the DEC’s decision to not participate in the
site remediation; and (3) a Planning Board request that the DEC participate in the
remediation.
Schroeder added: (4) a formal opinion from the City Attorney’s Office about how the
City/Planning Board should proceed.
Blalock added: (5) an informal dialogue between the applicants and neighbors. Bowes
responded the applicants would be willing to do that.
Bowes remarked that since the applicants will need to return before the Board next month it
would be helpful to have as much input as possible on the modified site plan.
Trowbridge noted there is not such a substantial difference between the current site plan and
the 2012 approved site plan. The biggest difference is probably 4 vs. 8 townhouses having
direct acesss to/from Spencer Road.
Schroeder noted that the earlier site plan provided more of a sense of traditional porches,
which he preferred.
Jones-Rounds noted she definitely prefers the fence that was presented today to the earlier
version.
Fernández expressed serious safety-related concerns with the internal circulation, since the
entry driveway is so close to the Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road intersection. When
traffic reaches a certain threshhold, she does not envision how a left turn would be viable.
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Trowbridge replied that the applicants explored moving the driveway to the south end, but it
would have created a long and very circuitous driveway, with less room for green space.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants considered swapping the townhouses and the multi-
family units. Trowbridge replied, yes, but there was not enough depth to permit that and the
townhouses would have stepped too much. He appreciates the concerns about the
intersection. He noted there would be a stone wall across the street to prevent vehicles from
driving straight through.
Blalock observed the project has already been vetted by the City Transportation Engineer.
Elliott asked if it is currently a light-controlled intersection. Cornish replied, no. Elliott
suggested that may help the situation. For example, if if the townhouses were moved south
and the access road flipped to the other side of the building, one set of traffic lights could
manage all the traffic.
Trowbridge indicated the applicants could simply revert to the approved 2012 site plan.
They were only trying to make some minor modifications to it. He indicated the applicants
could discuss the issue further with the City Transportation Engineer; but the intersection is
really beyond the purview of the project.
Cornish noted the City Transportation Engineer signed off on the project more than once.
She added there is funding for studying the intersection and sidewalks ― it is a much bigger
issue than just the current site plan.
Jones-Rounds asked if the Planning Board could ask BPW to fast-track the feasibility study.
Schroeder agreed that is a good idea; he suggested including that as a condition of approval.
Blalock noted there are four houses that only have backyards, which should somehow be tied
into the sidewalk system. Trowbridge replied the applicants attempted to do that with the
configuration of the fence. They also explored installing a parallel sidewalk to connect those
houses, but that would have removed four feet from the lawn.
Schroeder remarked he does not think having the sidewalk parallel to the retaining wall
means it would not be usable for tenants. If the applicants could only make the front of the
Spencer Road buildings appear more porchlike, that would be a considerable improvement
(i.e., more like a traditional American home on a neighborhood street). Trowbridge replied
the applicants would explore that.
Fernández added that the play area should also probably be built up to ensure there is enough
soil between it and the area below.
B. Seneca Way Signage
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Applicants Bryan Warren and Aaron Baker recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
signage.
Cornish remarked the original site plan approval included vegetational screening; however,
while the current vegetational screening in the rear is adequate, she believes a few
unfortunate additions to the front of building (the transformer and vents) should be
addressed.
Schroeder noted there are also are no vines on two sections of the concrete wall nearest to the
Seneca Way building, which should be remedied.
Fernández recalled asking the applicants at the last meeting to submit a view of the signage
with the Argos Inn in the background. The Board also asked that the sign reflect a
continuation of the curve of the Seneca Way building. Elliott agreed. Without seeing the
sign in the larger context, it is difficult to assess. He does not see how the submitted design
reflects the design of the building in any way.
Warren responded that what Fernández and Elliott are asking goes beyond what the sign was
originally intended to be. It was only meant to be a tenant sign.
Elliott replied that the signage would very much be in the public domain; and the Planning
Board cannot make an aesthetic evaluation based on what has been provided. He asked the
applicants if they could provide a larger image that includes more visual context. Baker
replied, yes.
Fernández noted the sign should look more elegant. The bright yellow name and profile of
the Seneca Way building, for example, seems excessive. The design also needs to depict
where the sign would sit in relation to the sidewalk, how far from passers-by it would be
situated, etc.
Warren noted he e-mailed the proposed design to staff sometime ago, so it would have been
helpful to have had this kind of feedback earlier.
Jones-Rounds indicated she does not necessarily agree with Fernández about the yellow
building logo/profile, since it provides a certain continuity with the building. On the other
hand, she feels strongly the sign should not be a simple light-box. Having a light shining
down over the sign to illuminate it would be far more elegant and would create less light
pollution.
Fernández suggested creating something reasonably simple (e.g., a long thin elegant steel
pole, with a concealed light on top).
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott suggested hiring the original architects of the building to design the sign, since they
would most likely design one that speaks more to the architecture of the building and context
of the surrounding landscape. He stressed it is an important site to do well, since it is the
entrance to the city.
Schroeder noted the Design Review Committee should review the design. He suggested
making it more like a low curving wall that picks up the curve of the building.
Jones-Rounds recommended the Alternatives Federal Credit Union sign as a model.
Warren asked if the applicants would need City approval to erect the signage on the side of
the building. Cornish replied, yes. Signage is part of the site plan approval.
Cornish noted she sent the applicant examples of other signs the Board has approved.
Warren replied those signs were more traditional-looking and not as contemporary as the site
would call for.
Blalock indicated he would prefer to see the signage on the building itself, to ‘jazz up’ the
building. He encouraged the applicants to e-mail the revised design to the Board to expedite
the process.
Schroeder responded it would be better to review the design in person at the Design Review
Committee meeting. Cornish agreed. The discussion needs to take place on the floor at a
public meeting.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
C. Coltivare Signage & Conditions
The applicant did not appear. Discussion of the project was deferred.
D. Maguire Imports Vehicle Display Lot, 358 & 370 Elmira Rd., Schickel Architecture
for Maguire Family Limited Partnership. Determination of Environmental Significance
and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to
expand the existing vehicle display and service lots, pave the existing 183-space employee
parking lot, add nine tree islands, a bio-retention area and additional plantings throughout the
site- to include replacing dead or dying plant material. The project will increase parking by
185 spaces, from 664 to 849, on the 10-acre site. Site development requires removal of
approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation ― on one acre of which, trees were removed prior to
filing for permits and approvals. 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 site is within the SW-2 Zoning District and requires a Full Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
Applicants Tom Schickel, Tim Maguire, and Peter Trowbridge recapitulated the salient
details of the proposed project.
