HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-09-23DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
September 23, 2014
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C. J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
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
Applicants Attending: 120 Valentine Place Minor Subdivision
John Novarr, Valentine Vision Associates, LLC;
Tom Nix, Consultant;
Randy Marcus, Barney, Grossman, Dubow, Marcus, Orkin,
& Tesi, LLP
312 Fourth Street Minor Subdivision
Tom Clavel, All Stone & Tile;
Randy Murphy, All Stone & Tile
120-Room Downtown Hotel at 320-324 E. State/M.L.K., Jr. Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
Chainworks District Redevelopment Project at 620 S. Aurora Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
Major Subdivision & 5-Unit Housing Project at 128 W. Falls Street
Lawrence J. Fabbroni, Jr., Architect;
Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Sr., Surveyor/Engineer
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mixed-Use Project at 323 Taughannock Boulevard
Steve Flash, Rampart Real, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
Collegetown Crossing at 307 College Avenue
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Josh Lower, Owner;
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
Mixed-Use Project at 327 Eddy Street
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Steven Fontana, Owner
New Three-Story Building at 114 Catherine Street (Sketch Plan)
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Nick Lambrou, Owner
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas announced the Gun Hill Housing Project sketch plan originally scheduled for this
evening will be postponed until the November 25, 2014 Planning Board meeting. She also
indicated that Planning staff just received a memorandum regarding two City proposals to
rebuild the Brindley Street Bridge. The Board will need to review them this evening and
submit its recommendation to Common Council.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Julie Schroeder, 314 E. State St., Homespun Boutique, spoke in opposition to the Hampton
Inn project as proposed, noting the downtown retail environment has been dismal recently
due to the non-stop construction. It has been a genuine impediment to business in that part of
town. She remarked that the parking lot on the site is the only one many people are willing
to use (especially seniors, people with disabilities, etc.), since many people will not park in
City garages. People associated with the Community School of Music and Arts also use it
heavily every day. There is a tremendous level of activity in and around that block, so the
proposed hotel simply does not make any sense without additional parking. She urged the
Board to require the project to accommodate more parking.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm St., spoke regarding the proposed Brindley Street Bridge project,
which he urged the Planning Board to study seriously. He remarked that Common Council
made a policy decision years ago against extending Taughannock Boulevard further south, to
avoid investing in new vehicular routes at a time when the City is trying to minimize that
kind of development. Hoffman’s other concern is the proposal’s possible impact on the
modest signs of revitalization in the area south of State Street. Bicycle/pedestrian traffic
south of State Street could also be negatively impacted. Hoffman added that the Brindley
Street Bridge is the last remaining one-lane bridge in the City of Ithaca and it has some
historical value.
Stephanie Hayes, 228 Linden Ave., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project,
which she lives very close to, noting it would greatly benefit the community. The project
would serve as a stabilizing anchor for Collegetown and help attract more people. The new
bus stop would be an invaluable addition, which would also increase public safety at that
location.
3. Subdivisions
A. Minor Subdivision, 120 Valentine Pl., 120 Valentine Pl. (Collegetown Terrace
Apts.), Valentine Vision Associates, Phase III, LLC. Public Hearing and Consideration
of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the
8.535-acre lot into two parcels: Lot 3B, measuring 4.948 acres and containing existing
Buildings 5 and 6 of Collegetown Terrace Apartments; and Lot 3C, 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 in the R-3a and P-1 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 has received an Area Variance for
a deficiency in width at the street. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
for which the required environmental review was completed on August 26, 2014.
The applicant’s attorney, Randy Marcus, described the proposed subdivision, noting the
subdivision is required for construction financing of the last portion of the project. He added
the applicant believes this will be the final subdivision application for the project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and
unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds observed the last time the applicant appeared before the Board with a
subdivision application he indicated that was the final subdivision application. Novarr replied
there is only one more building to build, so he feels confident this would be the final one.
Randall noted that at one time the applicant considered converting some of the project’s
parking spaces into rental units. Novarr responded that he explored that option and will
probably pursue that. He submitted a proposal to that end to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), but it postponed its vote. He believes he has identified other ways of achieving the
same objective, without having to apply to the BZA.
Jones-Rounds asked if the parking continues to be underutilized. Novarr replied, yes. The
situation has not changed since last year: there is more parking than necessary.
Schroeder asked if Building 7’s elevations would change. Novarr replied the height would not
change, although window treatments may change a little. He understands any changes would
need to be submitted to the Board.
Schroeder observed there is one remaining unsatisfied Site Plan Approval condition for a
revised landscape plan illustrating the area between the gorge and Building 7. The Planning
Board had asked for a more naturalistic landscape setting. (“Modification of landscape plan to
show additional native trees, including tall evergreen trees, south of Building 7.”) Novarr
replied he would convey that request to his landscape architect.
Randall asked what the distance is between the final building to be constructed and Six Mile
Creek. Novarr replied it is probably close to 250 feet (greater than the the distance between
Six Mile Creek and the buildings that were demolished).
Adopted Preliminary & Final Subdivision 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 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 existing Buildings 5 and 6 of 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 in 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 has received an Area Variance
for a deficiency in width at the street, and
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with 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, did on August 26, 2014 declare itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review did on August 26, 2014
review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted
by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “(Amended) Subdivision Plat,”
showing the lands of Valentine Vision Associates, LLC, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., with a
revision date of 7/17/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified,
in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C) (1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 23,
2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments
received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014 make a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes information received and reviewed for
this Subdivision indicates the project has received the required Area Variance for relief from 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 does hereby grant Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 83.-2-15.4, subject to the submission of
three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered
licensed surveyor.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
(Cornish left the room at 6:24 p.m.)
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The Planning Board discussed the Zoning Appeal (Appeal #2965, Special Permit, 115 S.
Quarry St.) associated with the project. See “5. Zoning Appeals” in these minutes.
(Cornish returned at 6:29 p.m.)
