HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-01-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
January 22, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (6:19 p.m.); Noah
Demarest; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa
Rudan; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning &
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning &
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning &
Development
Applicants Attending: Holiday Inn Expansion
James Boy, RSB Architects (Roberts, Shackleton, & Boy)
150-154 Cecil A. Malone, Dr. (Vehicle Sales Lot)
Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect;
Tim Maguire, Owner
Maguire Fiat
Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect;
Tim Maguire, Owner
130 Clinton St. (Apartments)
Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates;
Jagat P. Sharma, Jagat P. Sharma Architect
David A. Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C.
Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project)
Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates;
700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. Agenda Review
Acharya suggested adding an agenda item to discuss Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas’ 1/10/13
memorandum, regarding the 2012 Planning Board Annual Report. There were no objections.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave., and City Historian, spoke regarding the proposed
elimination of the Minimum Parking Requirements. While not categorically opposed to the
proposed measure, she strongly recommended any action on the proposed changes be
postponed until the City has a broader understanding of its potential impacts.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Holiday Inn ― Conditions of Final Site Plan Approval
Applicant James Boy indicated he was prepared to answer any questions the Board may
have.
Rudan asked if the noise impact assessment study results would alter the project in any way.
Boy replied, no. The new building will actually be producing less noise than the current
building.
Marcham noted her surprise to see that the new building looks so different from the old. Boy
replied that the owners wanted to make a statement with the new tower.
B. Vehicle Sales Lot, 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr., Thomas Schickel, Applicant for
Owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC. Consideration of Preliminary & Final
Approval. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 SF (0.808 acre) parking
lot, and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot, for a total area of 54,950 SF (1.26 acres)
with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion of the
lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining
16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of
vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain
unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install a landscaped buffer with trees and grass
along the front of the property, and to remove the easterly curbcut. The applicant is
proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’5”-wide sidewalk across the length of the
property. The gravel lot is designed to drain on site, with engineered filter fabric topped with
a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning
District. The project requires area variances from the BZA. The project is on two separate
tax parcels and requires consolidation.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Applicant Tom Schickel reported that the project received its zoning variance. The current
plan is exactly the same as the one presented to the Board last month.
Demarest remarked that the City Forestry Technician recently submitted additional
comments on the project, which will need to be addressed. Schickel replied he would work
with Planning staff to resolve those issues.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Rudan:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a vehicle sales lot by Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family
Enterprises, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 (0.808 acre) parking lot and
convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot for a total area of 55,850 SF (1.282 acres) with 129
display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion for the lot will be
expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be
surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the
southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is
proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’-wide sidewalk across the length of the property and
install additional vegetative buffers with trees, shrubs, and grass. There will be two curbcuts. The
gravel lot is designed to drain on-site with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel
to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project has
received the required area variances from the BZA. The project is on two separate tax parcels and
requires consolidation, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and
WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the
agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead Agency for
this project, 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 December
18, 2012, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on December 18,
2012 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a drawing entitled “Site Plan
(L1),” prepared by Schickel Architects and dated 12/18/12; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on December 18, 2012
determine that the proposed Vehicle Sales Lot to be located on 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr. 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, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals did on January 9, 2013 grant the project the required
variances, and
WHEREAS: the Board has on January 22, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised
drawings entitled “Layout Plan and Grading Plan (C1)” and “Planting Plan (C2),” and “Site Details
(C3)” dated 1/8/13; and “Layout Plan (C-1),” dated ¼/13, all prepared by Schickel Architects and
dated 12/14/12; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
above-referenced project, subject to the following conditions:
i. A Street Permit is required for any work done in the City-owned right-of-way, and
ii. Planning Department staff shall approve signage, and
iii. Applicant shall work with City staff to choose a replacement tree species for the tree lawn, that
will mature at no more than 20 – 25 feet in height ( as per the City Foresters recommendation),
and submit a revised planting plan showing the replacement, and
iv. Submission of documentation showing consolidation of the two tax parcels.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
C. Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd. (formerly, GreenTree Nursery), Thomas Schickel,
Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Partnership. Declaration of Lead Agency &
Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 1,300 SF building (formerly,
GreenTree nursery) and construct a new 8,165 SF building (GSF 10,210, including 2nd floor
office space). The new building will include a showroom, customer service area, offices, and
service bays. The site work will include: the addition 15 new parking spaces; 4 display
spaces facing Elmira Road; 6 customer parking spaces at the front and side of the building;
and 5 service and employee spaces at the rear of the building. Site development will require
removal of all accessory structures, vegetation, and chain-link fence. The applicant is
proposing to consolidate the continuous curbcut along the access drive; add landscaping and
additional street trees, and add two planting islands with shade trees on the adjacent property.