Schickel reported the applicants added considerably more vegetation throughout the site.
They also increased the density of the plantings in the bio-retention area and reduced the
amount of parking by one space.
Schroeder asked if any of the trees will require structural soil, as called for in Ithaca's Trees:
Master Plan, Inventory, & Arboricultural Guidelines for Public Trees. Schickel replied, no.
The island widths were modified instead.
Schroeder remarked the FEAF, Part 3, mentions endangered species. Nicholas replied the
applicants commmissioned a survey on the site and no threatened species were identified.
Schickel added the project was also cleared by New York's State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
Fernández asked if it would be possible to place permeable paving where the cars are parked
and regular paving where the drive aisles are. Trowbridge replied the water table is too high
for the permeable paving to function properly.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 is proposing to expand the existing vehicle display and service lots,
pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot, add nine tree islands, a bio-retention area, and
additional plantings throughout the site, to include replacing dead or dying plant material. The
project will increase parking by 185 spaces, from 664 to 849, on the 10-acre site. Site
development requires removal of approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation ― on one acre of which,
trees were removed prior to filing for permits and approvals. 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 site is within the SW-2 Zoning District and requires a Full 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)(d), (2) and B.(2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is
subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled
“Topographic Map Showing a Portion of Lands Located at No. 362 Elmira Road,” dated 3/22/10
and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and “Site Details (C-2.0),” “Layout Plan (C-3.0),” “Site Plan,”
“Site Plan Calculations,” “Drainage Plan (C-1.0),” dated 7/10/14, and “Planting Plan (L-1),” dated
7/16/14, all prepared by Schickel Architecture; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General Municipal
Law §239 review comments, recommended that: “Given the City of Ithaca’s recent focus on
stormwater management along with its involvement with the Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation
Plan, the City should require the applicant to pursue increased green infrastructure improvements
with this project such as porous pavement, and rain gardens. The Hazard Mitigation Plan
specifically identifies the action item to ‘Encourage the use of green infrastructure to encourage
water conservation, open space protection, and flood mitigation to reduce vulnerability both in
upstream areas and in urban areas,’” and
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: an initial review of the SWPPP by the City Environmental Engineer did not indicate
a need for additional storm water management practices, nor that the project site is suitable for
porous paving, and
WHEREAS: as described in Part 3 of the FEAF, in response to concerns about loss of vegetation,
particularly the removal of one acre of trees, the Board required the applicant to develop a
landscape plan in consultation with a registered landscape architect, which resulted in the addition
of 95 new trees and other plant materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Randall remarked it would be ideal if the City did not have to review future proposals for
2.25 acres of parking. Fernández agreed.
Preliminary & Final 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 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 is proposing to expand the existing vehicle display and service lots,
pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot, add nine tree islands, a bio-retention area and
additional plantings throughout the site, to include replacing dead or dying plant material. The
project will increase parking by 185 spaces, from 664 to 849, on the 10-acre site. Site
development requires removal of approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation ― on one acre of which,
trees were removed prior to filing for permits and approvals. 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 site is within the SW-2 Zoning District and requires a Full Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan,
WHEREAS: this is a 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
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B.
(4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on June 24,
2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled
“Topographic Map Showing a Portion of Lands Located at No. 362 Elmira Road,” dated 3/22/10,
and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and “Site Details (C-2.0),” “Layout Plan (C-3.0),” “Site Plan,”
“Site Plan Calculations,” “Drainage Plan (C-1.0),” dated 7/10/14, and “Planting Plan (L1),” dated
7/16/14, all prepared by Schickel Architecture; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General Municipal
Law §239 review comments recommended that: “Given the City of Ithaca’s recent focus on
stormwater management along with its involvement with the Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation
Plan, the City should require the applicant to pursue increased green infrastructure improvements
with this project such as porous pavement, and rain gardens. The Hazard Mitigation Plan
specifically identifies the action item to ‘Encourage the use of green infrastructure to encourage
water conservation, open space protection, and flood mitigation to reduce vulnerability both in
upstream areas and in urban areas,’” and
WHEREAS: an initial review of the SWPPP by the City Environmental Engineer did not indicate
a need for additional storm water management practices, nor that the project site is suitable for
porous paving, and
WHEREAS: as described in Part 3 of the FEAF, in response to concerns about loss of vegetation,
particularly the removal of one acre of trees, the Board required the applicant to develop a
landscape plan in consultation with a registered landscape architect, which resulted in the addition
of 95 new trees and other plant materials, and
WHEREAS: on July 22, 2014, the Planning and Development Board determined the proposed
project would result in no significant impact on the environment, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
to the proposed project subject to the condition of written approval from the City Stormwater
Management Officer.
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
D. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State St., Carey Building
Associates. Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA.
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, Frost Travis, and Jeremiah Cigno recapitulated the salient details of
the proposed project.
Travis noted the applicants met with the Design Review Committee and have since attempted
to address its suggestions to be more sensitive to the context around the building. The
applicants also met twice with Historic Ithaca, which now appears to support the project.
Snyder walked through an overhead presentation. He noted the applicants seriously explored
options for a green roof, but the structure of the building proved to be a significant challenge
in that respect.
Fernández suggested having glass on the side of the building. Snyder replied the fire-rated
glass that would be required would too heavy and expensive.
Schroeder recalled that at the last Board meeting he suggested the applicants approach the
BPW to request allowing the easement to extend all the way up the building.
Blalock noted the Planning Board itself could make that recommendation to the BPW.
Cornish responded that staff would explore that.
Schroeder noted he preferred the much stronger horizontal treatment and layers in the earlier
design than what is currently depicted in the “Curtain Wall Detail” illustration. The
horizontal layering is such a key element in the compatibility of the new building vs. the old.
Snyder replied the applicants are looking into that.
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder asked if small windows could be added to the stair tower. Snyder replied he
examined that possibility; however, given the position of the wall and stairs, it simply did not
fit with the rest of the design. He is considering bringing out the wall panel a little and he
will re-examine Schroeder’s suggestion.
Schroeder remarked the earlier design featured a wider, more varied band of materials above
the existing building, whereas it is now more uniform and clapboard-like in its thickness.
