HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-08-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
August 26, 2014
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: C.J. Randall
Board Vacancies: One.
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;
Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Applicants Attending: 400 Spencer Rd. (Stone Quarry Apartments)
Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP;
Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS);
Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS);
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects;
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Tim Seeler, Seeler Engineering, P.C
120 S. Aurora St. (Marriott Hotel)
Matt Jalazo, URGO Hotels;
Andres Rubio, Cooper Carry;
John Kabat, William H. Lane Incorporated
314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building) ― Renovations & Addition
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties;
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project
Steve Flash, Rampart Real, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
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;
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
327 Eddy St.. Mixed-Use/Apartments
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Steven Fontana, Owner
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Max Weisbrod, spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, noting the applicants
are being asked to surrender land for an easement, which he does not think is warranted since
the project will be beneficial to the community. He urged the Planning Board not to delay
approval any longer. Weisbrod also spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments
project.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant St. and South Hill Civic Association member, spoke in support
of the Collegetown Crossing project, noting it will provide much-needed housing and
amenities in the Collegetown area, including a grocery store. The project should not be
delayed any further.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the Collegetown
Crossing project. He also urged the expeditious approval of the Ithaca Marriott Hotel
project.
Teresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, including
having a grocery store within walking distance of her house in Collegetown.
Neil Golder, 203 College Ave., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project and
having a grocery store in Collegetown. He urged the expedited approval of the project.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
Todd Saddler, 302 Cascadilla St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project and
locating a grocery store in Collegetown, as well as the bicycle parking, bus stop, and
pedestrian accessibility the project would provide.
Tom Hanna, 215 N. Cayuga St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project,
noting he is grateful the Planning Board approved the first version of the project. He urged
the Board to approve the current proposal as quickly as possible, although he appreciates the
complexity of the approval process. He recommended the City increase staff and decrease
the complexity of the approval process as much as possible. He also suggested the Board
favor locally-developed projects.
3. Subdivisions
A. Minor Subdivision/Consolidation & Consideration of Changes to Approved Site
Plan, 225 Elmira Rd., Tax Parcel #117.-3-1 (Stone Quarry Apartments), INHS,
Applicant & Brian Hunt, Owner. Public Hearing, Amendment to 10/23/12 Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance, Consideration of Preliminary & Final
Subdivision Approval, and Consideration of Changes to Approved Site Plan. This
subdivision/consolidation, along with the site plan, was considered in the environmental
review for Stone Quarry Apartments, for which the Planning Board, acting a Lead Agency,
issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 23, 2013. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel I, will
measure 0.585 acres and will be sold and consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10 and
#123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site (the location of the proposed Stone
Quarry Apartments project that received Site Plan Approval in November 2012). Parcel II
will measure 3.485 acres with 236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain the existing
one-story building. The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard
requirements of 10, 10/ 5, and 15% or 20 feet respectively. This is an Unlisted Action under
both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, for which
environmental review was completed. 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.
Applicant Walters explained the current status of the proposed project, noting that since it
was originally approved the project team has been putting together the financing for the
project and making minor changes to the site plan (primarily, the larger building). He
explained that the subdivision is necessary to create a single development lot.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Walters remarked the applicants have laid out all the facts relating to the environmental
issues associated with the site in a Letter of Intent and its attachments. The applicants
believe the most appropriate action would be to re-open the CEQR process and issue an
amended Negative Determination of Environmental Significance that addresses the issues
raised since the project was approved. He also noted that all the project changes the
Planning Board requested have been made and the plans resubmitted.
Trowbridge noted that the last Planning Board meeting discussion primarily focused on the
Spencer Road side of the project. As a result of that meeting, the applicants made the
following changes:
• reinforcing the connection between the entrances on Spencer Road and the sidewalk
• simplifying the fence and entrance gate
• re-incorpotating the louver wih panels that created porches on the Spencer Road side
that were in the initial 2012 project proposal
• reducing the fence height from 48 inches to 42 inches (the required minimum).
• altering the horizontal/vertical boards on the fence
• straightening out the jogs in the lower portion of the sidewall to create more greenspace
on the Spencer Road side
Walters further explained the need for the subdivision. There is a large parcel on Elmira
Road that backs up onto the project’s existing Spencer Road parcels; so that back end needs
to be subdivided to create a full development parcel. It is a straight-forward process, which
was also cited as a requirement in the original Site Plan Approval resolution.
Regarding the environmental issues associated with the project, Walters observed there was
considerable confusion at the last Planning Board meeting. He explained the process and the
timeline associated with the environmental asessment:
• Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was generated in 2012 by Tim Seeler, Seeler
Engineering, P.C ― it is a standard process for evaluating potential environmental
contaminants.
• Six environmental contaminants were identified.
• Seeler performed a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment to further investigate the site. He
found limited contamination associated with an underground storage tank and some
outside oil drums. A second round of Phase 2 testing properly delineated the
contamination. This was then reported to the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC).
• Since there were two property adddresses, the DEC opened two separate spill files, which
it should not have done.
• Seeler met with the DEC which indicated to him that the contamination was a relatively
simple environmental concern and that the DEC did not need to be involved.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
• The DEC then closed the spill file ― however, the second, duplicate file remained open
and it appears no action was every taken with it. It was an honest mistake.
• The DEC kept the file open and asked for a remediation plan, which INHS provided.
The remediation plan received approval from the DEC Regional Director.
• INHS also submitted a map to help visualize the test results, with boring holes identified
on the site. The project does not involve a complicated remediation process. The
potentially contaminated soil simply needs to be excavated and removed off-site. All the
excavated soil is tested when it is removed.
• After the excavation, the sides of the excavation holes would also be tested. The DEC
would then review those test results and determine if the process has been properly
followed.
• Seeler and the DEC will be involved throughout the remediation process.
Walters explained that the last update to the Environmental Assessment was done in 2013
and there will be another update. The applicants do not expect any further contamination to
be uncovered, since there were no changes to the use of the site since the Phase 1
Environmental Assessment was conducted.
Walters remarked that HUD’s environmental investigation was also re-opened. One public
comment that was submitted to HUD as a result of that process mentioned a nearby above-
ground motor oil storage tank cited in the 2000 Phase 1 report. (HUD regulates how close
above-ground storage tanks can be to a project, due to the risk of explosion.) That public
comment claimed the tank was too close to the proposed project and that walls would need to
be erected around it; however, INHS investigated the situation and HUD ultimately agreed
no further action need be taken, since the proposed eight-foot tall wooden fence along the
rear property line would provide adequate protection.
Jones-Rounds noted that she asked at the last meeting if it would be possible for the City to
ask DEC to issue a final formal approval after the construction, and if that could submitted
for the Building Division’s official property file. Walters replied the applicants can certainly
provide that documentation. Seeler will be submitting a detailed report to the DEC. Walters
noted the only caveat would be that the applicants would not want to see that become a
condition for obtaining a Certificate of Compliance, since they have to obtain Building
Permits beforehand. Jones-Rounds replied that would be fine.