The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and requires an area variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals and an easement from the adjacent property owner for the two-way
driveway on the access road.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Applicant Tom Schickel walked through the layout plan and the topographical map,
highlighting the recent project modifications, recorded in the applicant’s 1/4/13 letter to the
Board.
Schroeder asked if the applicant will be building a sidewalk up to the property line. Schickel
replied, yes. Schroeder asked that this be illustrated on the drawing, which Schickel agreed
to do.
Schroeder remarked that the December Project Review Committee meeting included some
discussion about adding street trees to the gap on Elmira Road. He asked if the applicant
could add another two trees to that portion of the site. Schickel replied that this would
actually be a problem for the applicant, since it would obscure the building too much. Owner
Tim Maguire remarked that the whole purpose of the project is to create a display lot for the
vehicles and he would prefer not to obscure them unnecessarily.
Cornish inquired into the appearance of the roof mechanicals. Schickel replied the applicant
has not quite determined what that would look like, yet; however, he is aware they need to be
concealed or architecturally incorporated, in some manner.
Adopted Lead Agency Declaration Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental
law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Maguire Fiat to be located at 308 Elmira Road by Tom Schickel, applicant for
owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to remove the existing 1,300 SF building (formerly, GreenTree
nursery) and construct a new 8,165 SF building (GSF 10,210, including 2nd floor office space). The
new building will include a showroom, customer service area, offices, and service bays. The site
work will include the addition of: 15 new parking spaces; 4 display spaces facing Elmira Road; 6
customer parking spaces at the front and side of the building; and 10 service and employee spaces
at the rear of the building. Site development will require removal of all accessory structures,
vegetation, and chain-link fence. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the continuous curbcut
along the access drive, add landscaping, additional street trees, two planting islands with shade trees
on the adjacent property, and a sidewalk and tree lawn along the access road. The project is in the
SW-2 Zoning District and requires an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and an
easement from the adjacent property owner for the two-way driveway on the access road, and
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead
Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed
Maguire Fiat to be located at 308 Elmira Road.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Rudan, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
D. Apartments, 130 E. Clinton St., Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange
Brick Garage Corp. Update Only ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to construct
three 3-story apartment buildings, each containing 12 units (four on each floor) ― for a total
of 36 units and 48 beds. The buildings are proposed to be wood-frame with overhanging
hipped shingled roofs, wood siding and trim, and gabled entry points. Vehicular access is
from a new service drive commencing at the existing parking lot on Prospect Street.
Pedestrian access will come from two new stairs, one on Clinton Street and the other from
the new service drive, both connecting to a new wooden boardwalk along the west sides of
the buildings. The 1.748-acre project site contains steep slopes and project development will
require extensive regrading and removal of a large area of vegetation, including several
mature trees to form level building pads. The buildings are also built into the slope. The
project is in the B-1a Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(k), B(2) and B(5), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review.
The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Applicant Scott Whitham highlighted the following outstanding issues associated with the
project: (1) the placement of the buildings in proportion to the slope; (2) the composition and
quality of the underlying soil; and (3) the nature of the trees that have not yet been
successfully identified.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Whitham noted that, in response to earlier Board comments, the applicant tried to move the
buildings up the slope, but this proved too difficult. Architect Jagat Sharma added that
moving the buildings even further up precludes making the walkway from Clinton Street
accessible.
Consultant David Herrick reported that the geotechnical analysis has been completed and the
results suggest that the top 6-8 feet contain fill, but beneath that lies a combination of gravel
and soil. The excavation of the building foundation should not encounter bedrock.