Snyder responded he encountered some challenges associated with that part of the building
design (e.g., along the exterior walls there are columns that interrupt the wall placement). He
was working on moving the columns, so the wall could be in the same plane and help define
that edge. The intent is for there to be some kind of banding element on the top of the
existing building.
Fernández suggested adding vegetative screening to the left of the new building where the
white wall is, in the rear of the building to the left of the canopy. Snyder replied he could
probably do that, while Travis noted that would only be feasible if garbage could be easily
removed from that alley. (They are in the process of coordinating garbage-handling with an
adjacent project.)
Travis noted the applicants received a letter from the City Transportation Engineer about the
trip-generation study that was performed. The applicants believe a bike room for eight bikes
would address his concerns.
Elliott encouraged the applicants to add plantings in the back of the building to humanize it a
little more. Travis replied they could probably do that.
Jones-Rounds asked if outdoor bike racks could be situated in front of the project on State
Street. Cornish indicated the applicants should work with City Engineering Technician Kent
Johnson to coordinate that placement. Travis replied he would be happy to explore that.
Fernández recommended the applicants establish some kind of visual relationship between
the columns in the existing building and the vertical elements in the new building. Snyder
pointed out that the current design includes an interesting shift in the column in the upper
area of the new building, so it is best to view the elevation in perspective. There is very little
room to move those columns to be right on-center.
Nicholas indicated the Board should review the FEAF, Part 3.
Schroeder proceeded to walk the Board through his suggested revisions to the document.
Additional revisions to the document were made.
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández suggested adding language about the Board’s request for real windows as an
impact in the “Aesthetic Impacts” section (e.g., “The Lead Agency urges the BPW to work
with the applicant to extend the easement […].”). Schroeder agreed.
Cornish asked if that particular change would impact the design of the building in the
meantime. (The extension of the easement could take some time.)
Schroeder replied the Planning Board could simply approve what the applicants have
submitted, with that condition.
Fernández observed the Planning Board has not asked the developers to think in terms of low
water usage, low-flow toilets, energy efficiency, and so on. Travis replied the applicants are
exploring using a scattered-site remote net-metered solar generation facility to power their
entire property portfolio. They are generally very sensitive to those kinds of energy- and
resource-conservation issues.
Elliott indicated he has similar concerns as Fernández. The City’s current physical
infrastructure was never designed for the kind of density the city is now moving towards
(e.g., sewage line capacity). The addition of five floors to the building would surely have an
infrastructure impact, so some form of water conservation should be encouraged. The City
does not factor in what comes out of a proposed building in its calculations. The Board
needs to be more proactive about these kinds of isues. Travis replied the applicant will
certainly explore incorporating water-conservation into the building design.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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. The project has received the required Design Review.
IMPACT ON LAND
No impact anticipated.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site is on E. State Street in the block preceding the eastern end of the Commons, the
City’s retail, tourism, and entertainment center. At 78’ and seven stories, the building will be
visible from portions of the Commons, State Street, and Seneca Street. Future development on the
City-owned site behind the building is likely to block some future views from Seneca Street.
The applicant is retaining the original two-story brick Carey Building, erected in 1926-1927. The
original building was constructed from plans by Edgar Townsley of the Driscoll Brothers and
Company and was similar in style to the former Strand Theater. The building is in the Tudor-
Renaissance style and, although not designated as a local landmark or part of the Ithaca Downtown
National Register Historic District, it represents a unique remaining example of this style in
downtown Ithaca and is an historic, cultural, and aesthetic resource.
Some of the design elements of note include strong horizontal limestone banding intersecting the
south brick façade at the first and second floor. Another detail is the prominent central stone motif
piece and stone relief plaques in the parapet wall on the south façade (see existing photographs,
Fig. 1.1 and Fig. 1.2, dated July 15, 2014).
In response to concerns expressed by Historic Ithaca and the Lead Agency about the addition’s
compatibility with the historic structure, the applicant has developed the façades significantly
since the original submission, dated May 27, 2014.
Features Intended to Integrate the Original Carey Building and the New Addition:
• In response to Lead Agency comments, the applicant changed the cantilevered curtain wall
on the south facade to bend in, rather than curve out, over the third floor balcony.
• In response to concerns from Historic Ithaca and the Lead Agency, the penthouse for air-
handling equipment and the parapet wall on the 7th floor were removed in order to lower the
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
height for the mechanical access roof from 87’10” to 83’10”, and the apparent visual height
of the 7th floor from 82’6” to within about a foot of its 77’10” roof height (see Fig. 1.3 and
Fig. 1.4, dated July 15, 2014).
• Mechanical units have been pushed further from the street to reduce visibility.
• Referencing of select architectural details from the existing building in an abstract way such
as emphasizing horizontal layering within the cantilevered curtain wall system.
• Considering a wide range of materials that will be sympathetic in color and will have a scale
in harmony with the existing building.
(All these elements will be refined further during Site Plan Review.)
The building will visible from points within the Commons and the Lead Agency has expressed
concern about the largely blank west façade of the building. It is unlikely the adjacent property
will be developed ― making this façade a permanent feature of the downtown. This west façade
should be treated with the level of detailing and care which has already been devoted to the east
façade. Concern has also been expressed about the use of light-colored EIFS on the building’s 6th
and 7th floors.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• Addition of windows to blank areas of the west façade.
• Continued development during Site Plan Review of west façade to add interest on the portion
that is most visible from the Commons.
• Cleaning and repair as needed of exterior of original building, including removal of old
electrical conduit.
• Continued development of all exterior finishes, patterns, and colors during Site Plan Review.
• Replacement of light-colored EIFS on the publicly-visible portions of the 6th and 7th floors
with a higher-quality cladding material.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impact to Aesthetic Resources.”
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Construction will last approximately 11 months. The project is in a densely developed area in
close proximity to residential and commercial development. Construction activities, particularly
staging and deliveries, will temporarily but significantly impact vehicular, bike, and pedestrian
movements. It is anticipated the project may require periodic partial road closure, potential
removal of parking, and occasional sidewalk closure during the construction period.
The applicant has not provided Demolition or Utility Plans, therefore, there is no information
regarding limits of disturbance. Demolition and Site Plans should indicate work areas and the City
right of way and note restoration of any disturbed areas.
The applicant should also provide information regarding construction traffic routes, construction
delivery, contractor parking, and pedestrian and bike circulation during construction.