Lavine explained that the pivotal issue in this case is the environmental review process. The
original Negative Determination of Environmental Significance was made by the Planning
Board; and the new information that has been received appears to suggest that Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance was properly issued. At this juncture, the
appropriate approach would be to simply amend the original Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance. Lavine emphasized the newly received information does not
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
constitute an adverse significant environmental impact, which is the legal question before the
Planning Board today. It is the Planning Board’s role to conduct the environmental review,
but it is the DEC’s role to ensure the remediation process complies with state standards. The
existing case law strongly suggests any challenges to the Planning Board’s decision would
most likely fail, since the law defers to the DEC.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Lucy Brown, 515 N. Albany St. and former INHS board member, spoke in support of the
Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she served on the INHS loan committee that
reviews affordable housing clients (and has also had some experience with the INHS rental
committee). She stressed that INHS clients are the very best tenants. They have to undergo
a very extensive process before being selected.
George McGonigal, Common Council Member and representing the Spencer Road
neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting that
although he respects INHS he believes the project is ill-conceived. It was designed to meet
the criteria of the grants funding it. It is too big and too dense for the site; and it is also
isolated from its neighbors. Furthermore, the only driveway into the project connects to
Spencer Road near a dangerous intersection on Stone Quarry Road. He urged the applicants
to modify the project and scale it down.
Mike Cannon, 409 W. Buffalo St. and INHS board member, spoke in support of the Stone
Quarry Apartments project, noting that a tremendous amount of work has gone into it. It
would be a great step forward for Ithaca, since Ithaca has one of the least affordable housing
markets in the country. He urged the Board to approve it, noting that INHS recently
completed two similar projects that were widely-acclaimed: Cedar Creek Apartments and
Breckenridge Place.
Sadegh Deljoo, 215 Dubois Rd., inquired about the 205 Dryden Road project, noting he
received a notice about it in the mail andwould like to know how it might affect his property
in the future.
Emily Nester, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting she disagree with the contents of the applicants’ 8/12/14 Letter of Intent. (She also
submitted detailed written comments.)
Jean Sutherland, 410 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project. (She also submitted detailed written comments.)
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Mary Yetsko, 409 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project.
(She also submitted detailed written comments.)
Jennifer Cleland, 333 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project. (She also submitted detailed written comments.)
Ben Kirk, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project.
(He also submitted detailed written comments.)
Bob Stundtner, 333 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments
project. (He also submitted detailed written comments.)
Svante Myrick, Ithaca City Mayor, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments
project, noting he has never verbally addressed the Planning Board about a specific project,
prior to this evening ― however, he feels strongly that the Planning Board should proceed
with consideration of the project. It is a project that is personally important to him.
Affordable housing is not something he merely supports as a concept or in the abstract. It is
critical for him to follow through on his support of it for individual projects. He has had
personal experience with homelessness and knows first-hand the vital role affordable
housing projects, like this one, can play in improving people’s lives. Unfortunately, building
affordable housing is not something people often receive much credit for pursuing, in many
neighborhoods. Myrick stressed that affordable housing is not just an act of altruism for a
few individuals and families ― it represents a real long-term investment in the wider
community, as well.
J.P. Vico, 338 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting it would encircle his property. He noted that he spoke to DEC Regional Spill
Engineer Richard Brazell, who remarked the DEC does not have the resources that it used to
have and that in the past the DEC would have had someone on the project site. Vico
remarked that INHS selectively bored where it wanted to and the DEC has no authority to
require additional bores. Vico concluded that he supports affordable housing, but the way
this project is being designed involves too many negative impacts.
Brendan Wilbur, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) employee, spoke in support of
the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has worked with numerous low- to
moderate-income people as a housing counselor. Far too many low- to moderate-income
people simply have no place to live in the city and are ultimately forced to live out of town,
away from the services they need. This project is located exactly where it is most needed.
He added that INHS clients are good tenants and INHS is a good landlord.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
Beth Prentice, 102 Irving Pl., spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting there is a pressing need for affordable rental housing in Ithaca. The Brookings
Institution even identified Ithaca as only being able to accommodate 10% of its affordable
housing demand. As a result, there are long waiting lists. It is a horrendous situation for
many low- to moderate-income families. Compounding this shortage is the less than 1%
local rental vacancy rate. (5% is considered healthy.) Most existing affordable rental units
are in very poor condition and are not healthy places for people to live. Assuming the
environmental issues are resolved and the City is aware of the other traffic/safety issues in
the neighborhood, it is very difficult to understand that there is a legitimate basis for the
objections to the project. Prentice added that people should understand that INHS is a ‘gold
star’-level organization.
Thys Van Cort, 102 Irving Pl. and former City Planning and Development Director, spoke
in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has been involved in many
projects on once-contaminated sites, exactly like this site. Businesses have routinely stored a
variety of products on their properties. Places like Cinemapolis and Cayuga Green, among
others, both contained leaking underground storage tanks. Before construction could begin,
the contamination had to be identified and remediated. That kind of contamination is not
particularly toxic and can easily be remediated to safe levels, with oversight and approval by
the DEC. They are small-scale and lightly contaminated sites ― the average person is a
greater risk from exposure to domestic solvents, paints, cleaners, etc., than living on one of
these formerly-contaminated sites.
Mary Lynn Ripa, 100 W. Seneca St., Breckenridge Place, spoke in support of the Stone
Quarry Apartments project, noting she has been an INHS tenant for the past 5 years. She is
filled with gratitude to the INHS staff. Breckenridge Place is home to a diverse community
and it is an amazing project. She is passionate about housing issues and the need for more
affordable local housing.
Evan Perin, 530 Chestnut St., spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project,
noting he also lives in an INHS property. For a long time, he encountered tremendous
difficulty finding affordable housing in the area that was run by responsible landlords. His
entire life changed when he found 530 Chestnut Street.
Norman Hodge spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has had
to grapple with exorbitant rental prices for years. He used to live in the ‘Jungle’. Finding
affordable housing is a real problem in Ithaca. Many poor people in Ithaca are forced to live
in places owned by veritable slumlords; and there are still so many homeless people.
Aleta Coggin, 1113 Glenwood Heights Rd., submitted a letter in support of the Stone Quarry
Apartments project.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Common Council Member, spoke in opposition to the Stone
Quarry Apartments project, noting she spoke with City Engineering Diector Tom West and
City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue who informed her the City’s RFP for the
neighborhood would only be for improving pedestrian connectivity from Spencer Road and
Stone Quarry Road. The City does not currently plan to address vehicular traffic and safety
in the neighborhood. She also pointed out the remediation plan is only focused on
contamination under the buildings themselves. It would leave any potential contamination
under the playground in place. She noted that, unlike the Emerson Power Transmission site
where trichloroethene (TCE) contamination was dispersed, the Stone Quarry Apartments
contamination resulted from contamination dripping below ground, which can easily be
excavated and removed. She is also concerned with what she sees as crucial safety, traffic,
scale, and massing concerns associated with the project. She urged the Board to extend the
Public Hearing timeframe to allow the community to provide further written comments
regarding the CEQR process and incorporate all those concerns into the CEQR review.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry
Apartments project, noting the project is another unfortunate victim of the NIMBY (“Not In
My Back Yard”) mentality that seems to have plagued so many other projects in the area.