B. Minor Subdivision, 312 Fourth St., 312 Fourth St. (All Stone & Tile), Randy
Murphy, Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision
Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.576-acre parcel into two lots: Parcel A,
measuring 1.432 acres with 383 feet of street frontage on Fourth Street and 127 feet of
frontage on Fifth Street, and containing an existing one-story building (All Stone & Tile);
and Parcel B, measuring 0.144 acres (6,273 SF) with 40 feet of frontage on Fourth Street and
containing an existing one-story commercial building. The property is in the B-4 Zoning
District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and
minimum side and rear yards of 10’/5’ and 15% or 20’― but not less than 10’, respectively.
The district has no front yard setback requirement. This is an Unlisted Action under both the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review.
Applicant Murphy described the proposed subdivision.
Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #44.-2-1.2 in
the City of Ithaca, by Randy Murphy, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.576-acre parcel into two lots: Parcel A,
measuring 1.432 acres with 343 feet of street frontage on Fourth Street and 127 feet of frontage on
Fifth Street, and containing an existing one-story building (All Stone & Tile); and Parcel B,
measuring 0.144 acres (6,273 SF) with 40 feet of frontage on Fourth Street and containing an existing
one-story commercial building. The property is in the B-4 Zoning District which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 10’/5’ and
15% or 20’ ― but not less than 10’, respectively. The district has no front yard setback requirement,
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
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: 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 #44.-2-1.2 in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall, and
unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Adopted CEQR Resolution:
On a motion by Randall seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #44-2-1.2 in
the City of Ithaca by Randy Murphy, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.576-acre parcel into two lots: Parcel A,
measuring 1.432 acres with 343 feet of street frontage on Fourth Street and 127 feet of frontage on
Fifth Street, and containing an existing one-story building (All Stone & Tile); and Parcel B,
measuring 0.144 acres (6,273 SF) with 40 feet of frontage on Fourth Street and containing an existing
one-story commercial building. The property is in the B-4 Zoning District which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 10’/5’ and
15% or 20’― but not less than 10’, respectively. The district has no front yard setback requirement,
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
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 23, 2014 declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review did on September 23, 2014
review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted
by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision Map, No. 312
Fourth Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., with a
revision date of 8/28/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes the information received and reviewed
for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the B-4 Zoning
District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration
for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Adopted Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #44-2-1.2 in
the City of Ithaca, by Randy Murphy, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.576-acre parcel into two lots: Parcel A,
measuring 1.432 acres with 343 feet of street frontage on Fourth Street and 127 feet of frontage on
Fifth Street, and containing an existing one-story building (All Stone & Tile); and Parcel B,
measuring 0.144 acres (6,273 SF) with 40 feet of frontage on Fourth Street and containing an existing
one-story commercial building. The property is in the B-4 Zoning District which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 10’/5’ and
15% or 20’ ― but not less than 10’, respectively. The district has no front yard setback requirement,
and
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of
a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 23, 2014 declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified,
in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C) (1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September
23, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments
received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on September 23, 2014 make a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review did on September 23, 2014
review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted
by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision Map, No. 312
Fourth Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., with a
revision date of 8/28/14; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes the information received and reviewed
for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the B-4 Zoning
District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby grants Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval for the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #44-2-1.2 located at 312 Fourth Street in
the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
4. Site Plan Review
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
A. 120-Room Downtown Hotel, 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr./E. State St., Scott Whitham for
Neil Patel. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to build a six-story,
70’-tall hotel with 120 guest rooms. The ground floor will include a breakfast room, a
bar/lounge, meeting rooms, fitness area, pool, and an approximately 2,000 SF
retail/restaurant space. Exterior finishes include stone and brick veneers, metal panel
systems, and aluminum windows. The site layout features a drop-off area with a glass and
aluminum porte-cochère, a 12-space parking area, bike racks and walkway accessible from
State Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca Way. The
project site consists of three tax parcels: two currently owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA) and used as metered parking; and a portion of another tax parcel in private
ownership, also used as parking. Parcel consolidation and possible subdivision will be
required. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design
Review.
Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6
of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,
and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead
Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site
plan approval for a hotel to be located at 320-324 M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street by Scott Whitham for
Neil Patel, developer, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to build a six-story, 70’ tall hotel with 120 guest rooms. The
ground floor will include a breakfast room, a bar/lounge, meeting rooms, fitness area, pool, and an
approximately 2,000 SF retail/restaurant space. Exterior finishes include stone and brick veneers,
metal panels systems, and aluminum windows. The site layout features a drop-off area with a glass
and aluminum porte-cochère, a 12-space parking area, bike racks and walkway accessible from State
Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca Way. The project site
consists of three tax parcels: two currently owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and
used as metered parking; and a portion of another tax parcel in private ownership, also used as
parking. Parcel consolidation, possible subdivision, and Design Review are required, and
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
§617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this project will require approval from the Common Council for the sale of City
property, and potentially the NYS Department of Transportation, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution
declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Elliott asked if any further consideration had been given to adding on-site parking for the
project, in light of the earlier public comment. Cornish replied those details remain to be
determined. The applicant is present this evening, however; and he undoubtedly heard the
concern that was expressed. It is definitely something which should be discussed.
Blalock noted the applicant should also seek to coordinate its efforts with nearby businesses
to minimize construction impacts.
B. Chainworks District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora St., Scott
Whitham/Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Intent to Declare
Lead Agency. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the
+/-800,000 sf former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-
acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district,
which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment
would bridge South Hill and Downtown Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by
providing multiple intermodal access routes including a highly-desired trail connection. The
project will be completed in multiple phases over a period of several years with the initial
phases involving the redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this
property will focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. Using
the existing structures, residential, commercial, studio workspaces, and office development
are proposed to be predominantly within the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will be
within both the Town and City of Ithaca. The interior of the existing complex will be
retrofitted to meet code requirements for particular uses, while the exterior will be
rehabilitated to maintain the existing character to celebrate the complex’s industrial history.
Potential new development would reflect this character to fit as an aggregation of the Chain
Works District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review.
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Randall inquired into the process for coordinating the Planning Board and Town of Ithaca
Planning Board review of the project. Jones-Rounds also asked if the Town plans to declare
its own intent to be Lead Agency.