The City Transportation Engineer requested a trip-generation analysis, and other information. In
response, the applicant provided a trip generation analysis prepared by SRF Associates, dated July
22, 2014. This study states the following conclusion:
“Given the very low volume of site generated trips, the lack of vehicle parking provided for
tenants, and the City of Ithaca mode share trends, it is anticipated that very few tenants will use
motor vehicles for transportation during weekday peak hours. The Carey Building addition will
have very little impact on transportation in the vicinity of the site. No further analysis is necessary
as a result of the projected trip generation.”
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• The sidewalk on the north side of E. State Street shall remain open during construction,
except for any brief periods when closure is temporarily essential.
• The applicant shall work with the City to secure the provision of bicycle parking on the north
side of this block of E. State Street, said bicycle parking to be located in such a manner that it
serves the entire block and does not constrict existing pedestrian movements.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Construction will last approximately 11 months. The project is in a densely developed area in
close proximity to residential and commercial development. Construction activities will
temporarily produce noise that will affect residents and businesses in the immediate area.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency:
• The applicant shall limit noise-producing construction activities to Monday through Friday
from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The proposed seven-story building will have a building height of 77’10”, which is the
measurement at the seventh-story roof level. The Zoning Ordinance excludes the mechanical
penthouse on top of the seventh floor from the building height calculation. The building footprint
for 314-320 East State Street is mostly in the CBD-60 Zone, where building height is limited to 60
feet. The applicant’s request is for a building height 17’10” taller than the allowed building height
in the CBD-60 Zone.
The downtown area was rezoned in mid-2013 to encourage density by increasing height in
appropriate areas. The rezoning changed a portion of the block in which the project site is located
to CBD-100, which includes the rear part of the project site, but not the area where the variance is
requested. The rezoning also extended CBD-60 zoning all the way from the Tuning Fork to
(virtually) Meadow Street, in part to preserve a human scale and to respect historic resources along
that corridor.
The proposed height variance is more appropriate here than it might be in other locations along
this CBD-60 corridor, for two reasons:
(1) The 300 block of E. State Street is the only block in this corridor where CBD-60 on one side
of the street directly faces a higher CBD zone (in this case, CBD-120) on the other side of the
street, and
(2) The principal portions of the 6th and 7th floors (for which the variance is being sought) are set
back about 40 feet from the front façade, allowing the portion of the new addition closest to E.
State Street to maintain a c. 60-foot height sympathetic to building heights typical of structures
within the nearby Ithaca Downtown National Register Historic District.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
CEQR 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 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
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: in official GML comments, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx
requested “an assessment of the traffic and parking impatcs of the project,” and in response the
applicant provided a trip-generation analysis prepared by SRF Associates, dated July 22, 2014,
which concluded that the “Carey Building addition will have very little impact on transportation in
the vicinity of the site,” and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following
drawings: an untitled site plan, date-stamped 7/17/14; “Fig 1.4 “South and West Elevations
showing our Current Reduced Height Design,” “Fig. 1.6 Streetscape with Proposed Carey
Building Addition,” ‘”Fig. 1.7 South Elevation,” “Fig. 1.8 Perspective Looking East,” “Fig. 1.12
Perspective Looking West,” and all dated 7/15/14 and prepared by John Snyder Architects; and
other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that ― with the
incorporation of the “Features Intended to Integrate the Original Carey Building and the New
Addition” and the “Mitigations Required by Lead Agency” listed in the FEAF, Part 3 ― the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
E. Cornell Health Services Facility, Cornell University Campus, John Keefe for
Cornell University. Determination of Environmental Significance & Consideration of
Preliminary Approval. 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 northeast 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 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 noted the applicants met with both the Design Review Committee and the Project
Review Committee. Trowbridge indicated the following issues were discussed:
• Having a continuous sidewalk, which has now been addressed.
• Providing emergency vehicle turning diagrams, which were submitted.
• Submission of a complete planting plan, which has been provided.
Trowbridge noted that Nicholas asked the applicants to alert the Board about the temporary
road planned for construction of the building. The applicants will be widening an existing
sidewalk rising up from East Avenue to include a 20-foot laneway, with a small separator for
pedestrians. The temporary road would be signed. Once construction is complete, the
temporary road would be restored to prior conditions.
Chiang added there was also some question as to how visible the skylight would be, so the
applicant improved the shading to address that.
Chiang noted the Board was also concerned about the underside of the entrance drive
enclosure, which will now feature a linear metal panel system, with stucco material,
following the path of driveway and highlighting the area.
No substantive changes were made to the FEAF, Part 3.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Randall:
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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
northeast 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: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing
Conditions Plan (C100),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Phase 1A (C101 Phase 1A),”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Phase 1 (C101 Phase 1),” “Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan Phase 2 (C101 Phase 2),” “Utility Plan Phase 1A (C103 Phase 1A),” “Utility Plan Phase 1
(C103 Phase 1),” and “Utility Plan Phase 2 (C103 Phase 2), all dated 3/11/14 and prepared by
Chiang O’Brien Architects and T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Grading (L301)” and “Pavement Patterns and
Scoring (L203),” dated 2/21/14; and “Demolitions and Removals Phase 1A (L100 Phase 1A),”
“Demolitions and Removals Phase 1 (L102 Phase 1),” “Demolitions and Removals Phase 2 (L103
Phase 2),” “Layout (L201),” “Details (L501),” and “Temporary Roadways and Parking Phase 1
(L101),” all dated 3/4/14; and “Planting (L401),” dated 7/1/14 and all prepared by Chiang O’Brien
Architects and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and “North Elevation,” “South Elevation,” “East
Elevation,” and “West Elevation,” all dated 7/8/14 and prepared by Chiang O’Brien Architects;
and other application materials, including multiple perspective renderings, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
31
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
Blalock disclosed for the record that he both lives near the project site and is employed by
Cornell University.
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 renovations and expansion of the existing 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
northeast 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,
requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and has received the required Design Review,
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: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B.
