HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-02-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
February 26, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Noah Demarest;
Jack Elliott; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Tessa Rudan
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: Cornell Laundry (527 W. State St.)
Brian Buttner, Applicant, ADR Associates
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;
David Lubin, Owner/Applicant;
Craig Jensen, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP;
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
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Amber Harris, 124 Brindley Street, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street
Apartments project. She is particularly concerned with the greenspace behind Cayuga
Green, the steep slope, and the risk of erosion. She added that green areas in the city should
be one of the very last areas to be developed.
John Dennis, 893 Cayuga Street, and member of the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council (EMC), spoke regarding the 130 Clinton Street Apartments project.
He explained that the EMC routinely reviews development projects in the County and he
asked for clarification of the project’s timetable. He also indicated the EMC would like to
see a simple plat drawing, showing the building’s footprint and property boundaries, so the
environmental impact of the project can be determined. Nicholas responded that the
Planning Board has not itself received enough information to perform its own environmental
review, either. Once it has, however, it will begin that process (probably taking about two
months). Any further information on the project will be made available as soon as it has
been generated or received.
Dennis asked if the City plans on implementing any kind of greenspace preservation plan.
Cornish replied, not at this time, since there is no funding available for greenspace acquisition.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Shipping/Receiving Annex for Cornell Laundry, 527 W. State St., Brian Buttner,
Applicant for Owner, John Gorsky. Determination of Environmental Significance &
Recommendation to the BZA. (The applicant has made slight changes to the site plan since
the original March 2012 submission and has received permission from NYS DOT for the size
and configuration of the curbcuts.). The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 2,304
SF distribution and storage facility, at the rear (Green St. side) of the existing building. The
proposed building will have four loading bays and a forklift entry on the east façade. The
applicant proposes to reduce the size of the existing island between the two driveways and
widen the eastern curbcut to 28’. The project also includes relocation of a utility pole,
installation of a vegetative screen, and a rolling gate at the southwest corner of the building.
The project site has recently been consolidated. The project site is in the B-2d Zoning
District. An area variance is required for the project, for relief from the required two-story
minimum in the B-2d Zoning District and a tree permit will be required to remove a City
tree. 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.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Brian Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He explained that the
reason the process has taken so long is largely related to the fact that Green Street is also a
State road; and it has taken considerable time to work out some of the details with the State
Department of Transportation. Buttner indicated the project now has larger driveways,
allowing trucks to pull in and out, with more maneuvering room.
Buttner remarked that the project will be going before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA),
since the B-2d Zoning District requires a minimum of 2 stories, but a second floor is neither
desired nor feasible for the Cornell Laundry operation.
Buttner remarked that a hedgerow will now run along the sidewalk and only one City tree
will be removed (on the island). He explained that the purpose of the island is to
accommodate a NYSEG guide pole.
Acharya indicated the Board will need to await the BZA decision, before it considers the
project for final approval.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock:
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 an addition to Cornell Laundry, by Brian Buttner, applicant for owner, John
Gorsky, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 2,304 SF distribution and storage
facility, at the rear (Green St. side) of the existing building. The proposed building will have four
loading bays on the south façade and a forklift entry on the east façade. The applicant proposes
to reduce the size of the existing island between the two driveways and widen the eastern curbcut
to 28’. The project also includes relocation of a utility pole, installation of a vegetative screen,
and a rolling gate at the southwest corner of the building. The project site has recently been
consolidated. The project site is in the B-2d Zoning District. An area variance is required for the
project for relief from the required two-story minimum in the B-2d Zoning District and a tree
permit will be required to remove a City tree. The project has received approval from NYS DOT,
and
3
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: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in accordance with §176-6 D. of the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, has on February 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as
adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Proposed Storage /Shipping Annex
(Site Plan),” with revision dates of 3/26/12 and 10/5/12, and “West Elevation ― Shallow Sloping
Site,” and “South Elevation ― Proposed Storage/Shipping Annex,” dated 11/20/12, and
“Existing Shipping/Receiving Area” (undated), all prepared by ADR Associates; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received have been considered, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Cornell Laundry Addition, located on 527 W. State Street in the City of Ithaca, will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
[See section “4. Zoning Appeals,” below, for the recommendation to the BZA.]
B. Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd. (formerly, GreenTree Nursery), Thomas Schickel,
Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Partnership. Determination of Environmental
Significance & Recommendation to BZA. 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: close 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.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted the applicant tried
to obtain an easement to the private road adjacent to the property, but the owner declined.
As a result, the project is losing the existing curbcut access, which necessitated the
installation of a two-lane driveway. Twelve parking spaces have also been added to the east
side of the site.
Schickel indicated that the two new trees would match the existing Elm trees in the central
portion of the site. .
Nicholas asked if the applicant could add some bike racks to the site, which Schickel agreed
to do.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Demarest:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a parking lot, building expansion, and renovations 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: 18 new parking spaces (6 display spaces
facing Elmira Road and a private road, 7 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 close the continuous curbcut along the access drive, add landscaping and additional
street trees, as well as 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
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action 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, and
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: on November 27, 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: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
February 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings
entitled “Topographic Map, No.312 & 318 Elmira Road,” dated 8/16/11, and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.; and “Layout Plan (C1),” dated 1/4/13, with revision dates of 1/8/13 and 2/8/13,
“Floor Plan (A1),” dated 1/4/13, “Elevations (A2),” dated 1/4/13, with a revision date of 1/18/13,
and “Planting Plan (L2),” dated 1/22/13, with a revision date of 2/11/13; and “Layout Plan (color
rendering) (C1),” “Layout Plan (C1),” and “Planting Plan (L2),” all with a revision date of
2/20/13, and all prepared by Schickel Architects; and other application materials, 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, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Maguire Fiat to be located on 308 Elmira Road will result in no significant impact on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
[See section “4. Zoning Appeals,” below, for the recommendation to the BZA.]
C. 130 E. Clinton St., Apartments, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange
Brick Garage Corp. CEQR Discussion ― 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).
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted it is clearly a
difficult site to develop and he certainly understands the concerns that have been expressed
regarding the slope. The applicant is currently in the process of drafting its environmental
assessment, incorporating the results of the geotechnical and soil analysis.
Whitham then walked through the project site plans. He noted changes were made to the
project in response to the Planning Board’s concerns about the absence of a connection from
the site to its surroundings (e.g., existing parking lot and the downtown area). Buffers have
also been inserted in between the project site and the police station, and in between the
parking area and the lower portion of the site. Whitham indicated he is also exploring
options for re-vegetating the site, with an evolving plant list.
Sharma indicated the geotechnical analysis report recommended using a continuous concrete
2-foot wide foundation, stepped up the hill, so that is what the applicant is proposing.
Sharma noted that the edge of the parking area will also now be better-defined, with trees.
Responding to the Planning Board’s concerns about the ill-defined appearance of the side
elevation, Sharma indicated that the elevation will now include a 2-foot projection and a
redesigned corner, creating a kind of tower. Additional windows on the lower portion of the
elevation should also serve to break up the building’s massing.
Herrick reported that a basic Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been
drafted, which City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson will review. Herrick stressed that
the applicant is taking every precaution to ensure steep water flows are not being introduced
to the site that could generate erosion into the creek. The applicant will employ tight
sheeting throughout the site to address slope instability.
Nicholas asked how deeply the sheeting would need to be deployed to ensure stability.
Herrick replied it would probably extend all the way to the adjacent property line, as deeply
as 40 feet. The applicant is working with local contractors to identify their recommendations
for the best system. Herrick added the sheeting would most likely remain permanently in
place, buried by the retaining walls.
Nicholas asked if there would only be one line of sheeting. Herrick replied, yes, only one is
being proposed, mirroring the building façade.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornish asked if the applicant will take any additional precautions to prevent erosion from
entering the creek. Herrick responded, yes. The construction phase will include the use of
dirt bags and a giant filter pillow, located at the south end of site. The applicant would also
like to keep any run-off from the upper parking lot away from the construction zone, by
using a mountable curb.
Schroeder asked if the applicant had reviewed the comments submitted by City Traffic
Engineer Tim Logue, the Shade Tree Advisory Committee (STAC), and the Conservation
Advisory Council (CAC). Whitham replied, yes, and he does not foresee any obstacles to
addressing all their concerns.