Cornish replied the City will not know for certain until the Town replies to the City’s
“Request for Lead Agency Status” letter. Any one of the involved agencies could
conceivably claim Lead Agency status. If that process cannot be negotiated for some reason,
then the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would make that
determination. Whatever the result, the process has to be coordinated by law. Cornish
indicated the City does believe the Town would be willing to accept the City as Lead
Agency. She noted the Town Planning Committee and the City Planning and Economic
Development Committee are meeting this week to discuss the differences between the City’s
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the Town’s Planned Development Zone (PDZ)
application processes (since the Town has a more complex process than the City). At that
time, the parties will also begin to map out the coordination process, including some initial
plans for joint meetings of the two Planning Boards.
Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall.
[SEE AMENDED RESOLUTION BELOW]
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Nicholas observed that all involved agencies should be cited in the resolution. She proposed
amending the resolution to add the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Tompkins County
Health Department. There were no objections.
Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6
of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,
and
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead
Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Approval for a the Chainworks Redevelopment project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street
by Scott Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000 SF former Morse
Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and
Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown Ithaca, the Town
and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access routes including a highly-desired trail
connection. The project will be completed in multiple phases over a period of several years with the
initial phases involving redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this
property will focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. The interior of
the existing complex will be retrofitted to meet code requirements for particular uses, while the
exterior will be rehabilitated to maintain the existing character to celebrate the complex’s industrial
history. The project will require subdivision, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I 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: this project will require approval from the Common Council, the Planning Board, the
Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department
of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution
declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
C. Major Subdivision & 5-Unit Housing Project, 128 W. Falls St., Ron Ronsvalle.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Recommendation to Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The applicant proposes to
subdivide the parcel and construct one single-family home and two duplexes. The proposal
is to subdivide the 16,352-SF (0.375-acre) parcel into three: Parcel I will measure 3,686.9
SF with 37.5’ of frontage and will contain a new single-family home; Parcel 2, measuring
4,389 SF and with 46 feet of street frontage, will contain the existing single-story single-
family home; and Parcel 3, measuring 8,276 SF with 98 feet of street frontage, will contain
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
two new duplexes. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF for two-family dwellings, minimum width at-street of 35 feet, and minimum
front, side, and rear-yard setbacks of 25 feet, 10 and 5 feet, and 25% or 50 feet, respectively.
The project includes eight off-street parking spaces, two driveways, sidewalks/walkways,
and landscaping. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject
to environmental review. The project requires Area Variances for an existing front yard
deficiency, as well as new front and rear yard deficiencies.
Applicant Fabbroni, Jr. described the proposed project, noting the last time the project came
before the Board several significant concerns were raised about the three duplexes. There
were also concerns with the originally proposed looped driveway and the lack of shielding
from the highway. The neighbors were generally concerned with the overall impact of the
project.
Fabbroni, Jr. explained that the applicants subsequently established a process for meeting
with the neighbors to address their concerns, while also addressing the Board’s concerns.
The greatest change to the project resulting from that process is that Building #1 has been
redesigned as a single-family residence and set further back on the property. The overall
scale of all the buildings has been reduced. The applicants have also moved both the
driveway and the parking area towards the highway side of site, with only one exit/entrance.
The project will also include several community greenspaces, a communal yard, and planting
plots. To alleviate concerns about possible stormwater impacts, the applicants added two
bio-retention areas (though they are not required).
Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for 2 duplexes and one single-family home as well as a
subdivision, by Ron Ronsvalle, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel and construct one single-family home
and two duplexes. The proposal is to subdivide the 16,352-SF (0.375-acre) parcel into three: Parcel I
will measure 3,686.9 SF with 37.5’ of frontage and will contain a new single-family home; Parcel 2,
measuring 4,389 SF with 46 feet of street frontage will contain the existing single-story single-family
home; and Parcel 3, measuring 8,276 SF with 98 feet of street frontage, will contain two new
duplexes. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for
two-family dwellings, minimum width at-street of 35 feet, and minimum front-, side-, and rear-yard
setbacks of 25 feet, 10 and 5 feet, and 25% or 50 feet, respectively. The project includes eight off-
street parking spaces, one driveway, sidewalks/walkways, and landscaping. The project requires
Area Variances for an existing front yard deficiency, as well as new front and rear yard deficiencies,
and
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review,
and
WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of
two or more additional buildable lots, 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 proposed project to be located at 128 W. Falls St.
in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Jones-Rounds thanked the applicants for working so closely with the neighbors and being
amenable to accommodating their needs. She suggested the proposed garden plots be
thoroughly and thoughtfully designed (and raised). Jones-Rounds recalled discussing
placing some kind of natural/artificial noise-attenuation barrier between the houses and the
highway, which she urged the applicants to consider.
Randall expressed concern with the amount of parking associated with the project. There is
plenty of on-street parking, so she would urge the applicant to accept that the less parking,
the better.
Schroeder indicated his main concern is the need for more definition between the ‘car realm’
and ‘non-car realm’. Fabbroni, Jr. promised that the applicants would address that issue at
the next Planning Board meeting.
Fernández suggested designing the parking to look as much like a public space as possible
(and with the least amount of asphalt). Fabbroni, Jr. replied he would look into that.
Cornish expressed concern with the width of the driveway and its inability to accommodate
more than one vehicle at a time. Fabbroni, Jr. replied that concern has been raised before.
The applicants are willing to re-examine that and ensure everyone is comfortable with it. He
stressed, however, that it is a residential project with generally predictable use patterns, so he
does not envison it being a critical problem.
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Blalock commended the applicants for succeeding in creating such a fundamental shift in
public sentiment for the project. Jones-Rounds agreed, noting it sets a great precedent for
future applicants.
Schroeder recommended that the Board identify ways to encourage the same level of
cooperative dialogue in the future (e.g., written policy, procedure, hand-out, etc.). Blalock
agreed that is a good idea and asked Planning staff if that would be possible. Cornish
replied, yes. Staff would look into it.