(4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on June 24,
2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing
Conditions Plan (C100),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Phase 1 (C101 Phase 1),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan Phase 1A (C101Phase 1A),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
32
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Phase 2 (C101 Phase 2),” “Utility Plan Phase 1 (C103 Phase 1),” “Utility Plan Phase 1A (C103
Phase 1A),” and “Utility Plan Phase 2 (C103 Phase 2),” all dated 3/11/14 and prepared by Chiang
O’Brien Architects and T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Grading (L301)” and “Pavement Patterns and Scoring
(L203),” dated 2/21/14 and “Demolitions and Removals Phase 1A (L100 Phase 1A),”
“Demolitions and Removals Phase 1 (L102 Phase 1),” “Demolitions and Removals Phase 2 (L103
Phase 2),” “Layout (L201),” “Details (L501),” and “Temporary Roadways and Parking Phase 1
(L101),” all dated 3/4/14, and “Planting (L401),” dated 7/1/14, and all prepared by Chiang
O’Brien Architects and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and “North Elevation,” “South
Elevation,” “East Elevation,” and “West Elevation,” all dated 7/8/14 and prepared by Chiang
O’Brien Architects; and other application materials, including multiple perspective renderings,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
ii. If different from those submitted at the July 22, 2014 meeting, submission for Planning
and Development Board approval of revised drawings showing final materials under the
surface of the vehicular pass-through, and
iii. Submission of record copies of drawings (projected as slides at the July 22, 2014
Planning Board meeting) showing actual intended external appearance of skylight, using
materials and detailing sympathetic with the new Ho Plaza entrance materials and
detailing, and
iv. Colors of the shadowbox panels on the glass and metal-framed curtain walls to be the
more muted hues shown on the perspectives, such as the March 6, 2014 “View From
South,” rather than the more saturated hues shown on the color elevations, and
v. Construction work to be performed using the dust-control measures specified under the
“Impact on Air” heading and using the various “Mitigations Proposed by Applicant”
under the “Impact on Transportation” heading in the FEAF, Part 3, and
vi. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy,
and
vii. The temporary construction road from West Avenue must be removed, and Libe Slope
restored to its original condition, prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of
Occupancy.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández
Vacancies: 1
33
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
F. 323 Taughannock Blvd. Mixed-Use Project, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash.
Declaration 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 Noah Demarest and Steve Flash recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project.
Demarest reported that he met with the BPW, which did not make significant comments. It
had very little to say about the north easement. Flash also spoke to the Canal Corporation
about the possibility of installing balconies; it did not appear to have any objections. The
applicants are still debating whether to include balconies in the design, since they may not be
compatible with the programming of the units. The applicants also continue to explore the
Planning Board’s concerns about the blank wall.
Schroeder added that the Board needs color elevations.
Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require 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
34
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 Board of Public Works, for modification
to the parking lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NYS Canal
Corporation, all of whom have consented to the Planning Board’s being Lead Agency, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
G. Dryden South Mixed-Use/Apartments, 205 Dryden Rd., Jagat Sharma for Pat
Kraft. Declaration of Lead Agency & Determination of Environmental Significance.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing wood-frame structure and construct a 64’
six-story, plus basement, mixed-use building with a footprint of 3,655 SF. The bottom floor
will have 2,112 SF of retail space to be occupied by the business currently on site. The upper
five floors will have two four-bedroom apartments per floor, for a total of 10 apartments and
40 bedrooms/occupants. The building includes an inner court for light and ventilation,
located on the west side of the building. Building construction will require a steel-pile
foundation system. The project site is in the M-U2 Zoning District. In compliance with
district regulations, the building is set back 5 feet from the front property line. This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the
35
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The
project requires Design Review.
Applicants Jagat Sharma and Pat Kraft recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project, noting that all the suggestions from the Project Review Committee have been
incorporated.
Fernández asked how the air conditioning units would be screened. Sharma replied they
would be concealed by large architectural grilles.
Sharma noted the design now includes a detail at the bottom of the lower cornice; and the
applicants also flipped the building, as requested. The housing for the mechanicals will be in
brick and there will be a limestone base, instead of concrete.
Schroeder noted his only remaining concern is the bike racks. Zoning requires all new
buildings to be set back 5 feet in order to maintain a wider sidewalk. Planning for that still
needs to take place before determining the bike rack placement (which could block a
pedestrian route). Bike rack placement should take place only after the whole streetscape has
been designed. Cornish agreed.
Blalock inquired into the possibility of coordinating truck access with adjacent property
owners through a rear entrance. Sharma replied that trucks would only ever access the site
by appointment. All the buildings would also be furnished, minimizing the need for truck
access by residents. Kraft observed that the furniture would only need to be replaced every
five or six years. Sharma indicated he would explore what could be done.
Elliott noted that in either case truck access would have to come through a public right-of-
way.
Declaration of 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 a mixed use building, to be located at 205 Dryden Road in
the City of Ithaca by Jagat Sharma, applicant for Pat Kraft, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish the existing wood-frame structure and construct a
64’ six-story, plus basement, mixed-use building with a footprint of 3,655 SF. The bottom floor
will have 2,112 SF of retail space to be occupied by the business currently on site. The upper five
floors will have two four-bedroom apartments per floor, for a total of 10 apartments and 40
bedrooms/occupants. The building includes an inner court for light and ventilation, located on the
west side of the building. Building construction will require a steel-pile foundation system. The
36
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
project site is in the MU-2 Zoning District. In compliance with district regulations, the building is
set back 5 feet from the front property line, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental
review. The project requires Design Review.
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 205 Dryden Road in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Nicholas noted she would add the information about the foundation to the FEAF, Part 3, as
well as the staging issue.
Elliott noted the loading/unloading issue should probably be added to the “Impact on Growth
& Character of Community or Neighborhood” section, as a small-to-moderate impact.
Blalock asked how garbage would be removed. Sharma replied it would be collected from
the basement onto Dryden Road. Jones-Rounds asked if that is the current procedure. Kraft
replied, yes.
Blalock suggested adding language along the lines of: “Conveyance of all cargo and garbage
entering and leaving the building would create a negative impact on pedestrian traffic.”
No objections were made to any of the modifications to the Part 3.