Schroeder indicated he regards the loss of the 27 mature trees as a major environmental
impact; and he asked the applicant to ensure that a number of trees will grow to canopy-size,
roughly equivalent to the number of trees being lost. Demarest agreed with Schroeder’s
remark and asked if the applicant could also submit specific responses to each of the
concerns expressed by the CAC. Whitham replied, yes.
Elliott observed that the overall architectural typology of the proposed project seems too
suburban in appearance. He wondered if it is really the most appropriate design for a
building in such a central and urban section of the city. Sharma responded that the applicant
initially designed the project as garden apartments, reflecting the more suburban-like
buildings on the other side of Clinton Street.
Elliott remarked the project is too much like a residential campus, set apart from everything
else. He reiterated that the project should conform more to its immediate downtown
surroundings; it does not need to be so suburban. The building materials, for example,
should be more substantial, suggesting the appearance of long-term quality and commitment
to the downtown area (he does not think wood-frame construction achieves this purpose).
Elliott remarked that the project will be seen from the other side of Six Mile Creek, so the
visual emphasis should reflect its proximity to downtown.
Demarest and Acharya both agreed with the substance of Elliott’s remarks.
Herrick explained that the applicant is trying to keep the building as structurally light as
possible, given the slope and soil conditions.
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
D. 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 &
CEQR Discussion ― 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.
Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that probably the
single greatest change to the project, since it was last reviewed, is that it has moved to the
west. Also, the applicant no longer plans on building the joint entrance in the Maté Factor
building.
Jensen walked through a presentation of the revised project, highlighting the following
features:
• two loading spaces near the alley
• residential tower has been pushed south to remove it from the Commons viewshed
• project is intended to be as harmonious as possible with other Commons buildings
• main entrance has been pushed back and lowered
• there is more variation to the height of the buildings (they also have a smaller footprint
and a lower height, to work better with the other buildings)
Jensen remarked that brick is the obvious choice of building materials, although the applicant
is exploring others (e.g., terra cotta). He noted that the south elevation is extremely simple in
appearance, but much of it would be obstructed by the parking garage.
Demarest praised the applicant’s thoughtful response to the Board’s concerns with the
original design of the Commons façade.
Schroeder agreed, but added he would still like to see more variation between the paired
buildings on the Commons side (e.g., differentiating the tops and bottoms, adding art or
sculptured elements). Jensen responded he would look explore that.
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott indicated he is concerned with the shadows of the buildings on the Commons. Jensen
replied the shadow study demonstrated that the building’s shadow will never fall over the
Commons when it is already shadowed by other buildings; however, he agreed to review the
shadow lines again.
Elliott suggested there be two sources of indoor daylighting (e.g., by pushing the corridor
out). Jensen responded that doing that would reduce the numbers of windows in half and the
amount of window space per unit. Elliott replied that the living spaces would nonetheless
greatly benefit from that kind of approach. Elliott suggested adding terraces or balconies, as
well.
Jensen indicated he had already explored incorporating terraces or balconies; however, the
applicant has been trying to push the buildings as far away from the Commons as possible, so
balconies simply did not make sense. He remarked he might be able to explore something
along those lines, on the roof.
Blalock remarked that he expects a great deal of public comment to be directed towards the
Green Street façade and its imposing 10-story height. He asked if the applicant could make
it appear a little less ‘cliff’-like. Jensen replied he would look into that. Lubin reiterated that
much of the Green Street façade would be obstructed by the Green Street garage, so it should
not be as imposing as the drawings suggest.
Schroeder observed the environment review should include a reference to the U. S.
Department of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, since the project lies in a National
Historic District. He recommended asking the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) to review the project.
Demarest asked if the project would be LEED-certified. Jensen replied that the design does
comply with LEED Silver standards, but it may not actually end up being certified as such.
Elliott asked about the possibility of adding a green roof, which Lubin agreed to explore.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4. Zoning Appeals
APPEAL #2894 ― 308 Elmira Road (Area Variance)
Appeal of Thomas Schickel on behalf of the owner Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC for two
area variances from requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The owner proposes to
demolish the former GreenTree Nursery located at 308 Elmira Road and construct an 8,165
SF Fiat dealership. Unfortunately, because of the lot’s irregular shape and the fact that the
front property line is so far from the street curb at Elmira Road, the owner needs variances
from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard
Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. In order for the new building to contain a show
room, a parts department, and a service area, and to accommodate two-way access lanes,
display parking, green space, and a sidewalk, the applicant must construct the building at 308
Elmira Road, so that the building’s back wall is on the rear property line, and so that the front
of the building is 69 feet from the curb line. The Zoning Ordinance requires the building be
13.35 feet from the rear property line to meet the rear yard setback requirements.