Adopted CEQR Resolution:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for 2 duplexes and one single-family home as well as a
subdivision, by Ron Ronsvalle, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel and construct one single-family home
and two duplexes. The proposal is to subdivide the 16,352-SF (0.375-acre) parcel into three: Parcel I
will measure 3,686.9 SF with 37.5’ of frontage and will contain a new single-family home; Parcel 2,
measuring 4,389 SF and with 46 feet of street frontage, will contain the existing single-story single-
family home; and Parcel 3, measuring 8,276 SF with 98 feet of street frontage, will contain two new
duplexes. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for
two-family dwellings, minimum width at-street of 35 feet, and minimum front-, side-, and rear-yard
setbacks of 25 feet, 10 and 5 feet, and 25% or 50 feet, respectively. The project includes eight off-
street parking spaces, one driveway, sidewalks/walkways, and landscaping. The project requires
Area Variances for an existing front yard deficiency, as well as new front and rear yard deficiencies,
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: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of
two or more additional buildable lots, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the that local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 23, 2014
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, 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 have been considered, and
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead agency in Environmental review
has, on September 23, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate : a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans
entitled “Subdivision Plat, 128 West Falls Street (S-100),” dated 6/23/14 and prepared by Lawrence J.
Fabbroni; and “Location Plan (S-101)” and “Illustrative Plan ( S-102.1),” dated 2/20/14, and “Site
Layout Plan (S-102),” “Building Elevations (S104.1 and S104.2),” “Street Elevations (S105),”
“Parking (S106),” “Open Spaces (S107),” and “Bioretention Areas (S108),” all dated 8/1/14, and
prepared by Lawrence J. Fabbroni; and “Revised Conceptual Landscape Plan (S-103)” and “Revised
Conceptual Landscape Plant List and Photographs (S-103.1),” both dated 8/1/14 and prepared by
Empire Landscape Architects; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Nicholas noted that City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson reviewed the project’s
stormwater plan and approved it, even though a formal/full SWPPP is not required.
The Planning Board discussed the Zoning Appeal (Appeal #2933, Area & Parking Variances,
128 W. Falls St.) associated with the project. See “5. Zoning Appeals” in these minutes.
D. Apartments, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash. Consideration of Final
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, 17 covered parking spaces, and 21
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 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. The project has received
Design Review.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Applicant Demarest described the proposed project, noting the most significant change is the
addition of another unit, for a total of 21, through eliminating some of mezzanine levels in a
few units and merging them to create a penthouse.
Demarest noted the applicants added a greenhouse to the design (an add alternate option
which may not be built immediately). One change the applicants are still developing and that
is not reflected on the current plans is the location of the pad-mounted transformer, which is
required by the utility company. The only place it could possibly go is the building’s
southwest corner, near the utility pole, which will require shifting the sidewalk a couple of
feet. The applicants will update the Planting Plan accordingly.
Schroeder indicated that should be a condition of the approval resolution. He asked if the
transformer would be south of the two parking spaces. Demarest replied, yes, immediately to
the north of the tree closest to building (the parking spaces would also move two feet to the
north).
Jones-Rounds observed there is still no mention in the applicant’s revised submission of any
signage. Demarest replied that will be completed soon. The intent is to employ a simple
“323” window decal on the two towers. Demarest noted the applicants also submitted
technical specifications for the fence and the roof pergola.
Adopted Final Site Plan Approval Resolution:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Approval for 21 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, 17 covered parking spaces, and 21 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 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
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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, 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, did on August 26,
2014 review and accept 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, 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 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’s 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 vehicular bridge in
this location at this time and to allow the proposal to move forward, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014 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
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on September 23, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate:
new drawings entitled “Perspective Views (L901),” “Grading Plan (L301),” and revised drawings
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),” “Third and Fourth Floor Plan (A2),” and
“Elevations (A3) & (A4),” dated 9/10/14 and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other
application materials, and,
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has determined that conditions iii., v., and vi., have been satisfied,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval for the project
subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to Planning Board of revised color elevations with keyed building materials, and
ii. Submission of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, and
exterior furnishings, and
iii. Submission of one record copy of revised elevations, and
iv. Submission of details for building mechanicals. Planning Board approval will be required if
mechanicals are substantially visible from the public way, and
v. Submission for approval by Planning Board of revised transformer location, and intended
means of screening this transformer from public view, and
vi. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
vii. Project requires approvals from the Board of Public Works and the NYS Canal Corporation,
as well as Tree and Street Work Permits, and
viii. Pile driving should be limited to Monday-Saturday, 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
E. Collegetown Crossing ― Mixed-Use, 307 College Ave., Jagat Sharma for Josh
Lower. Determination of Environmental Significance, Consideration of Preliminary &
Final Approval, and Approval of Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP).
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 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 has received Design Review.
Randall indicated she would recuse herelf once again from both discussion and voting for the
project, since she worked for the applicant on a prior iteration of the project.
(Randall left the room at 7:12 p.m.)
Whitham distributed a memorandum with attachments that he indicated should address most,
if not all, of any remaining questions about the project.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form ― Part 2
Schroeder noted item 6 (“Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water
runoff?”) is checked, but there is nothing listed or bolded below. Under item 14 (“Will there
be an effect to existing transportation systems?”), it says “Other Impacts” include parking,
TDM, etc., but the basic issue of pedestrian congestion/street configuration that was
discussed in the Part 3 should also be mentioned there.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form ― Part 3
Schroeder asked if the Board has all the additional information mentioned on p. 2. Nicholas
replied, yes ― in the memo that was just received. She will add that information to the Part
3.
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Blalock asked if the City Transportation Engineer received satisfactory responses to his
questions and comments, referred to on p. 4. Nicholas noted she addressed that in the
mitigations section.
Blalock asked the applicant if the plan is to restore the sidewalk. Whitham replied, yes, with
new paving and dimensions. There would be no need to make any new curbcuts. The same
pavers would be used as the ones used for the pocket park in front, so it will all read as a
single plane.
Jones-Rounds indicated the top of p. 4 that mentions the TDMP should refer to the SRF
Associates trip-generation report.
Schroeder asked if the City actually received the trip-generation report. Whitham replied,
yes, it was sent to the City Transportation Engineer, who seemed generally satisfied with it.
Nicholas agreed it appeared he was more or less satisfied with it.