The city definitely needs more livable and affordable apartments.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Blalock asked if the applicants would like to respond to any of the public comments.
Walters responded that the applicants believe they already addressed most of the issues in
their 8/12/14 Letter of Intent and accompanying documents. He stressed the remediation
plan requires constant monitoring of the site, by every means available, and that all work
would stop if any further contamination were to emerge.
Elliott noted that the last Planning Board meeting prompted a suggestion that the applicants
hold another meeting with the community; however, he heard that did not happen. Bowes
replied that the applicants did not hold a meeting with the community since the last Board
meeting; however, they did reach out to the community by providing the 8/12/14 Letter of
Intent and accompanying documents, including the DEC’s response to the remediation plan.
They also encouraged everyone to come to this meeting and expess their views.
Jones-Rounds expressed concern with the way the discussion has been framed. It has
seemed a little too antagonistic. The Planning Board, the City Attorney, the DEC, and the
applicants have all been asking a lot of questions to get to the root of all the objections to the
project. She commended the neighbors for the research they conducted, but it seems the
discussion
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
has been skewed to focus on all the negative potential impacts of the project ― to the
exclusion of everything else. She stressed the Planning Board would like to move forward in
improving the city for everyone and it has been examining all the information it has received
about the project as thoroughly as everyone else. When the Board makes its decision, it will
be in the most informed and respectful way possible.
Schroeder remarked that the Board tabled further action on the project at the last meeting,
because it needed more information. He believes all the questions that were raised have now
been satisfactorily answered and it is time to move forward.
Jones-Rounds noted the Planning Board is very interested in identifying solutions to the
vehicular traffic and safety concerns associated with the site (e.g., a possible resolution sent
to Common Council and the Board of Public Works urging them to thoroughly explore
various solutions, like a traffic light for the intersection).
Fernández asked if the playground would be raised, as she suggested at the last meeting.
Trowbridge replied, yes. Although the applicants have not yet provided the new grading
plan, the playground would be graded as a mound.
Schroeder observed the current Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3,
indicates the City’s Capital Project feasibility study would include the intersection, whereas
Council Member Brock just reported otherwise. One way or the other, the language in the
Part 3 should reflect what is actually the case.
Blalock remarked he believes the Board now has all the information it needs to move
forward in considering the project.
Jones-Rounds suggested adding a “Whereas” clause to the proposed resolution indicating the
applicants agreed to ensure all environmental reports are submitted to the City, when they are
generated. Nicholas replied that should go into the “Approval of Project Changes”
resolution.
CEQR Resolution (AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: on October 23, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
determined that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project ― consisting of the site plan,
subdivision, and variance ― at 400 Spencer Road would 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, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
WHEREAS: the project consists of the construction of 35 units of new rental housing that will be
affordable to low-to-moderate-income households. The units will be in one 3-story building and
two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include: a 36-space parking area with
two ADA-compliant spaces; pedestrian walkways throughout; a recreation area with a playground;
basketball court; a lawn; and landscaping. The applicants are also proposing to install a sidewalk,
tree lawn, and street trees along the property on Spencer Road. The project site consists of three
separate tax parcels in the R-2a and B-5 Zoning Districts, currently containing all commercial
uses. The project has received a use variance for a 3-story apartment building in the R-2b District,
and
WHEREAS: the applicants are also proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels.
Parcel I will measure 0.585 acres, and will be sold and consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10
and #123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site. Parcel II will measure 3.485 acres with
236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain the several one-story buildings and a house .
The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF,
minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard requirements of 10, 10/
5, and 15% or 20 feet, respectively, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (CEQR) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: pursuant to 617.4(b)(11) of the SEQRA regulations, this action is treated as a Type I
Action for purposes of SEQRA, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that (1) new information
has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not
previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact
will occur, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on August 26 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate the new information consisting of: a revised Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; a Phase I
Environmental Assessment (ESA), dated September 2012; a Phase II ESA, dated October 2012; a
supplemental Phase II ESA, dated October 18, 2012; and an Environmental Management
(Remediation) Plan, dated 8/4/14, all prepared by the Seeler Engineering, P.C.; and other
supporting materials provided by the Project Sponsor dated August 12, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the above-mentioned Phase I, II, and supplemental II ESAs identify two contained
areas of concern, as identified in red on the drawing titled “Pathstone Corporation Phase 2 – ESA,
Site Plan (1),” dated 9/14/12 and prepared by Seeler Engineering, P.C. The above-mentioned
Environmental Management (Remediation) Plan outlines the remediation work program,
including: (1) Procedures for cleaning up the contamination and monitoring of the contamination
removal; (2) Procedures for addressing unanticipated conditions discovered during other site
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
work; (3) Design specifications for an active vapor mitigation system; and (4) Requirements for
long-term monitoring of the mitigation system, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency recognizes that the site remediation, as well as the standard for
which clean-up is required for the intended end use, is under the jurisdiction of higher levels of
government than the City of Ithaca. These include NYS DEC, NYS Department of Health, and the
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Lead Agency recognizes
that, based on the information available at this time, the applicant and these agencies are working
in partnership to address these issues on the site, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby amend the
Negative Declaration issued on October 23, 2012 to include the above-mentioned information in
the environmental record, and be it further
RESOLVED: that based on all supporting documentation, the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board does hereby determine that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project at
400 Spencer Road 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, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
Schroeder observed the draft subdivision approval resolution indicates Parcel II will retain
one existing one-story building, but there are actually several one-story buildings, so that
language should be corrected.
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #117.-3-1
in the City of Ithaca, by applicant Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel
I will measure 0.585 acres, and will be sold and consolidated with tax parcels #123.-1-10 and
#123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site (the location of the proposed Stone Quarry
Apartments project that received Site Plan Approval in November 2012). Parcel II will measure
3.485 acres with 236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain several one-story buildings
and a house. The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000
SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard requirements of 10,
10/ 5, and 15% or 20 feet, respectively, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
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: on October 23, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
determined that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project ― consisting of the site plan,
subdivision and variance ― at 400 Spencer Road would 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, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(CEQR) and §617.7(e) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency determined that (1) new
information has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen
that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant
adverse impact will occur, and
WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014
amend the Negative Declaration issued on October 23, 2012 to include the new information in the
environmental record, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014 issue an
amended Negative Declaration of environmental significance, 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 August 26,
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 by the aforementioned have been considered,
and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on August 26, 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate: plans entitled “Subdivision Map, Lands of Brian Hunt,
Located at No.225 Elmira Road,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 8/12/14; and other
application materials, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
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 B-
5 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Approval for the proposed Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#117.-3-1, by INHS, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and
signature of a registered licensed surveyor, and
ii. That the subdivided parcel is immediately consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10 and
#123.-1-8, and that documentation of the consolidation be submitted to Planning staff.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
Fernández suggested the approval resolution include a line about the raised playground and
that the Planning Board will need to see that reflected in a revised grading plan.