CEQR 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 a mixed-use building, to be located at 205 Dryden Road in
the City of Ithaca by Jagat Sharma, applicant for Pat Kraft, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish the existing wood-frame structure and construct a
64’ six-story, plus basement, mixed-use building with a footprint of 3,655 SF. The bottom floor
37
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
will have 2,112 SF of retail space to be occupied by the business currently on site. The upper five
floors will have two four-bedroom apartments per floor, for a total of 10 apartments and 40
bedrooms/occupants. The building includes an inner court for light and ventilation, located on the
west side of the building. Building construction will require a steel-pile foundation system. The
project site is in the MU-2 Zoning District. In compliance with district regulations, the building is
set back 5 feet from the front property line. The project requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on July 22, 2014 declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22,
2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing
Site Plan (L101),” dated June 15, 2014, “Site Plan,” “Site Section,” and a project rendering all on a
sheet titled “Drawing 1;” and “North Elevation,” South Elevation,” “West Elevation,” “East
Elevation,” “Typical Floor Plan (2-5),” “6th Floor Plan,” and a perspective drawing all on a sheet
titled “Drawing 2,” dated July 15, 2014, and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma Architect; and other
application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
H. Collegetown Crossing ― Mixed-Use, 307 College Ave., Jagat Sharma for Josh
Lower. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use
building (with an 8.600 SF footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain
4,202 SF of commercial space and resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit
sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There will be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents.
The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling unit on Linden Avenue will be
retained; however, the back and side porches will be removed. This structure contains three
units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total number of units proposed on the parcel to 40, and
38
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
the total number of residents to 106. The project site traverses the block with frontage on
both College and Linden Avenues and is within both the MU-2 and the CR-4 Zoning
Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the CR-4 Zoning District. The
project includes a public cross-block walkway and a bus shelter. Building construction will
require a steel pile foundation system. The existing 15 parking spaces currently on the site
will be removed. Parking for portions of the project within the CR-4 Zoning District will
require either 1) a variance, or 2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential
Code for new construction and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved
by the Planning Board. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project
requires Design Review.
Applicants Jagat Sharma and Josh Lower recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project.
Randall recused herself from consideration of the project: she was previously employed by
the owner.
(Randall departed at 10:39 p.m.)
Schroeder noted he still has concerns about the sidewalk widths.
Nicholas remarked she has not yet received the Building Division’s zoning analysis.
Blalock indicated he has the same concerns about loading/unloading that he had with the
previous project.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants are coordinating with the City Fire Department,
regarding fire truck access (since a member of the public mentioned this as a concern).
Cornish remarked there is a planting strip at that location, so the applicants are required to
consult the Board of Fire Commissioners about that. She noted there has also been some
discussion about realigning the curb (assuming another bus stop location can be identified),
which appears to be possible. The applicants will need to work with both TCAT and the City
Transportation Engineer. They could also speak to the Board of Fire Commissioners about
the stone wall extension.
Fernández noted she is concerned with the blank façade. Schroeder agreed. It should be
broken up with windows or something.
Lower remarked he believes the Fire Department has discussed doing something different
with its Collegetown facility.
39
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Sharma noted that it would be a Building Code issue to have windows on that blank wall.
Schroeder replied it would only need to be something to break up that whole blank area.
Declaration of 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 Collegetown Crossing, a mixed use project to be located at
307 College Ave. in the City of Ithaca by Jagat P. Sharma, applicant for Josh Lower, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use building (with an 8.600 SF
footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain 4,202 SF of commercial space and
resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There
will be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-
dwelling unit on Linden Avenue will be retained; however, the back and a portion of the side
porches will be removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total
number of units proposed on the parcel to 40, and the total number of residents to 106. The
project site traverses the block with frontage on both College and Linden Avenues and is within
both the MU-2 and the CR-4 Zoning Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the
CR-4 Zoning District. The project includes a public cross-block walkway and a bus shelter.
Building construction will require a steel pile foundation system. The existing 15 parking spaces
currently on the site will be removed. Parking for portions of the project within the CR-4 Zoning
District will require either (1) a variance, or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or
Residential Code for new construction and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
approved by the Planning Board. The project requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and 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, to be located at 307 College Ave. in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
(Randall returned at 11:03 p.m.)
40
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
I. 330 College Ave., Jagat Sharma ― Sketch Plan
Applicants Jagat Sharma, Jason Fane, and Scott Whitham recapitulated the salient details of
the proposed project.
Fane noted the proposed building would be situated at the premier corner in Collegetown.
The building would be iconic, with a rounded corner, three-dimensionally detailed façades,
and would reflect the design motifs of nearby buildings.
Sharma walked through an overhead presentation, noting the proposed building would have
the same footprint as the Collegetown Center building. He noted the following highlights
and point-of-interest:
• cut-out corner
• a walk-through under the building
• two entry points on College Avenue, breaking up the massing
• retail space on the first floor and apartments above
• underground level of parking and mechanicals
• a 12-story mixed-use building
• lower portion would be more arcade-like
• continuous glass exterior with upper balconies
Whitham noted the building would not meet zoning requirements. Only 6 stories are
currently allowed at that location.
Schroeder observed that the rendering that was presented is a fictional view. It does not
correspond to a physically possible point-of-view. It is a very narrow street. He expressed
skepticism the proposal would be something the the BZA would consider approving.
Cornish agreed, noting it would require Common Council action. The variance would
simply be too great and it would require rezoning. The applicants should approach their
Common Council members to initiate that discussion.
J. Dryden Rd./College Ave. Royal Palms Block ― Sketch Plan
Applicants John Novarr, Kathryn Wolf, Arvind Tikku, and Alan Chimacoff recapitulated the
salient details of the proposed project, noting that the building would meet all current City
codes.
Chimacoff noted that the project would comprise:
• Total of three buildings, including two six-story buildings with ground-floor retail and
residential everywhere else (141 studios)
41
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Color scheme that is complementary to the rest of Collegetown (i.e., brick-colored).
• glass sandwich walls (brick color on the inside)
• Some windows pulled forward to create relationship in scale to surrounding buildings
• Most glass will be see-through (fritted) glass
• First-floor will feature large show windows, with three entrances spaced 60 feet apart,
with a common floor level.
• Disengagement zone between lower portion of building and upper floors.
• 11 parking spaces
Elliott asked what the average R-value (insulation) of the curtain walls would be. Arvind
replied that would depend. Elliott asked if the applicant could genuinely get a double-digit
R-value for the glass curtain wall. Arvind replied, yes ― the sandwiched nature of the walls
would make that possible. He added he has designed similar systems in some of the hottest
climates and still obtained a high R-rating.
Elliott suggested there may be opportunities for cooperating with some of the surrounding
property owners (e.g., shared access to the rear of 205 Dryden Road). Novarr replied he had
conversations with that particular property owner, but he does not believe that is something
he would be inclined to pursue.