Cornish asked Nicholas if what the applicant submitted this evening addresses the concerns
in Part 3 that Nicholas did not originally have enough information for. Nicholas replied that
the principal issue is that the City Transportation Engineer is satisfied with the project, which
he appears to have stated. With the information submitted this evening, she is comfortable
any remaining concerns can simply be conditions of approval. Jones-Rounds agreed.
Nicholas noted she had expected a more formal letter regarding the College Avenue-Linden
Avenue pedestrian connection to be maintained as an integral part of the site. Whitham
replied the applicants are certainly willing to provide a more detailed and formal statement.
Schroeder agreed that would be better.
Cornish suggested the Planning Board submit a formal resolution to the Board of Public
Works, asking it to remove/relocate the Fire Station No. 9 sign.
Fernández suggested there appears to be enough space for a tree and tree grate on the
sidewalk, since the bus stop is being relocated south. Whitham replied that the applicants did
explore adding trees along that portion of the sidewalk, but it seemed to conflict with the
Planning Board’s request to minimize the amount of congestion at that location. Schroeder
agreed it would be too congested.
Fernández noted that the streetscape just seems a little bleak.
Cornish stressed that it is the City’s intent to construct a ‘Complete Street’ on College
Avenue, including tree lawns and sidewalks, at some point in the future.
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández observed that the Planning Board routinely continues to imply in its Part 3s that
proposed projects impose no negative impacts on energy- and drainage-related issues;
however, that is not actually the case. The burden should be placed on developers to address
these kinds of environmental issues.
Blalock noted that at least the applicants would contribute to the City’s new Stormwater
Utility.
Fernández responded that the Planning Board should nonetheless more aggressively promote
renewable energy use, greenspace, etc.
Elliott suggested requiring all new construction to meet Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) standards, which some municipalities already do to some
extent. He agreed with Fernández that virtually every new project increases negative impacts
and environmental loads.
Blalock suggested the Planning Board discuss the subject at the end of this evening’s
meeting. Perhaps some kind of incentive system would help address those concerns.
Schroeder suggested simply asking applicants up-front in the FEAF, Part 1, to identify how
proposed projects would address those kinds of issues.
Adopted CEQR Resolution:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Collegetown Crossing, a mixed-use housing project proposed by Josh Lower,
applicant/owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use building (with an 8,600 SF
footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain 4,202 SF of commercial space and
resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There will
be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling
unit on Linden Avenue will be retained; however, the back and a portion of the side porches will be
removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total number of units
proposed on the parcel to 40, and the total number of residents to 106. The project site traverses the
block with frontage on both College and Linden Avenues and is within both the MU-2 and the CR-4
Zoning Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the CR-4 Zoning District. The
project includes a through-block walkway and a bus shelter. Building construction will require a
steel-pile foundation system. The project has received the required Design Review, and
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: 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 for relief of
the parking requirement; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for
new construction and a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) approved by the Planning
Board, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, declared itself Lead
Agency for this project on July 22, 2014, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed
project, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 23, 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1 prepared
by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff, and revised by the Planning Board; drawings
entitled “Rendering (R.01),” “Demolition Plan, Disturbance Plan (1.05),” “Utility Plan, Signage,
Details (1.06),” “Basement Plan, First Floor Plan (2.01),” “Second Floor Plan, Third Floor Plan
(2.02),” “Fourth Floor Plan, Fifth Floor Plan (2.03),” “Sixth Floor Plan, Roof Floor Plan (2.04),” and
“Building Sections (3.02),” all dated 8/15/14; and “Site Lighting Plan (1.07)” and “Building
Elevations (3.01),” both dated 8/19/14; and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect; and “Proposed
Site Plan (1.04),” dated 8/25/14 (version showing lighting along entire crossing between College
Avenue and Linden Avenue, new crossing paving next to Linden Avenue house, and bike parking
next to northeast portion of new building) and prepared by Whitham Planning and Design, LLC; and
“Topographic Map Showing a Portion of College Avenue,” dated 9/11/14 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C. and Witham Planning and Design, LLC; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency, has required mitigations, as detailed in Part 3 of the
FEAF, to identified impacts, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that, with
incorporation of the mitigations stated in the FEAF, Part 3, the proposed project will result in no
significant impacts 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
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Adopted Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Resolution:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Collegetown Crossing, a mixed-use housing project proposed by Josh Lower,
applicant/owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use building (with an 8,600 SF
footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain 4,202 SF of commercial space and
resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There will
be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling
unit on Linden Avenue will be retained; however, the back and a portion of the side porches will be
removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total number of units
proposed on the parcel to 40, and the total number of residents to 106. The project site traverses the
block with frontage on both College and Linden Avenues and is within both the MU-2 and the CR-4
Zoning Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the CR-4 Zoning District. The
project includes a through-block walkway and a bus shelter. Building construction will require a
steel-pile foundation system. The project has received the required Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: 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 for relief of
the required parking; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new
construction and a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) approved by the Planning
Board, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did declare itself Lead
Agency for this project on July 22, 2014, 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 (CAC), Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed
project, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 23, 2014
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1 prepared
by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff, and revised by the Planning Board; drawings
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
entitled “Rendering (R.01),” “Demolition Plan, Disturbance Plan (1.05),” “Utility Plan, Signage,
Details (1.06),” “Basement Plan, First Floor Plan (2.01),” “Second Floor Plan, Third Floor Plan
(2.02),” “Fourth Floor Plan, Fifth Floor Plan (2.03),” “Sixth Floor Plan, Roof Floor Plan (2.04),” and
“Building Sections (3.02),” all dated 8/15/14; and “Site Lighting Plan (1.07)” and “Building
Elevations (3.01),” both dated 8/19/14; and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect; and “Proposed
Site Plan (1.04),” dated 8/25/14 (version showing lighting along entire crossing between College
Avenue and Linden Avenue, new crossing paving next to Linden Avenue house, and bike parking
next to northeast portion of new building) and prepared by Whitham Planning and Design, LLC; and
“Topographic Map Showing a Portion of College Avenue,” dated 9/11/14 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C. and Witham Planning and Design, LLC; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board acting as Lead Agency has required mitigations, as described in Part 3 of the
FEAF, to identified impacts, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on September 23, 2014 make a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval for the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to Planning Board of revised drawings clearly labeling the bus shelter, the new
paving on the pedestrian passage contiguous to 226 Linden Avenue, and the lighting fixtures
proposed along the length of the pedestrian passage extending between College Avenue and
Linden Avenue, and
ii. Written approval by the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation issues have been
resolved, and
iii. Written approval from the Fire Chief that emergency access is adequate, and
iv. Approval in writing from the Storm Water Management Officer that the project meets City
standards for storm water management, and
v. Submission of site details, including but not limited to, all building materials, exterior
furnishings, signage, lighting, site walls, bike racks, benches, and paving, and
vi. Approval by the Planning Board of a Transportation Demand Management Plan, and
vii. Landscaping on City property (at the Fire Station) will require a license agreement with the
City that includes the following: (1) indemnifies the City against liability; (2) assumes
responsibility for maintenance; and (3) states that the property will be returned to pre-
construction conditions should the owner decide to abandon it, and
viii. Submission of a written Statement of Intent (as described below) from the applicant stating
that a continuous pedestrian passage connecting College and Linden Avenues will be
maintained for permanent public use, and
The following mitigations required by the Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3:
ix. The applicant is providing a covered and heated bus shelter at the south west corner of the
building. Approximate dimensions are 11 feet wide by 7 feet 4 inches deep.