Schroeder noted some drawings have been submitted that are not mentioned in the draft
resolution (e.g., revised frontage, site plan, perspectives, overlay). A “Whereas” clause
should also be added to re-articulate the language in the Part 3 that begins with “In spring of
2014…” and ends with “…and entrances for four units.” The resolution should also reflect
Jones-Rounds’ request for the applicants to submit documentation demonstrating that
remediation has been completed.
Schroeder also suggesed adding a “Resolved” clause urging the BPW and Common Council
to implement pedestrian and intersection improvements near the site. Cornish replied the
Board can certainly make that suggestion, but there are other city intersections that more
urgently need improvement. Jones-Rounds remarked the Planning Board can simply urge
that it be made a priority. Schroeder noted it could be the same language the Planning Board
used two years ago.
Elliott agreed it would be particulaly important since only a segment of sidewalk will be
installed at the site. Cornish replied the City does now have the Sidewalk Improvement
District Program in place, so perhaps the Spencer Road neighborhood would rise to the top
as a priority. Schroeder suggested that be added to the resolution as another “Resolved”
clause.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
Fernández noted she shares the same opinions as Jones-Rounds about the way the project has
been represented by some people in the community. She believes the applicants are
developing the site in good conscience and that, taken as a whole, the project will be a good
thing for the community.
Schroeder noted he is pleased the applicants resolved so many of the issues the Planning
Board brought up at the last meeting. It is now much more consistent with the rest of the
neighborhood. Blalock agreed.
Approval of Project Changes Resolution
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting grading and architectural changes for Stone
Quarry Apartments at 400 Spencer Road, which was approved by the Planning Board on
November 27, 2012, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of
Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant
enough to require re-opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site Plan
Review application, and
WHEREAS: grading and site layout changes consist of the following:
• townhouses step down in elevation 4 feet from north to south, and
• change in elevation from Spencer Road to the back door of the townhouses that requires a
4-foot retaining wall and a change in the sidewalk connection on five westernmost units
from individual connections to a shared internal walkway, and
• the change in grading requires the rear set of townhouses to be 2 feet lower than the front
townhouses and, therefore, one interior winding walkway has been replaced with two direct
walkways and a series of stone planting beds, and
• multi-family building ― the changes in grade resulted in removal of two doorways on the
multi-family building, and
• loading zones have been reduced in size, allowing for a more usable sidewalk and
additional space for a bike rack, and
• balconies on multi-family building have been replaced with windows, and
• southern façade of the multi-family building now has three vertical bays instead of four,
and
• Spencer Road façade of multi-family building has been refined and a pergola added, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on August 26, 2014, reviewed revised and updated plans
entitled: “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” “Drainage Plan
(C103)” and “Details (C201),” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C; “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout
Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Sections (L5 01),” and “Site
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
Details (L601, L602, and L603),” all dated 6/13/14, and “Illustrative [Site Plan]” with revision
dates of 7/24/14 and 8/15/14, all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and “Elevations
(AP101),” “Multifamily Building Elevations (AP102),” “Townhouse Elevations (AP103),”
“MultiFamily Perspectives (AP104),” all dated 6/11/14 and “Townhouse Perspectives (AP105),”
dated 6/11/14 and dated stamped 8/26/14, and “Townhouse Front Porch (AP 107) dated 8/13/14,
all prepared by HOLT Architects; and other materials to satisfy conditions of the November 27,
2012 approval; and
WHEREAS: in spring of 2014 the applicant requested project changes to the approved site that
included removing the separate entrances and architectural screening between units on the
Spencer Road-facing townhouses. The proposed change arose from the need to lower the grade
on the portion of the site containing the townhouses, resulting in a stepping down of the
townhouse units a total of 4 feet from east to west. The Lead Agency felt that this change
negatively impacted the project’s residential character and subsequently required the applicant to
explore a way to restore the previously proposed entrances. The applicant has submitted a
revised site plan with a final revision date of 8-15-14 that shows separate entrances restored at
sidewalk level at four units and a below grade walkway and entrances for four units, and
WHEREAS: the Board finds that materials submitted satisfy conditions i. and iv. of the
November 27, 2012 approval, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes
proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions:
i. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit documentation
to the Planning Board demonstrating that site remediation has been completed as per
NYSDEC standards and that NYSDEC has closed the spill file, and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised grading plan showing the play area being
slightly raised, and
The flowing remaining unsatisfied conditions from the November 27, 2012 Site Plan Approval:
iii. Submission of drawing and/or a narrative indicating planned route for construction traffic,
and
iv. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
v. Submission of a rooftop plan demonstrating that no substantial rooftop mechanicals are
visible from the public right-of-way, and
vi. Applicant shall paint any exterior vents to match adjacent building materials, and
vii. Applicant shall work with NYSEG to ensure transformers are located for minimal
visibility or in such a way as to allow for screening. Any such screening shall be
approved by Planning Division staff, and
viii. Soil for street trees and trees surrounding parking areas to be remediated, as recommended
by the City Forester, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and
x. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and be
it further
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the Board of Public Works (BPW), as expeditiously
as possible, to: (1) develop and implement a plan for providing pedestrian connections between
the project site area on Spencer Road and nearby transit stops and shopping areas; and (2)
develop and implement a plan for improving the operation of the Spencer Road and Stone Quarry
Road intersection, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the BPW to prioritize sidewalks on Spencer Road in
the 2015 Sidewalk Improvement District Program work plan.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
4. Site Plan Review
A. Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora St., Urgo Hotels. Conditions of Site Plan Approval &
Project Changes. The Board approved changes to the project on June 24, 2014 with
conditions. The applicant is returning to satisfy those conditions.
Jalazo explained the current status of the proposed project and walked through an overhead
presentation, highlighting the following items:
• additional landscaping
• alternating brick around windows
• relocated entrance to restaurant (which updated renderings depict)
• removed the planters
• submitted a drawing showing landscaping around the transformers (also submitted to the
NYS Department of Transportation)
Schroeder noted the Board does not have the key to the landscape plan. He asked if
evergeens would be planted in front of the transformers. Rubio replied, yes. Schroeder
asked if there would be multiple heights of vegetation. Rubio replied, yes, although he is not
absolutely sure which species, but he can provide it.
Jalazo noted the bus stop has now shifted slightly to the north to accommodate an electrical
panel necessary for the Commons renovation (the result of an agreement with the
Department of Public Works and the Commons project management team). A second planter
will also be removed from that location.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
Jones-Rounds expressed concern that vehicles in front of the building would block traffic.
She asked if the City Transportation Engineer approved the most recent changes. Cornish
replied he actually recommended the change. Jalazo clarified the bus stop location itself has
not changed, nor the actual bus stopping point. Only the bus shelter was moved.
Fernández asked if it would be a rollover curb. Jalazo replied, no. Fernández asked if the
applicants planned to install bollards in front of the hotel, in that case. Jalazo replied, no. It
would be the same curb as the one on Aurora Street. Fernández cautioned that safety is a
highly sensitive issue ever since the fatal accident at Simeon’s on the Commons.