Marcham asked if any pile-driving would be necessary. Herrick replied this has yet to be
fully determined. In either case, he added, some noise would undoubtedly be generated.
Sharma indicated he does not believe the buildings will require pile-driving. Nicholas asked
if any blasting would be necessary. Herrick replied, no.
Herrick indicated the applicant has also been holding discussions with Environmental
Engineer Scott Gibson about the project and determined that a basic Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required.
Schroeder remarked he would still like to see a connection to the downtown area, if at all
feasible.
E. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St.
(The Commons), Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Update
Only ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 10-story, mixed-
use building of approximately 132,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,000 SF)
of ground-floor retail, three stories (41,200 SF) of upper-story office, and six stories of
residential (up to 72 units). The residential portion of the project is in the tower, set back 75’
from the building’s four-story Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances,
one on the Commons and one on Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The
project is on the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires an area variance for height. This is a
Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-
4 B(1)(h)[4], B(1)(k) and B(1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4
(b)(9) and is subject to environmental review.
Applicant Scott Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted
there is a State code issue, regarding the distance from the parking garage ― the current
proposal is 15 feet from the garage, while the State requires 20 feet. The applicant is
currently investigating what is required for a State variance.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Whitham reported the applicant has been meeting with the Building Division, regarding the
remaining Code-related issues, which primarily revolve around the fire separation between
the new building and the Sage Building. Another issue that will need to be resolved is how
the project will incorporate the Maté Factor building, considerable discussion of which has
already taken place. The applicant is seeking to obtain enough square footage from the Maté
Factor to allow an opening to the building via Cinemapolis Plaza, thus opening up the entire
building more, from the street. The applicant is looking to use the rear portion of the existing
Maté Factor building (the kitchen) as part of a joint entryway for the new building. Whitham
added that no new elevations have been produced for the project, until these kinds of issues
can be resolved.
Schroeder suggested that the applicant re-use some of the limestone detailing on the second
story of the Race Building (or, at least, borrow from the design).
Schroeder asked if the applicant could provide the Board with the various rendered
perspective views of the project, which were presented at the last meeting. Whitham replied,
yes, although he would need to double check with the design team to ensure those views are
as accurate and developed as they need to be.
Jones-Rounds reiterated her prior interest in seeing public lavatories in the building.
F. Purity Ice Cream Mixed-Use Project, 700 Cascadilla St., Bruce Lane, Applicant &
Owner. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to expand its ground
floor operations while maintaining the existing Purity Ice Cream building that faces North
Meadow Street. The existing industrial structure behind the service area will be demolished
to accommodate the expanded service area and new Purity Ice Cream offices on the ground
floor. The project will be 5 stories and approximately 36,500 total SF. Four stories will be
added above the first story, and will provide between 13 one-bedroom and 26 two-bedroom
residential rental units, and potentially 1,000 to 8,500 SF of rental office space. The major
structural system will be a steel frame, with friction piles and concrete grade beams as the
anticipated foundation system. The project will employ a brick cavity wall on the north
façade and the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding
system. The project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1). (k). and an Unlisted
Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental
review. The project requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut.
Applicant John Snyder appeared before the Board and indicated he was prepared to answer
any questions the Board may have about the project. Rudan asked what specific building
materials were planned for the project. Snyder replied that the project team has been
exploring a wide variety of options (e.g., brick, glass, etc.), but has not firmly identified
anything yet.
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds asked how the applicant would address the questions raised in the 1/14/13 City
Transportation Engineer memorandum. Snyder replied that the concept is to have the
driveway go around Cascadilla Street, to provide people with another means of leaving the
site. This approach would also be helpful when the parking lot is completely full, to allow
people to leave the site and circle back. Snyder added it is possible that the owner’s facility
across Fulton Street could be used as possible overflow parking. The applicant would
ultimately like to resolve the often chaotic traffic situation on Fulton Street. Snyder
remarked he has not yet consulted at length with the City Transportation Engineer, so he is
not ready to respond formally to his comments, at this time.