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
x. A design feature of the project is a publicly accessible pedestrian way connecting College to
Linden Avenues. This feature provides a pedestrian and bike amenity that will accommodate
the increased (foot and bike) traffic generated by the residences and commercial tenants. The
applicant has agreed to provide winter maintenance of the space and a Statement of Intent to
provide permanent public pedestrian access through applicant’s parcel in a continuous route
between College Avenue and Linden Avenue.
xi. Temporary closure to the public of the Linden Avenue end of the pedestrian way (keeping the
College Avenue end open to maintain access to businesses fronting on the walkway) could
make an additional loading space available off Linden Avenue at the mouth of the pedestrian
walkway, if needed, to accommodate late/early tenant arrivals or other scheduling conflicts.
Staff of the proposed building will manage the occupancy and turn-over of the space
according to the pre-arranged move-in schedule. After their allotted move-in time, parents
moving their students will be directed to City parking facilities. Those with rented vans will
be instructed to return them to the appropriate vendors; and tenants moving with their own
vehicles will be directed to immediately park them according to their lease provisions. Such
temporary closure of the cross-block pedestrian way shall occur only on the absolute
minimum number of days at the beginning or end of academic terms.
xii. The Lead Agency requires the applicant to limit noise-producing construction activities to
Monday-Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does urge Common Council
to pursue a comprehensive strategy to place all utility lines underground in central Collegetown, and
be it further
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does also urge Common
Council to direct staff to remove/relocate the Fire Station No. 9 sign adjacent to the project site,
because it effectively narrows the sidewalk in an area of heavy pedestrian traffic by projecting
beyond the parcel property line.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
Adopted Traffic Demand Management Plan (TDMP) Approval Resolution:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Collegetown Crossing, a mixed-use housing project proposed by Josh Lower,
applicant/owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use building (with an 8,600 SF
footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain 4,202 SF of commercial space and
resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There will
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling
unit on Linden Avenue will be retained; however, the back and a portion of the side porches will be
removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total number of units
proposed on the parcel to 40, and the total number of residents to 106. The project site traverses the
block with frontage on both College and Linden Avenues and is within both the MU-2 and the CR-4
Zoning Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the CR-4 Zoning District. The
project includes a through-block walkway and a bus shelter. Building construction will require a
steel-pile foundation system. The project has received the required Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review made a negative
determination of environmental significance on September 23, 2014, and
WHEREAS: 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 for relief of
the required parking; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new
construction and a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) approved by the Planning
Board, and
WHEREAS: the Board has on September 23, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) titled and dated:
“FINAL Collegetown Crossing:
307 College Avenue & 226 Linden Avenue
Traffic Demand Management Plan for CR-4 zone of the project
As amended by the Planning and Development Board on September 23, 2014 ”
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve the aforementioned TDMP for the mixed-
use project at 307 College Avenue and 226 Linden Avenue.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: 1
(Randall returned at 8:04 p.m.)
F. Mixed-Use/Apartments, 327 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma for Stephen Fontana. Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Approval. 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
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 has received Design Review.
Applicant Sharma described the proposed project.
Schroeder asked about the choice of brick vs. split-face block as a building material. Sharma
displayed an an image of the proposed material (Spec-Brik®). Schroeder noted it is far more
suitable than the split-face blocks.
Elliott asked if there would be a concrete frame. Sharma replied probably only at the top of
the building.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall, 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.
Adopted CEQR Resolution:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for 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-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 has received 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
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS the Panning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on August 26, 2014 declare itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review of the project, 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 received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September
23, 2014 review and accept 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 “Demolition
Plan, Disturbance Plan, Utility Plan, Details (1.01),” dated 8/25/14, and “Rendering - Eddy Street
(R.01),” “Site Plan, Site Section, Project Data (1.02),” and “Floor Plans (2.01) & (2.03),” “Floor
Plans (2.02),” “North and West Elevations (3.01),” and “South and East Elevations (3.02),” dated
9/10/14 and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect, and other application materials, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
Adopted Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval 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-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
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS the Panning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on August 26, 2014 declare itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on September 23, 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 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 received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September
23, 2014 review and accept 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 “Demolition
Plan, Disturbance Plan, Utility Plan, Details (1.01),” dated 8/25/14, and “Rendering - Eddy Street
(R.01),” “Site Plan, Site Section, Project Data (1.02),” and “Floor Plans (2.01) & (2.03),” “Floor
Plans (2.02),” “North and West Elevations (3.01),” and “South and East Elevations (3.02),” dated
9/10/14 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:
i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials sample sheet, keyed to
the elevations, and
ii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, 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, and
iv. Provide information to the Planning Board concerning the feasibility of using the preferred
Spec-Brik® side and east wall cladding material; and, if its use is feasible, submit revised
elevations showing replacement of split-faced Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) on the side
and east elevations with this preferred material.