Furthermore, Section 325-29.2 B. (2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires 35% of the lot’s
73.71 feet of street frontage be occupied by a building, with its front having a minimum
setback of 15-34 feet from the curb line. Therefore, the 69 foot front yard setback will be 35
feet deeper than the 34 feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 308 Elmira
Road is located in the SW-2 Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted; however,
Section 325-38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires variances be granted by the Board of
Zoning Appeals, before a building permit can be issued.
Members of the Board recommend granting this variance.
APPEAL #2898 ― 210 Hancock Street (Sign Variance)
Appeal of John Petito for Neighborhood Pride, LLC, for sign variance from Section 272-6 B.
(2) of the City’s Sign Ordinance, which states the maximum size of the wall sign on the front
of the structure facing a street cannot exceed 50 SF. The applicant is opening a new grocery
store, Neighborhood Pride, at 210 Hancock Street, where, up to a few years ago, a P&C
grocery store had been located. The applicant has grandfather rights to use P&C's original
sign band and erect a sign on it with the same square footage as the original P&C sign. In
1983, the Sign Ordinance allowed signs in the commercial district to have a maximum of 250
SF. The original P&C sign was 168 SF and the applicant has already erected a
Neighborhood Pride sign, 168 SF in size under his grandfather rights. The sign band has 62
SF on either side of the newly erected Neighborhood Pride sign in which the applicant would
like to add two more signs. While the Sign Ordinance views these two signs and the
Neighborhood Pride sign as one sign, because they are all one sign band, Section 272-6 B.
(2) of the Sign Ordinance limit this total signage to 50 SF. Grandfather rights allow the
grocery store one sign that is 168 SF; the additional two sides would increase the amount of
signage at 210 Hancock St. by 124 SF. The property at 210 Hancock St. is in the B-1a use
district, where commercial signs are allowed; however, Section 272-18 of the Sign
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Ordinance requires a sign variance be granted, before more signage can be added at 210
Hancock Street.
Members of the Board recommend granting this variance.
APPEAL #2899 ― 527-29 West State Street (Area Variance)
Appeal of Brian Buttner on behalf of owner, John Gorsky, for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 12/13, Side Yard, and Column 16, Minimum Building Height, of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,304 square foot addition to the rear of the
building, known as Cornell Laundry, located at 527-29 W. State Street. The applicant
recently consolidated six properties to make one lot, of which Cornell Laundry is a part. The
side yards of the consolidated lot are deficient in size. The ordinance requires side yards be
10’ and 5’. The existing side yards are 4.5’ and 3’, respectively. The proposed addition will
be used as an annex for packing, shipping, and soiled linen returns. This addition will be
accessed by delivery vehicles via a dual driveway on W. Green Street. The laundry cleaning
and processing operation will be maintained in the existing one-story building,
approximately 18 feet in height. The applicant would like to construct the new addition, as a
one-story building, which best suits the operational needs of the business. The average
height of the proposed addition is 15’9” in height and 1 story. The ordinance requires
buildings be 25’ in height and 2 stories, in the B-2d Zoning District.
The parcel is located in three zoning districts, WEDZ-1a, B-2c, and B-2d, in which the
proposed use is permitted; however, the proposed addition is located in the B-2d Zoning
District, which requires a minimum 25 feet in height and a two-story minimum. Section 325-
38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a variance be granted, before a building permit is
issued.
Members of the Board strongly recommend granting this variance. They feel a second story
does not make sense for that particular site. Furthermore, the applicant has made efforts to
make the site more aesthetically pleasing by incorporating design elements sympathetic to
the nearby residential units, and adding landscaping.