Jones-Rounds asked if the overhang on Building B could be made to extend onto the corner
building. Chimacoff replied that for reasons of scale the overhang stops exactly at the height
of the corner buidling. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicant just mimic the white plate at
the very top.
Elliott observed that on the elevation the brick line is constant, so the applicant could extent
the white cap. They could be made to read more like two separate buildings.
Jones-Rounds remarked she likes the windows, but they may be a little narrow. Chimacoff
replied in reality they are fairly wide. The applicant just needs to determine how to make
them operable.
Jones-Rounds expressed misgivings about the red and green colors in the design. She
suggested exploring other color combinations.
Schroeder noted when a building exceeds 70 feet in height it begins to constrict the amount
of light and air that can get reach street-level. He suggested setting the top story back about
12 feet. Chimacoff replied, unfortunately, doing so would eliminate rentable space, since the
lost floor area could not be recouped.
Elliott noted that Schroeder’s observation would be particularly relevant/pronounced on the
east-west axis.
42
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked that even an open-structured cornice would help address the problem.
Blalock asked how the applicant plans to transport garbage and other items in and out of the
building. Novarr replied there is no plan for that yet, but he does not anticipate it would be a
problem. The residential units would be furnished and they would have a staging area for
move-ins, if necessary.
Fernández suggested adding additional streetscape elements, like trees, bike racks, etc.
Chimacoff replied that could easily be done.
Fernández strongly encouraged the applicant to consider incorporating green space,
stormwater management systems, and other sustainability-oriented elements into the project.
43
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2949 ― 314-320 E State St. (Carey Building): Area Variance
Appeal of Jason Henderson for Frost Travis, owner of the Carey Building, located at 314-320
East State Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, Height in Feet,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to build a five-story addition above the existing two-story building at
314-320 East State Street. The addition will include office space on the third floor and
apartments on floors 4-7. The proposed seven-story building will have a building height of
77’10”, which is the measurement at the seventh-story roof level. The Zoning Ordinance
excludes the mechanical penthouse on top of the seventh floor from the building height
calculation. The building footprint for 314-320 East State Street is in the CBD-60 Zone,
where building height is limited to 60 feet. The applicant’s request is for a building height
17’10” taller than the allowed building height in the CBD-60 Zone.
The property at 314-20 East State Street is in both the CBD-60 and the CBD-100 Zones, but
the existing building footprint is in the more restrictive zone. Though the proposed mixed
use is permitted in both zones, Section 325-38 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a Zoning
Variance must be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
The downtown area was rezoned in mid-2013 to encourage density by increasing height in
appropriate areas. The rezoning changed a portion of the block in which the project site is
located to CBD-100, which includes the rear part of the project site, but not the area where
the variance is requested. The rezoning also extended CBD-60 zoning all the way from the
Tuning Fork to (virtually) Meadow Street, in part to preserve a human scale and to respect
historic resources along that corridor.
The Board supports granting this variance because the proposed height variance is more
appropriate here than it might be in other locations along this CBD-60 corridor, for two
reasons:
(1) The 300 block of E. State Street is the only block in this corridor where CBD-60 on one
side of the street directly faces a higher CBD zone (in this case, CBD-120) on the other
side of the street, and
(2) The principal portions of the 6th and 7th floors (for which the variance is being sought)
are set back about 40 feet from the front façade, allowing the portion of the new addition
closest to E. State Street to maintain a c. 60-foot height sympathetic to building heights
typical of structures within the nearby Ithaca Downtown National Register Historic
District.
44
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Appeal #2950 ― 103 E. Clinton St. (Colitvare): Area Variance
Appeal of Ramsgard Architectural Design for TC3 Foundation, Inc. for three sign variances
for the two proposed wall signs. The first wall sign needs a variance from the City’s Sign
Ordinance, Section 272-6B (2), which states in part that wall signs in commercial districts
shall not exceed 50 S.F. and Section 272-4A(1) which states wall signs and the supporting
structure cannot project more than 18” from the attachment point of the wall. The second
wall sign requires a variance from Section 272-4 A (1) which states wall signs and
supporting structure cannot project more than 18” from the attachment point of the wall.
TC3 is in the process of constructing a new culinary institute and restaurant, called Coltivare,
which will be located on the main floor of 102 East Clinton. The applicant is requesting to
install a sign for the new restaurant that is larger than the maximum 50 S.F. allotted for each
wall sign permitted in a commercial district. 102 East Clinton Street is located in the CBD -
100 and CBD-120 zoning district. The massive building at this location also contains 7-
stories of public parking. The culinary institute and restaurant will have 135’-8” of building
frontage on South Cayuga Street and 122’-8” of building frontage on East Clinton Street.
While the Sign Ordinance allows commercial signs to be 1.5 times the length of the
building’s frontage, it also restricts each wall sign to a maximum of 50 SF. For the sake of
visibility and for the sign to be more proportionate with the size of the building, the applicant
is seeking a variance for a sign that will be 146.4 SF in size. This sign also projects a total of
24” from the point of attachment. This is 6” more than allowed by Section 272-4A(1).
The applicant would also like to erect another type of wall sign known as a projecting sign,
which will be 26.90 SF in size. Section 272-4 A (1) allows signs to project a maximum of
18”. The second proposed wall sign and its supporting structure will project approximately
6’-10 ½” from the building wall.
The property at 102 East Clinton Street is in the CBD-100 and CBD -120 zone where
building signs are permitted. However, Sign Ordinance, Section 217-18, requires the Board
of Zoning Appeals to grant the variances before the sign permits can be issued.
The Board supports granting the variance for the 146 SF vertical sign over the main entrance,
but does not have enough information to make a judgment regarding the 27 SF projecting wall
sign.
Appeal #2951 ― 121 Cascadilla St.: Special Permit
Appeal of Amber Gilewski and Ducson Nguyen owners of 121 Cascadilla Street for a
special permit as required under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-9 C (4) (g) to conduct a
bed and breakfast home on their property. The applicants are also seeking variances from the
45
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11.12, and 14/15, lot
area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, side yard, and rear yard respectively.
The applicant proposes to convert their single family home located at 121 Cascadilla Street
into a bed and breakfast home. Currently the building at 121 Cascadilla Street is a 4-
bedroom house where the bedrooms are located on the second floor. The owners will occupy
two of the bedrooms; one which will be used as an office and the other for a sleeping room.