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
31
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Randall asked about the staging and other coordination for the numerous Collegetown
projects. Cornish replied City staff have held several internal meetings to address the issue
comprehensively, which she will summarize in a memorandum to the Planning Board.
Schroeder added he would also like the Planning Board to be involved in any future
streetscape design plans for Collegetown. Cornish replied she would do that.
G. SKETCH PLAN: 114 Catherine St. Housing Project
Applicants Sharma and Lambrou described the proposed project.
Project Summary:
The existing lot contains a 3-story apartment building consisting of three 3-bedroom units
and three two-bedroom units. Off-street parking is provided in the front yard, as well as in
the rear yard. Total existing occupancy: 10. The proposal consists of a new three-story
building located at the existing front yard. It will contain one 5-bedroom unit on the first
floor and one 6-bedroom unit each on the second and the third floors. Total occupancy
(existing and new) would be 27 (10 + 17).
Sharma noted the new building would be attached to the existing one and would include a
main entryway where both buildings meet. The principal building material would be brick,
with a different material for the top story.
Elliott remarked it is wonderful to see a parking lot replaced by a building. It also seems to
be an ideal opportunity to improve the design of the existing building (namely its roof),
which looks like it was haphazardly constructed. Fernández agreed. Elliott suggested seeing
if the existing building could support another floor; if so, another story could be added and
the two roofs could be more seamlessly integrated.
Schroeder suggested making the narrow band along the top of the building more textured.
Sharma replied he would explore that.
Jones-Rounds observed the large expanse of brick next to the porch appears flat and
uninteresting. Perhaps some slit windows could be added. Sharma replied he could certainly
add some openings and/or other forms of differentiation.
Fernández suggested modifying the front stairs to look more in proportion with the massing
of the building. Cornish agreed something about the stairs could be improved.
Schroeder remarked the stairs themselves are fine, but the mass of concrete looks odd.
Sharma replied he could place some plantings in front of it.
32
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández suggested the applicant add a tree to the right of stairs. Schroeder agreed, noting
street trees could be added all along the street.
Jones-Rounds suggested extending the first-level porch all the way towards the kitchen to
make the steps twice as wide. Sharma stressed it is not the main entry to the building, nor is
it a public entry, so he is not sure how much sense that would make; but he agreed to explore
some options.
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2933 ― 128 W. Falls St.: Area Variances
Appeal of Architect Lawrence Fabbroni for Heritage Park Townhomes, Inc., for Area
Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 11 and 14/15, Parking, Front Yard, and Rear Yard
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant wants to subdivide the parcel at 128 West Falls Street and create new parcels
on either side of 128 West Falls Street, designated as Lot#1 and Lot #3. Originally, the
applicant came to the Board seeking one variance for a yard deficiency at 128 West Falls
(known as Lot #2 for subdivision purposes). However, because of neighborhood opposition
to the project, the applicant requested a postponement at the original hearing. After working
with the neighbors and trying to find a more suitable arrangement for the proposed buildings
on the two additional lots that will be created after subdivision, the applicant now is seeking
variances for the other two parcels that will be created through Subdivision, as well as for
128 West Falls Street (Lot #2).
The original variance request for the single-family home at 128 West Falls Street was for the
deficient front yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot front yard setback. This
property has a front yard setback of 5' 2" from the property line, a deficiency of 4 feet 10
inches. The applicant is now seeking a variance for the location of the required parking as
well. Due to the challenges of maintaining greenspace, the applicant proposes placing this
property's required parking on Lot #3, which is directly adjacent to 128 West Falls. Though
the proposal meets the required number of off-street parking spaces, Zoning Ordinance,
Section 325-20 D. (4) requires off-street parking to occur on the same lot as the building
requiring the off-street parking for properties in the R-2b Zoning District where the parcel,
128 West Falls Street, is located.
On Lot #1, the applicant proposes locating a single-family home 36' 4" from the front
property line so as not to block sunlight to the neighboring house to the East. This location
will cause a rear yard deficiency of three feet. The rear yard requirement is 25 feet; proposed
is 22 feet. In order to maintain pedestrian oriented frontage, the driveway access for all three
lots is on the west end of Lot #3. To do this, the applicant proposes to locate building #2, a
33
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
two family unit, on Lot #3 only five feet from the front yard property line. The Zoning
Ordinance requires front yards to have a 10-foot setback.
128 West Falls Street is located in the R-2b Use District where the uses on the proposed
subdivided lots are permitted. However, General Municipal Law, Section 33, states that
zoning deficiencies must be granted variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals before
subdivision can be approved.
The Planning Board strongly recommends granting this appeal. The applicant worked
effectively with the neighbors to develop a plan that they could support.
Appeal #2961 ― 545 Third St. (Farmers’ Market): Sign Variance
Appeal of Aaron Munzer, for the Farmers’ Market located at 545 Third Street, a property
owned by the City of Ithaca, for a Sign Variance from Section 272-6 B. (2), Number and
Size of Allowed Signs in the WF-1 Zoning District, requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
The applicant is seeking three Sign Variances for the signage located at 545 Third Street, the
Farmers’ Market. Sign Ordinance, Section 272-6 B. (2), only allows one freestanding sign.
In lieu of the freestanding sign, a business can have two wall signs. No sign can be larger
than 50 SF in size. The Farmers’ Market has a 24 SF freestanding sign at the entrance to the
Farmers’ Market parking area off of Third Street. In addition to this sign, two wall signs are
located on the pavilion’s gabled entranceways, each near an end of the main pavilion. The
first wall sign is 125 SF. The second wall sign is 72 SF. Though larger than allowed, the
applicant believes the signs are appropriately sized for the size and height of the market's
pavilion.
The Farmerss Market at 545 Third Street is located in a WF-1 zone where signs are
permitted. However, the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18, requires that the Board of Zoning
Appeals grant the variance requests before a Sign Permit call be issued.
The Planning Board recommends granting this appeal.