Demarest reiterated he would like to see the new building designed to appear more
harmoniously integrated with the original building. Snyder responded the applicant is very
sensitive to those kinds of design considerations. He stressed that the renderings do not yet
entirely reflect what the building will actually look like. The intent is certainly that the two
buildings would be well and fully integrated with each other.
Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Rudan:
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 Review for a mixed-use housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street (Purity Ice
Cream) by Bruce Lane, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand its ground floor operations, while maintaining the
existing Purity Ice Cream building that faces North Meadow Street. The existing industrial
structure behind the service area will be demolished to accommodate the expanded service area and
new Purity Ice Cream offices on the ground floor. The project will be 5 stories and approximately
36,500 total SF. Four stories will be added above the first story and will provide between 13 to 26
one and two-bedroom residential rental units, and potentially 1,000 to 8,500 SF of rental office
space. The major structural system will be a steel frame, with friction piles and concrete grade
beams as the anticipated foundation system. The project will employ a brick cavity wall on the
north façade; and the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding
system. The project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District. The project requires approval by NYS
DOT for relocation of the curbcut, and
9
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). an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review, 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 mixed-use
housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
4. Zoning Appeals ― None.
5. Old Business ― None.
6. New Business
A. 2012 Planning Board Annual Report (1/10/13)
Board members reviewed and discussed the report. Nicholas remarked that 2012 was a
particularly active year for Site Plan Review applications; and 2013 appears to be beginning
the same way.
Demarest asked if staff has historical data for, or simply a general sense of, what the Site
Plan Review application fee income was five or ten years ago compared to today, and what
trend(s) may or may not be identifiable from that.
Nicholas replied that 2010, for example, can safely be characterized as a valley, in terms of
the Site Plan Review application activity and income (largely, if not entirely, due to the
recession). Moreover, Nicholas remarked, she can also state with a high degree of certainty
that 2013 will be another highly active year. Schroeder agreed, observing that there remains
considerable unmet/pent-up demand.
Blalock asked if any research had been done regarding the number of jobs generated from
each project and has there been any exploration of a correlation between Site Plan Review
application fees and the number of applications received. Nicholas replied that the applicant
does supply the City with the jobs information on the Full Environmental Assessment Form,
Part 1. She does not have any immediately available data on the correlation between Site
Plan Review fees and the number of applications received.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Blalock observed that it would be helpful to have that kind of information available for the
public to see. Cornish replied that staff could certainly look into doing that, moving forward.
2. Privilege of the Floor (cont.)
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the proposed elimination of Minimum
Parking Requirements. She remarked that requiring landlords to provide parking is
counterproductive, as it unnecessarily builds the cost of parking into the cost of housing,
which places low-to-moderate income people at the greatest disadvantage.
Wayles E. Browne, II, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the proposed elimination of
Minimum Parking Requirements. While the present requirement may have made sense some
years ago, he no longer believes that to be the case.
B. Minimum Parking Requirements Discussion
Michael Manville, Professor of City & Regional Planning at Cornell University, made a
presentation to the Board that included the following points:
• The basic criticism of minimum parking requirements is that they do not, in fact, solve
the problem that they are purportedly attempting to solve (based largely on the fear that
drivers would use all the curb spaces).
• One major problem with minimum parking requirements is that they essentially lead to
curb spaces being underpriced. While one can try to solve the problem by building off-
street parking spaces, they are far from a perfect solution. Curb spaces still end up
being overused and off-street parking is rarely employed to its fullest extent.
Moreover, the cost of driving/parking is artificially subsumed into the cost of housing;
so minimum parking requirements simply end up being a quiet subsidy for driving.
• When municipalities establish minimum parking requirements, the discussion of cost is
never addressed. For example, developers may simply choose not to build a particular
housing project they would otherwise have been willing to build, because of the
additional cost of providing parking.
• Minimum parking requirement also neglect the niche market of people who neither
need nor want cars.
Rudan asked if Manville’s remarks assume that parking is bundled. Manville replied his
arguments would apply in either case, although parking is far more likely to be bundled,
nationwide, than not. Rudan responded that parking in Ithaca is far less likely to be bundled.
Not having data on the actual cost of parking construction, she added, complicates the
situation.