Cornish reported two new task forces are examining the issue and exploring different ways to
address it. Fernández suggested the two task forces be included in the distribution for the
Marriott Hotel landscape plan. Cornish replied she would make sure that happened.
Rubio pointed out that this particular lane is for vehicular drop-offs only, so any proposed
bollards would need to be coordinated accordingly.
Jones-Rounds observed she sees no curb bump-out on any of the renderings. Rubio replied
the actual location of the curb fluctuated for a while, so the renderings may not depict the
precise location. Jalazo noted the drawing that includes the curb bump-out is the official
document of record.
Cornish noted the applicants have been working very closely with the City Transportation
Engineer on all these kinds of details.
Jalazo noted the applicants studied the issue extensively with the City Fire Department and
Engineering Division, including testing all conceivable situations before situating the curb
bump. Jones-Rounds replied that sounds acceptable.
Regarding the material samples, Schroeder noted the orangish bricks appear a little on the
pink side on the renderings. He would like to make it clear for the record that the material
sample represents the color to be used (i.e., a rusty-orangish-brownish color), and not the
pink color on the renderings. Fernández asked if it would be real brick. Jalazo replied, yes.
Schroeder noted he likes the color variety of the Nichiha panels on the west elevation. He
wondered why there is not a similar amount of variety on the other elevations. Rubio replied
for that particular pattern to look aesthetically correct to the human eye requires a larger
surface area which is absent on the other elevations. Jalazo explained it would have looked
too ‘busy’.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
Schroeder insisted the Green Street façade looks too blank near the very top. Jalazo asked if
Schroeder was indicating he would like the same pattern in the panels at the top of the Green
Street façade. Schroeder replied, yes, or at least some kind of articulation ― it just it looks
very plain, with only the two windows. Elliott agreed with Schroeder that the façade needs
to be further ‘humanized’.
Elliott also remarked the building should really have more than just 3 shades of curtains to
faithfully represent the waterfall effect being sought. There are eight floors, so there should
probably be eight shades.
Jalazo replied the curtains would be custom-fit, so having eight different shades would be a
problem. It would not be enough volume for the supplier.
Elliott recommended either adding more gradients or abandoning the waterfall concept
altogether. He simply does not foresee it will work with only three shades. At least, the
applicant could agree to further investigate the issue. Schroeder agreed with Elliott that the
applicant could identify a better way of producing the desired effect (e.g., even using the
same three shades, but in different configurations).
Cornish noted she would like the applicant to confirm that all the utilities are accurately and
completely depicted on the building elevations (i.e., that there will be no surprises, like
exhaust pipes).
Rubio replied there is large mechanical louver on the north elevation that would be
architecturally treated and screened, to minimize its impact. The louver would be oversized
to make it look more in proportion to its surroundings. There would be no other mechanicals
on the roof. Jalazo added there would be no PTAC (packaged terminal air conditioner) units
on the building, which would have been too obtrusive.
Elliott suggested exploring using different tints of glass or other artitectural features to
further articulate portions of the building.
Jalazo stressed the applicants really need to be able to start construction in September 2014.
Schroeder noted the applicant will most likely receive the Board’s approval to move forward
this evening; but he would ask that a complete planting list be submitted to the Board and
that the applicants investigate a way to include more color gradations on the ‘waterfall’
curtain.
Jalazo replied the applicant would definitely explore that and communicate its findings to the
Planning Board.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
Schroeder observed the only remaining isue is the signage installation on the streets near the
hotel, informing motorists it can be entered directly from the Green Street Parking Garage.
Jalazo replied that the applicants met with the City Engineering Director and Transportation
Engineer and they are receptive to the idea. The City Parking Director would need to be
involved, as well. It remains an ongoing discussion with the Department of Public Works.
B. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State St., Carey Building
Associates , Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 has received 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 Design Review.
Applicants Snyder and Travis explained the current status of the proposed project. Snyder
noted the renderings were revised since the Project Review Committee meeting, in response
to a request to emphasize the horizontal lines on the cantilevered portion of the addition’s
front façade. The third floor railing detail was also changed to a butt-glazed glass handrail
system to downplay the new building and lend more importance to the orginal Carey
Building façade. The third-floor height has been altered to 25 inches above the existing
concrete deck. Snyder then distributed the materials samples to the Board.
Travis reported the applicants received the Area Variance for the project, as well as letters of
support from four neighboring properties and Historic Ithaca.
Schroeder noted there is just one remaining condition to be discussed: the submission of a
drawing depicting the actual colors on the sides of the building. Schroeder asked if the
applicants could use three alternating colors. Snyder replied that the product being used
already has some natural variance. Schroeder suggested another alternative would be to have
less variation between the two. Snyder replied, yes, the applicants would explore that.
Schroeder asked about the planned signage. Snyder replied that Cornell University hired
Iron Design to create the signs for the second-floor space, so the applicants are considering a
sign that wraps around the corner, as well as a sign that projects from the building face.
Travis added that the applicants also reached out to the City Public Art Commission and the
Community Arts Partnership.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
Travis reported the applicants investigated a possible greywater system, as discussed at the
last Planning Board meeting, but the space requirement for the basement would have been
too great.
Snyder noted the applicants have been working with NYSEG towards a solution to the
transformer issue. There will most likely be some kind of transformer somewhere, but there
is no more to report at this time. Cornish responded that the Planning Board and staff should
be notified once a final location is identified.
Schroeder asked about the pavement for the repaved walkway. Snyder replied it would be
concrete in the score pattern shown on the site plan. Travis added it will require coordination
with the neighboring hotel project, since it is part of a whole entry system for the hotel.
Schroeder remarked it would be nice to have colored concrete. Travis agreed.
Elliott asked about the possibility of humanizing the walkway and entrance area on the north
edge of the site with some kind of living material. Travis replied that may be possible.
Schroeder suggested a simple trellis or low wall, as long as there is some separation between
the walkway and the parking lot.
Fernández suggested something similar between the east edge of the east walkway and the
adjacent parcel. Travis replied the building will be set back five feet from the property lot
line, so that walkway will be wider and there should be opportunities to do something like
that.
Elliott asked if the glass railing on the third floor balcony would be capped. Snyder replied it
would probably just be glass. Schroeder noted the Project Review Committee discussed it
possibly being a greyish glass. The more the balcony railing disappears, the better. If it were
darker glass, rather than clear glass, it would help it recede more from view. The only bright
elements should be the brick and the top part of the existing Carey Building. Snyder agreed
that is the intent.
Travis remarked it would seem safer to have some kind of structure for that railing. He
asked if it would make sense to borrow the aluminum color from the window frame for part
of the railing. Schroeder replied, yes, as long as it is not white or light-colored metal.
Schroeder indicated the approval resolution will include a number of conditions, including a
condition that the original Carey Building walls should be cleaned and repaired as needed
and the sidewalk in front of the project site should remain open to pedestrians during
construction, as much as possible.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
Blalock asked about the easement rights extension issue mentioned at the last meeting.