The other two bedrooms will be used for guest rooms. Each bedroom is allowed two persons,
so the maximum occupancy in the building will be limited to six persons.
The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20D (3) (b) requires one parking space for each bed and
breakfast room. Section 325-8, Column 4, requires two spaces for the other two bedrooms
existing in the house. The property at 121 Cascadilla has only two off-street parking spaces.
The applicants are requesting a variance for the additional required parking space.
The property at 121 Cascadilla Street is located in an R-2b zone where bed and breakfast
homes are permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a special permit be granted by
the Board of Zoning Appeals before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
Although the Board generally supports the concept of a bed and breakfast, there are so many
discrepancies in this submission that it cannot make a recommendation.
Appeal #2952 ― 601 First St. (Sciencenter): Sign Variance
Appeal of Charlie Trautmann, Director for the Sciencenter, at 601 First Street, for a variance
from the regulations of the City’s Sign Ordinance Section 272-6B(2), which allows only one
free standing sign per business; and Section 272-9 A, which states in part that signs must be
set back 10- feet from the public right-of-way.
The applicant proposes to erect a new monument sign, a type of freestanding sign. This will
be the second freestanding sign on the premise. The other freestanding sign is located along
Route 13. The proposed sign structure for this monument sign will be constructed of Lenrock
stones laid to a height of three-feet and it will be approximately 20.5 feet long. The name the
“Sciencenter” will be added to the face of the stone in 12” tall acrylic letters. On top of the
capstones, there will be five sets of aluminum posts that will hold five -3 ft. wide x 3 feet tall,
acrylic signboards used for information purposes. Only the signboard with the Sciencenter
logo is calculated as part of the total sign area. The total area of the signage mounted on the
monument structure will be 21 SF. The applicant proposes to locate the sign in the public
right-of way at the corner of First and Franklin. Section 272-9 A. requires signs to be set
back 10- feet from a public right-of-way. To locate the sign in this area, the applicant also
needs an easement form the Board of Public Works.
46
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
There are also two existing building signs at the 601 First Street location. One building sign
is over the main doors of the building. The other is a roof sign at the corner of First and
Franklin Street. The applicant proposes to remove the roof sign because of visibility issues
and believes that the 1’ x 12’ ground level sign located at the corner of Franklin and First
Street will be better suited to help visitors find the museum.
The Sciencenter at 601 First Street is located in a P-1 zoning district. Sign Ordinance,
Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted for the proposed signs before assign permit
can be issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
Appeal #2953 ― 1108 N. Cayuga St.: Area Variances
Appeal of Charles Izzo, owner of 1108 North Cayuga Street, for an area variance from
Section 325-8 Columns, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, lot width, percentage of lot coverage, front
yard ,side yard, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to construct a 27’ x 22’ family room addition and enclosed entryway in
the rear yard of 1108 North Cayuga Street. To make sufficient room for this addition, the
applicant will remove an existing one story addition and deck from the rear yard. The new
addition will increase the property’s current deficient side yards. On the south side of 1108
North Cayuga Street, the existing house has a side yard setback of 8.2 feet; the Zoning
Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback. The “L “shaped addition will positioned at
the 8.2 foot setback and extend an additional 16 feet along the side yard. On the north side of
1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing building’s other side yard is approximately 2 feet
deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires this other side yard to have a 5- foot setback. On this
side, the applicant proposes to have the addition setback 3.5 feet for the length of the
addition, which, on the north side is approximately 26 feet. The current lot coverage for the
building at 1108 north Cayuga street is 31%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%.
The proposed addition will increase the lot coverage to 38%.
The property has two existing area deficiencies that will not be increased by this proposal.
The existing street frontage is 32.88 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street
frontage of 35 feet. The front yard is only 3.5’ deep; required is a front yard setback of 10
feet.
The property at 1108 North Cayuga street is in an R2b use district where the proposed
addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a
building permit can be issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
Appeal #2954 ― 441 N. Aurora St.: Area Variances
47
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 is not in favor of a front porch being torn down to add a parking space.
Additionally, the Board does not generally support adding curb cuts in residential
neighborhoods. In this case, however, they support granting the variance under the
following conditions:
1. That an enlarged covered porch be built (to replace the removed portion), that is of a
usable width and that extends along the entire front of the house, and
2. With the exception of the required concrete apron, the driveway is constructed with a
grassed center strip or other method to minimize impervious surface, and
3. Replacement of the street tree, under the guidance of the City Forester.
6. New Business
A. Planning Board Comments on Proposal to Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and
Related Standards,” of Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD)
Schroeder volunteered to draft a letter of support from the Board. No objections were raised.
48
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B. Planning Board Vice-Chair
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
C. Planning Board Resolution in Support of Rebuilding Simeon’s on the Commons
Resolution in Support of Rebuilding Simeon’s on the Commons
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: Simeon’s on the Commons (historically, the “Griffin Block,” built in 1872) is one
of Ithaca’s most architecturally significant and recognizable buildings and is an excellent example
of Italianate architecture, and
WHEREAS: it anchors one of the most visible corners within the National Register Ithaca
Downtown Historic District, and
WHEREAS: prior to June 20, 2014, the front of this building had retained its original cast-iron
store-front, elaborate brickwork and cornice, and 1904 copper bay window, and
WHEREAS: additionally, the first floor interior contained detailed plaster relief work, a marble
block floor, and plaster angels that adorned its walls, and
WHEREAS: on June 20, 2014, the building was partially destroyed by a tractor trailer that hit the
building, killing one person and injuring several others, and
WHEREAS: the remaining portion of the building is currently stabilized, appears to be
structurally sound, and is being secured to protect the integrity of the building and for the safety
of pedestrians and vehicles passing by, and
WHEREAS: significant portions of the original interior decoration survived the crash in
repairable condition, and
WHEREAS: this building stands on one of the most prominent corners in the City of Ithaca and
is integral to the history and character of the Commons, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, in recognition of the
importance of the Simeon’s building to the community, strongly encourages the rebuilding of the
missing front portion of the existing structure, as near as possible according to its original design,
including use of (or replication of) the cast-iron store-front, copper bay window, cast-iron
window hoods, brickwork and cornice.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
49
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Vacancies: 1
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
None.
B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
None.
C. Planning Division Director
None.
7. Approval of Minutes: June 26, 2014
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft June 26, 2014 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
50