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Manville noted that as an area develops, and remaining available parcels become harder and
harder to build on, the cost of parking inevitably increases.
Blalock noted that one can examine buildings that have underground parking garages to shed
light on the situation. If there are a lot of empty spaces, one can reasonably assume the cost
of parking is less than the cost of rent. He noted that he has not seen many garages in
Collegetown that appear overbuilt.
Schroeder remarked that the pedestrian infrastructure in Collegetown is unsatisfactory. For
that reason, the City’s proposed Payment-in-Lieu-of-Parking (PILOP) system was a real step
forward, since it specifically designated the use of PILOP funds for infrastructural
improvements. If one totally eliminates parking requirements, however, there will be no
dedicated source of funding to improve and maintain the pedestrian infrastructure. Although
in theory Schroeder supports removing minimum parking requirements in Collegetown, the
city needs a system that does what PILOP was designed to do.
Blalock agreed with Schroeder; however, he noted that a system like PILOP seems too much
like a tax. He sees no reason to target a specific population of developers, when the entire
city could be contributing.
Manville conceded PILOP systems can be a big improvement; however, they seem to work
best in places where developers work on small parcels, have considerable cash, operate in
relatively dense areas, where they can get high returns, so they can convince a potential
lender to finance the in-lieu fee. Lenders want to know they can recoup their investments, if
something goes wrong, and they cannot do that with in-lieu fees.
Manville went on to stress that eliminating minimum parking requirements is not equivalent
to prohibiting parking. The assumption that people would end up building nothing but
buildings without parking is false. He added that parking meters remain a viable means to
generate revenue, for funding infrastructural improvements.
Manville noted that there is no science to predicting the need for parking. Every building is
different and building uses can vary significantly over time. Minimum parking requirements,
therefore, include a large arbitrary component.
Rudan observed that it would be helpful to frame the current discussion within a larger, city-
wide context (e.g., via the Comprehensive Plan). Cornish responded that it is in fact being
discussed on a number of different levels.
Demarest noted that Cornish’s memorandum on the subject poses a lot of excellent
questions, so coming up with some answers to those questions would be a good first step.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Acharya remarked that the Board should decide how it would like to proceed. Demarest
responded that the Board should simply draft a resolution containing its recommendations,
and be prepared to act on it at its next meeting.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya noted that the Collegetown Working Group has been meeting consistently and
made progress on some proposed zoning amendments. Acharya has been working on
some FAQs, summarizing numerous anticipated concerns. He projects that Common
Council would likely not receive the proposed zoning amendments until May 2013 (to
the Planning and Economic Development Committee).
Rudan expressed her concern that no information has been provided to the affected
property owners. Cornish replied that would take place once the Planning and
Economic Development Committee has approved the final draft for distribution, after
which it would go before the City Administration Committee and the Planning Board.
B. Director of Planning & Development
Cornish remarked that all Planning Board members should have received the
Comprehensive Plan status report from Planner Megan Wilson. Cornish indicated that
Focus Groups are in the process of being formed and will be meeting in March-April
2013.
Regarding the proposed elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements, Cornish
reported that the subcommittee will be meeting tomorrow. Several remaining issues
need to be cleaned up by the Planning and Economic Development Committee.
Schroeder remarked he has also concerns with maximum parking requirements, in a
situation like the recent Stone Quarry Apartments project. He is not sure it makes
sense to have maximum requirements in certain cases. There ought to be an exemption
when there are more than a certain number of units on one lot.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya remarked the BPW had discussed the issue of installing pavements on the 400
block of Spencer Road, as well as improving the safety of that intersection. BPW
members indicated it may be possible to address that issue in 2014.
Acharya noted BPW also made progress moving towards approval of the Elmira Road
sidewalk improvement project.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Acharya announced the new City Waste Water Plant has now reached the 90% design
stage. Former Superintendent of Public Works Bill Gray will be staying on to oversee
the project. A search committee has also been established to fill the Superintendent
vacancy.
7. Approval of Minutes: 11/27/12 & 12/18/12
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Demarest, the draft 11/27/12 and 12/18/12
meeting minutes were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.