Cornish responded there did not appear to be much interest on the City’s part in pursuing it,
but it would not be ruled out. Blalock remarked he would strongly urge the City to make it
possible. Cornish replied the City is constrained by its legal obligation to obtain a fair-
market-value.
Schroeder suggested the applicants pursue an easement agreement with the neighboring hotel
project. Travis replied he would check with the hotel project team and explore it with them;
however, he cannot promise anything.
Elliott asked if the transformer could be concealed in an internal room. Snyder replied he
does not think that would be possible, given all the associated regulations. The applicants
will certainly explore the possibility.
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 building renovations and a five-story addition to be located
at 314-320 E. State Street, also known as the Carey Building, by Carey Building Associates,
owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to add 5 floors to the existing 2-story building. The addition
will have approximately 3,600 SF of office space on the 3rd floor and 14-16 micro-apartments on
the 4th and 5th floors. Design plans call for stepping the building back and providing 2-3 larger
units on the 6th and 7th floors. The owner intends to retain retail use on the 1st floor and renovate
the 2nd floor for office space, and to provide a new entrance on the north façade of the building.
The proposed building includes outdoor terraces on the 3rd and 6th floors. The project is in the
CDB-60 and CDB-100 Zoning Districts, and has received the required 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
WHEREAS: in official GML comments, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx
requested “an assessment of the traffic and parking impacts of the project,” and in response the
applicant provided a trip-generation analysis prepared by SRF Associates, dated July 22, 2014,
which concluded 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: “Site Plan;” two untitled drawings showing north/south and east/west
colored building elevations; one untitled drawing showing a photo simulation of the existing
buildings on the entire north side of the block with the proposed addition, as well as a conceptual
rendering of the proposed future hotel to the north; “Aerial View – Looking Northeast,” “Aerial
View – Looking Northwest,” “Perspective Looking West,” “Perspective Looking West from
Third Floor Exterior Terrace,” “Perspective Looking East from the Commons,” “Perspective
Looking Northwest from the Aurora Street and State Street,” and “Perspective Rear Entrance,”
all dated 7/22/14, and four revised perspectives each titled “Carey Building Overbuild – Exterior
Materials Rendering,” all dated 8/26/14, and all prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on July 22, 2014 make a negative
determination of environmental significance for the project, 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. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations showing further
refinement of the lower level of the west elevation, and showing more emphasis of the
horizontal elements on the cantilevered portion of the front façade of the addition (per the
depiction in the August 26, 2014 set of four revised perspectives), and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not
limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and
iii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a materials board and revised colored
building elevations with keyed materials. These drawings are to (1) include a detail of the
pattern and coloring of the principal east and west façade siding material, and (2) show
the mechanical housing in a gray (instead of white) color, and
iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a final section showing the
relationship between the parapet of the existing building and the proposed glass railing on
the third floor balcony, and a detail illustrating the materials and construction of this glass
railing, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24
v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a revised site plan including a note
stating that any required transformer shall be located and / or screened to minimize
visibility from the public view, and
vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing: (1) some
attractive form of separation (e.g., a low wall or low planters) between the east edge of
the proposed east walkway and the adjacent parcel, and (2) some means of enhancing the
appearance of the walkway and residential entrance area proposed on the north edge of
the site (perhaps involving cooperation with the adjacent property owner), and
The following are required mitigations stated in the adopted FEAF, Part 3 (Note: The other
required mitigations therein have already been fulfilled.)
vii. The exterior walls of the original Carey Building are to be cleaned and repaired as
needed, including removal of old electrical conduit on the front facade, and
viii. The sidewalk on the north side of E. State Street (in front of the project site) shall remain
open to pedestrians during construction, except for any brief periods when closure is
temporarily essential; protective scaffolding with overhead protection over this sidewalk
is acceptable, provided that pedestrians continue to have free passage under any such
protective scaffolding, and
ix. 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.
x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and, be it further
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the Applicant to work with the owner of the adjacent
parcel to the east to try to secure easement rights extending the full height of Applicant’s project,
thereby allowing the current project’s east façade to be provided — subject to Planning Board
review and approval of any revised elevation — with larger and more numerous windows
featuring transparent glass, rather than the current elevation’s limited provision of glass block
windows.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25
C. 323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash.
Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of
Preliminary Approval. 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), and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. 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.
Applicants Demarest and Flash explained the current status of the proposed project.
Demarest highlighted a few minor changes:
• The renderings were updated to show a couple of windows that were inadvertently
omitted from the front of building (which has changed very little).
• There is new outdoor asphalt paving for parking (six 90-degree parking spaces), with the
majority of the parking under the building.
• There are three additional spaces which could either be used as parking spaces or loading
zones, which is up to the Board of Public Works since they sit on City property.
• The site plan was updated to reflect granite curbing and the extended concrete sidewalk.
• There will be a sidewalk on the north side and two bike racks.
• A planting bed will run along the entire north side; and a lawn area will be situated on the
waterfront side, including three ornamental trees.
• The applicants determined the bulkhead would not need to be upraded.
Cornish asked if the project will include a transformer. Demarest replied he does not believe
it will be necessary.
Demarest remarked there will now be balconies on the east side, projecting over the property
line. The parking area will be screened and the drive aisle will remain open through
building. Kayak racks have also been added to the exterior wall. A private pergola structure
will be placed on the top floor, with an adjoining rooftop terrace shared by all the tenants.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26
Schroeder remarked it would look better if it were more three-dimensional on top. Demarest
replied he believes he could do that.
Demarest noted there will now be real windows on the north elevation; and some cables have
been added on the south elevation for vines. The roof will also feature solar panels.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3
Schroeder noted the third impact listed under question 18 (“Proposed action will conflict
with officially adopted plans or goals.”) should be checked off as a potential large impact.
Schroeder remarked more detail should be added to the Part 3. Under “Impact on Growth
and Character,” language should be added recommending a portion of the project parcel be
left open for a future pedestrian/bicycle bridge.
Nicholas noted a reference to the County’s GML concerns that the project would eliminate
the possibility of constructing a new bridge over the Cayuga Lake Inlet should be added to
the Part 3 and resolutions.