Appeal #2965 ― 115 S. Quarry St.: Special Permit
Appeal of Samuel Epps, for the owner Valentine Venture, LLC, for a Special Permit to
operate a neighborhood commercial facility at 115 South Quarry Street as required by the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-9 C.1.(e).
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for a new restaurant at 115 South Quarry Street
called “Gola Osteria,” in the Quarry Arms Apartment building. The Italian restaurant will
also have a local beer and wine menu, and serve a limited selection of liquor. The Quarry
Arms, a former hospital and adult care facility, has a large existing kitchen and dining
facility. The dining room serves 72 persons and has 22 seats ill the bar area. In addition,
34
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
there are 30 seats on an outdoor deck used for dining during the summer season. This
kitchen and dining room were once an accessory use to the hospital and an adult care facility
before the building was converted to apartments. While the applicant can serve food to the
residents of the Quarry Arms Apartment, as of right, the applicant would like to expand the
use to students in other nearby housing, to visiting parents, and to local residents. Two other
restaurants have operated in this facility successfully under a Special Permit with the
privilege of serving surrounding community residents, as well as the residents of Quarry
Arms. The applicant proposes to operate the restaurant Tuesday through Saturday for dinner.
On Sundays, the restaurant will be open 10:00 am to 2:00 p.m. for brunch and 4:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. for dinner. The 115 South Quarry Street property is located in the R-3a Use
District where the proposed restaurant is permitted as a Neighborhood Commercial Facility
by Special Permit.
The Planning Board recommends granting this appeal. The appellant seeks to re-establish a
restaurant use that previously worked well in this location.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair (verbal)
Identifying Green Building Practices & Incentives
Blalock indicated he would like to discuss the subject brought up earlier about identifying
ways to provide developers with incentives for following environmentally sound
construction practices for projects. He suggested the Planning Board and/or staff conduct
some research and draft a recommendation to Common Council for institutionalizing these
kinds of incentives.
Schroeder observed the current Site Plan Review Ordinance already contains some related
language.
Enforcement of Planning Board Site Plan Approval Conditions
Jones-Rounds asked if the Planning Board could discuss finding ways to better enforce Site
Plan Approval conditions. For example, as she mentioned earlier to the Board, she is
concerned with some of the things she has observed at the Purity Ice Cream site, which
conflicted with her understanding of the Modified Site Plan Approval conditions the project
received in 2013.
Schroeder indicated that from what he has heard it definitely sounds like some things
associated with the project are violating the terms of the Board’s approval.
Nicholas remarked she recently communicated the need to conform to Site Plan Approval
conditions to the project team. Construction for the project is not yet complete and she does
not know what the project’s construction schedule is.
35
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Randall noted the only entrance into Purity Ice Cream is from the parking lot, which is not
appropriate. The entrance should be off the street and not facing the parking lot.
Schroeder noted if Purity Ice Cream is not providing dedicated parking to its staff, then it is
violating Site Plan Approval.
Nicholas indicated she will conduct a site inspection to determine what has been built so far
and whether it conforms to the Site Plan Approval. If it does not, then she will speak with
the project team, identify the rest of the construction schedule, and consult with the Building
Division.
Blalock noted the situation seems to suggest there is a loophole in the process. He suggested
Planning staff consult with the City Attorney and identify what enforcement options the
Planning Board may have.
Schroeder noted a similar situation occurred with the 107 Cook Street duplexes. Over the
course of the project review, since there was lack of first-floor fenestration, the architect
suggested adding trellises ― however, the trellises that were installed were little more than
pieces of wood pasted to the side of the house. Unfortunately, that was sufficient for the
owner to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. The owner only made it look like trellises were
installed; and the work was removed afterwards. That is an even more blatant example of a
project defying the system. Schroeder indicated he would like to know what the Planning
Board’s enforcement options are after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
Cornish responded that the City can always retract a Certificate of Occupancy. There is also
a mechanism for fining project owners for not conforming to approved site plans.
Gun Hill Housing Project & Tompkins County Trail System
Blalock noted one final item he would like to discuss at some point is the forthcoming Gun
Hill Housing Project and the opportunity it provides for completing the Tompkins County
trail system.
B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal)
Brindley Street Bridge
Cornish reported that according to the Engineering Division the Brindley Street Bridge needs
considerable work; and since the nearby Cecil Malone Drive Bridge needs to be replaced, it
would be an opporunity to replace the Brindley Street Bridge at the same time. The
Engineering Division is contemplating widening it to two lanes, and adding a sidewalk and
bicycle lanes.
36
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott asked if the intent is to use the same steel structure for the bridge or if it would be
completely replaced. Cornish replied the Engineering Division would like to replace it (as
well as improve the turning radius).
Cornish indicated a second option being considered is to keep the bridge, but only for bicycle
and pedestrian use. That option would include straightening it out, adding some greenspace,
and extending Taughannock Boulevard.
Schroeder suggested the greenspace extend all the way down to Taber Street without being
broken up by the driveway.
Cornish asked if there were any fundamental opposition to the proposal.
Schroeder replied that he could accept scenario #2, as long as the greenspace area were
extended.
Cornish observed there does not seem to be any fundamental opposition to the plan by the
Planning Board, although she understands it would like the opportunity to examine the plans
in more detail.
Fernández suggested installing the sidewalk only on one side of the bridge.
Schroeder disagreed, arguing that there should be sidewalks on both sides; however, the
bicycle lanes probably do not need shoulders.
The following recommendations were agreed upon:
Assuming that the Aeroplane Factory can use an alternative ingress/egress ― eliminate
the driveway to the Aeroplane Factory and extend the greenspace and bike/pedestrian
route the full length of Brindley Street to Taber Street
Include traffic-calming and an enhanced crosswalk across Taber Street at the intersection
with Brindley Street. The Board believes that the area is a heavily-used pedestrian route
between West Hill and the Southwest commercial district
To minimize potential environmental and aesthetic impacts, limit the width of the bridge
to the greatest extent possible. Consider not having a designated bike lane.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal)
None.
8. Approval of Minutes: August 26, 2014
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft August 26, 2014 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
37
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: 1
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
38