Elliott asked what the target housing market is for the project. Flash replied: market rate. It
is too expensive to build affordable housing on the site given the soil conditions. Demarest
added it would, at least, include a wide mixture of unit types.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27
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 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, 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
August 26, 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 Survey (L101),” “Site Layout Plan (L201),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site
Details (L501),” “Elevations (A3 & A4),” “West Perspective (A5),” and “Inlet Perspective
(A6),” all dated 8/14/14, and “First and Second Floor Plan (A1),” and “Third and Fourth Floor
Plan (A12),” dated 6/1/14, and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; 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, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
Preliminary Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28
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 trees. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning District and has
received 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, 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: 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 August
26, 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 any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
August 26, 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 Survey (L101),” “Site Layout Plan (L201),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site
Details (L501),” “Elevations (A3 & A4),” “West Perspective (A5),” and “Inlet Perspective
(A6),” all dated 8/14/14, and “First and Second Floor Plan (A1)” and “Third and Fourth Floor
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
29
Plan (A12),” dated 6/1/14 and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: in a letter dated August 26, 2014, from Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning and
Community Sustainability to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined that the
project would have inter-community or county-wide traffic impacts in that it would effectively
eliminate the option for future development of a bridge over Cayuga Lake Inlet connecting
Route 89 with Fulton Street at the existing Court Street intersection. Such a bridge was a
recommended strategy of the 2009 Route 96 Corridor Management Study for reducing long-
term traffic impacts on the west end of the City, and
WHEREAS: in response to the county comments, the Planning Board considered the high cost
and feasibility issues of such a bridge. It was determined the proposed project could be the
catalyst for long-awaited development on the waterfront, would provide much-needed housing
opportunities, and would add to the City’s tax base, all leading to a decision to abandon the idea
of a bridge in this location at this time and to allow the proposal to move forward, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of revised color elevations with keyed building materials, showing future
rooftop greenhouse and window on the ground level of the west facade, and
ii. Submission of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials,
exterior furnishings, lighting, exterior trellis system, and kayak rack, and
iii. Addition of two bike racks, located in consultation with the City Junior Transportation
Engineer, and
iv. Submission of one record copy of revised elevations, and
v. Submission of a revised site plan showing preferred location of future transformer and a
note indicating all efforts will be made to locate any future transformer ― to the greatest
extent possible ― outside the public view, and
vi. Submission of a revised landscape plan showing replacement of proposed birch adjacent
to Taughannock Blvd. with a sycamore or London plane tree.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
30
D. Dryden South, 205 Dryden Rd. ― Mixed-Use/Apartments, Jagat Sharma for Pat
Kraft. Public Hearing and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 MU-2 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 State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project has
received Design Review.
Applicants Sharma and Kraft explained the current status of the proposed project. Sharma
noted a bike rack was added in the basement and the site plan now reflects the removed curb-
cut.
Elliott urged the applicants not to employ split-face blocks, or at least only use them as
accents.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
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-
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
31
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 has
received 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 all received comments 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, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on July 22, 2014 make a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance, 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 August
26, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on August 26, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate:
revised drawings titled “Rendering (R.01& R.02),” and “Building Elevations (A301),” dated
August 19, 2014, and “Site Section, Site Plan (L102),” “Utility Plan, Disturbance Plan,
Demolition Plan, Signage, Details (L103),” and “Floor Plans (A201),” dated August 26, 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 grants Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to the following conditions:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
32
i. Exterior bike racks serving this project and other properties on this block will be
provided in a consolidated location to be determined, rather than in front of every
individual parcel, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials sample sheet keyed
to the elevations, and
iii. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
E. Collegetown Crossing ― Mixed-Use, 307 College Ave., Jagat Sharma for Josh
Lower. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Approval. 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
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.
Schroeder indicated he would need to leave shortly. He remarked he strongly believes there
should be an easement along the walkway. He also has the same concerns as before about
the bus stop location ― it would create too much congestion there. Cornish responded there
was some discussion about moving it further to the west, but that still needs to be explored.
(Schroeder departed at 10:22 p.m.)
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
33
Applicants Lower, Sharma, and Whitham explained the current status of the proposed
project.
Whitham noted the bus stop issue should be addressed first. He met with the City Fire Chief
to discuss the fire station and also had a productive discussion with the City Transporation
Engineer, who was open to moving the bust stop south. TCAT has also been supportive of
the idea. It sounds like a good solution. The applicants will explore it at length and generate
a drawing.
Blalock remarked the Planning Board would like to see the project move forward as fast as
possible and in the most productive manner.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3
Nicholas explained the Board cannot consider the CEQR resolution this evening, since too
many questions remain unanswered in the Part 3 (although they could probably be answered
relatively easily). Most of the questions relate to the bus stop, vehicular deliveries, and the
overall configuration/functionality of that portion of the site. The Part 3 enumerates all the
information the Board currently lacks (and also contains some proposed mitigations from the
previous Part 3, approved in 2012, which may be applicable).
Whitham noted the applicants will provide answers to the City Transportation Engineer’s
questions. The loading/servicing plan and trip-generation analysis would be easy to provide.
The applicants examined the crosswalk area easement issue, but a permanent easement to the
City is not something they are willing to agree to. The crosswalk area could, however, be
designated a public-private pocket park.
Jones-Rounds asked if the Planning Board could at least review and approve the Traffic
Demand Management Plan (TDMP) this evening, even if it cannot approve the CEQR
resolution at this time. Nicholas replied she does not see how that would move the project
forward in any meaningful way.
Blalock asked if GreenStar would have any objections to relocating the bus stop further to
the south. Lower replied he knows GreenStar would prefer to have it closer to its store;
however, that is not a condition of the agreement and he does not anticipate GreenStar would
oppose that.
Blalock asked if a connection is still planned between College Avenue and Linden Avenue.
Whitham replied, yes.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
34
Whitham asked if the Board had any additional requests or questions about the TDMP.
Cornish replied she had not yet had the opportunity to review it, but she would let the
applicants know as soon as possible.
Elliott remarked he has one major design-related concern with the project. Given that Fire
Station No. 9 will be permanent, that means the building’s north elevation will remain
visible. But the building as depicted on the rendering shows one block on the north façade
that looks well-differentiated and fully designed, while the other two blocks on that façade
appear entirely blank and undifferentiated. He suggested designing those two blocks using a
similar treatment as the first, to make them look more like people actually live in them, with
windows and so on. Sharma replied the Building Code prohibits any openings on a zero lot
line.
In that case, Elliott recommended, perhaps niches could be incorporated into those blocks, or
at least the thicknesses of the bricks could be alternated. Sharma replied he would explore
some options.
F. 327 Eddy St. Mixed-Use/Apartments, 327 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma for Stephen
Fontana. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
two-story structure and construct a six-story apartment building with 1,800 square feet of
commercial space on the ground floor. The building will have 28 units in a mix of sizes and
approximately 64 occupants. Due to a twenty-eight foot grade change on the small site, the
building will be constructed in three six-story sections. The building features light wells on
the north and south sides. Exterior finishes include brick, colored metal panels and
limestone. This is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (k.) and an Unlisted Action the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review.
Applicants Sharma and Fontana explained the current status of the proposed project.
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 327 Eddy Street in
the City of Ithaca, from Jagat Sharma, applicant for Steve Fontana, owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish the existing two-story structure and construct a
six-story apartment building with 1,800 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor.
The building will have 28 units in a mix of sizes and approximately 64 occupants. Due to a
twenty-eight foot grade change on the small site, the building will be constructed in three six-
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
35
story sections. The building features light wells on the north and south sides. Exterior finishes
include brick, colored metal panels, and limestone. The project is in the MU-2 Zoning District
and requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (k.) and an Unlisted Action 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 327 Eddy Street in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall, Schroeder
Vacancies: 1
Sharma indicated the building was flipped, as suggested by the Project Review Committee.
Bike racks have also been added to the rear.
Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could see the signage on the front and rear of the building.
Sharma remarked the applicants have now identified the locations for the transformers, as
well as the basement plan. They were also asked to provide the construction plan, which
they are working with their general contractor to complete (and which should be submitted
soon).
Fontana added they were also asked to continue the limestone cap across the top of the
building, which they have done. He asked if the Board can think of anything else it would
like to request.
Nicholas noted the project will need to go before the Design Review Committee (DRC)
before the next Board meeting.
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2953 ― 1108 N. Cayuga St.: Area Variances
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
36
The Appellants wish to modify the variance below, approved by the BZA on August 5, 2014.
Specifically, they wish to add an additional 1 foot to the width of the entryway and an additional 1
foot to its length.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
37
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 #2956 ― 115 Orchard Pl.: Area Variance
Appeal of Graham Kerslick and Jennifer Wilkins, owners of 115 Orchard Place for Area Variances
from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard Setback, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicants propose adding a new entry porch and open trellis to their single-family home at 115
Orchard Place. The property is located on the corner of Blair and Orchard Streets; per City Zoning
regulations, this property has two front yards. Both front yards have a setback requirement of 25 feet.
The proposed addition will be located in the front yard facing Blair Street, where the house at 115
Orchard Place is set back four feet from the front yard property line. The proposal is to add the new
entry porch flush to this side of the house extending the existing deficient front yard an additional
seven feet to the south. This will allow approximately 127 SF of the porch trellis structure to be
located in the required front yard setback. The front yard setback facing Orchard Street is also
deficient. This front yard setback is 3 feet, but this deficiency will not be exacerbated by the
proposed project.
115 Orchard Place is located in the R-1b Use District where the proposed addition is a permitted;
however, Section 325-38 requires that Area Variances be granted for the deficiencies prior to a
Building Permit being issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
38
APPEAL #2958 ― 203 Third St.: Area Variance
Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA),
owners of 203 Third Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Minimum Lot Size
in Square Feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home on a vacant lot located at 203 Third
Street. The property will be compliant with all district regulations, except lot size. The parcel’s lot
size is 2,813 SF, 187 SF less the minimum required lot size of 3,000 SF.
203 Third Street is located in an R-2b Use District, where the proposed single-family home is
permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that an Area Variance be granted before a Building
Permit can be issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
APPEAL #2959 ― 714 N. Aurora St.: Area Variance
Appeal of Stream Collaborative for Judith and William Thomas, owners of 714 North Aurora Street,
for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column11, 12, and 13, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other
Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed is the construction of a handicapped ramp in the south side yard of 714 North Aurora Street.
The ramp and a portion of its landing will encroach 3’10” into the required 10-foot side yard setback,
decreasing the side yard to 6’2” for approximately 34 feet. The property also has two other area
deficiencies, but these will not be exacerbated by the addition of the ramp and landing. The existing
front yard has a setback of 9’8”, a 4” deficiency from the required 10-foot front yard setback. The
existing setback of the other side yard is 2’6”, which is half the required 5-foot setback.
The property at 714 North Aurora Street is located in an R-2b Use District where the proposed ramp
and landing are permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a
Building Permit can be issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
APPEAL #2960 ― 120 Valentine Pl.: Area Variance
Appeal of Valentine Visions Associates, the owners of Collegetown Terrace Apartments, for an Area
Variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, Width At Street requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to subdivide an existing parcel of land and create two separate lots. The purpose
of this subdivision is to secure long-term financing for two completed buildings and secure financing
for the construction of a new building located at 120 Valentine Place. The parcel indicated as 3B will
be subdivided into lots 3B and 3C. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel that
contains recently completed Buildings 5 and 6, known as 112 and 113 Valentine Place, and locate
Building 7, which is 120 Valentine Place, on the newly formed 3C lot. The proposed 3C
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
39
lot has no street width on a public way. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum width of 50’ at
the street line. In order to mitigate the deficiency in width at street, the applicant is providing a 20’
wide roadway along the northern property line of lot 3C, which will extend 92’ to the access point of
the public way on Valentine Place. This roadway will provide direct access to the building located at
120 Valentine Place.
The property is located in an R-3a/P-1 Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however,
General City Law, Article 33.3, states that lots eligible for subdivision must be in compliance with
City zoning regulations before subdivision can be approved. Compliance will be achieved if the
Board grants the applicant’s variance request.
The Board supports granting this appeal.
120 Valentine Pl. Subdivision
Cornish informed the Board she recently learned the applicants have a deadline to close on
the loan associated with the subdivision, which requires the subdivision approval. Since the
applicants will be going before the BZA next week, they need the Planning Board approval
of the CEQR resolution before then. Cornish prepared the draft Declaration of Lead Agency
and CEQR resolutions for the Planning Board to consider at this time, if it is amenable, so
the Zoning Appeal review can move forward as scheduled. There were no objections.
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 Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #83.-2-
15.4 in the City of Ithaca, by VVA Phase III LLC, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8.535 acre lot into two parcels: Lot 3B
measuring 4.948 acres and containing the existing Buildings 5 and 6 of the Collegetown Terrace
Apartments, and Lot 3B measuring 3.587 acres and to contain the proposed/future Building 7 of
the same project. The proposed Lot 3C has no frontage on a public way. The project is on the
R-3a and P-I Zoning districts which require minimum street width of 50’ and front, side and rear
yard setbacks of 1, 10/5 and 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’ respectively. The project requires
an area variance for a deficiency in width at the street, 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
40
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 #83.-2-15.4 in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall, Schroeder
Vacancies: 1
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 Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #83.-2-
15.4 in the City of Ithaca, by VVA Phase III LLC, applicants/owners, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8.535 acre lot into two parcels: Lot 3B
measuring 4.948 acres and containing the existing Buildings 5 and 6 of the Collegetown Terrace
Apartments, and Lot 3B measuring 3.587 acres and to contain the proposed/future Building 7 of
the same project. The proposed Lot 3C has no frontage on a public way. The project is on the R-
3a and P-I Zoning districts which require minimum street width of 50’ and front, side and rear
yard setbacks of 1, 10/5 and 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’ respectively. The project requires
an area variance for a deficiency in width at the street, 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 Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, has, on August 26, 2014 declared itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on August 26, 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 “Amended
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
41
Subdivision Plat showing the Lands of Valentine Vision Associates LLC, prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C., with a revision date of 7/17/2014; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require a variance to conform to
area requirements in the R-3a and P-I 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
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall, Schroeder
Vacancies: 1
6. New/Old Business
A. Planning Board Comments on Proposal to Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and
Related Standards,” of Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) [revisited]
None. (Deferred due to time considerations.)
B. Planning Board Vice-Chair Election
None. (Deferred due to time considerations.)
C. Schedule Next Design Review Committee (DRC) Meeting
The Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled for September 9, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair (verbal)
None. (Deferred due to time considerations.)
B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal)
None. (Deferred due to time considerations.)
C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal)
None. (Deferred due to time considerations.)
8. Approval of Minutes (none)
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
42
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.