5. Old Business
A. Minimum Parking Requirements
The Board discussed and voted upon two separate resolutions, recorded below.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Resolution Amendment
On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Blalock:
It was agreed to incorporate some of the language in the draft resolution introduced by
Schroeder into the draft resolution introduced by Demarest; it was also agreed to accept the
strikeouts (except the last strikeout) from the draft resolution introduced by Schroeder into the
draft resolution introduced by Demarest.
Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements Resolution
On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Blalock:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR ELIMINATION OF
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”) is empowered by § 4-23
B. (1) (c) of the City Code to advise “the Common Council regarding the preparation and revision
of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home parks,
subdivisions, historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related subjects properly within its
jurisdiction,” and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has discussed the issue and consequences of
minimum parking requirements on the built environment, and
WHEREAS, the August 22, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Planning Issues Report states that, in the
future, residents would like to see continued efforts and policies that focus on increasing the
variety of transportation options, so that Ithaca continues to become a less car-centric community,
and
WHEREAS, the literature of both the professional and academic planning community has
demonstrated strong evidence of the negative environmental impacts of requiring developers to
build either surface or covered parking. The impacts include an increase in single-occupancy
automobile use, increased traffic and congestion, and spillover into surrounding communities, and
WHEREAS, the negative impacts of mandated parking are self-evident across the entire city, in
all zones and districts, and
WHEREAS, developers continue to determine and provide, due to market forces and of their own
volition, parking in areas of the city with no minimum parking requirements, and
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements encourage developers to build less housing and
increase the cost of each unit of housing, therefore causing housing to be less affordable than it
otherwise might be, and
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements encourage developers to construct larger and
potentially monolithic buildings out of character with existing neighborhoods, due to the
economy of scale needed to finance the building and subsidize the large cost of parking, and
WHEREAS, parking requirements are not the only zoning or building code requirement used to
limit the type, scale, and character of development, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has the duty to conduct design review and
may place conditions on the aesthetic characteristics of development, regardless of whether or not
a property conforms to all zoning requirements and without any variances being sought, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Building Codes determine the type of occupancy and maximum
number of occupants in any building, in a way that protects the life safety of all occupants and
property, as well as the adjacent property. Any alteration, addition, or change of occupancy to a
building requires a building to meet the requirements of the New York State Building Codes; and
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements reduce the likelihood that smaller non-conforming
buildings will be upgraded and improved, causing a significant hazard to the life safety of the
occupants of substandard buildings and limiting the potential for economic development, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca will be hiring a parking manager in 2013, who will be responsible
for maximizing the revenue from on-street parking by ensuring the current oversupply of parking
is utilized to the fullest extent possible. The revenue from on-street and public garage parking
may be used toward improvements to public infrastructure, and
WHEREAS, eliminating parking requirements will neither reduce the current supply of parking,
nor force people to change their current behavior, but it will encourage more transit options for
those people who do not drive, by choice or economic necessity; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends the Common
Council take immediate action to fully eliminate and disassociate any requirements to build
parking from the approval process for all private developments in all zones and districts within
city boundaries; and be it further
RESOLVED, that other measures to regulate private development shall be thoroughly discussed
with new regulations set forth as quickly as possible. These measures should be considered
within the context of a now virtually completed proposed Collegetown zoning amendment, and
future form-based code in Collegetown, as well as citywide, and should not rely on the
construction of, payment in lieu of the construction of, or any other subsidy to the construction of
parking and the incentivization of the single-occupancy automobile and/or consequently the
direct disincentivization of other modes of transit; and be it further
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends that the Common
Council put in place as soon as practicable a system to charge the proper market-driven price for
public on-street and garage parking, and enact a system whereby such revenue directly benefits
specific areas from which these revenues are derived.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
Collegetown Area Form Districts Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Demarest:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ENACTMENT OF A
COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS PROPOSAL SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”) is empowered by § 4-23
B. (1) (c) of the City Code to advise “the Common Council regarding the preparation and revision
of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home parks,
subdivisions, historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related subjects properly within its
jurisdiction,” and
WHEREAS, existing Collegetown zoning has serious deficiencies, identified at length in the
2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines (and by the extensive public
comment that preceded and formed the basis for that document), which can encourage building
proposals with wholly inappropriate and non-contextual massing, form and materials and poor
urban form throughout Collegetown, and
WHEREAS, the latest iteration of the Collegetown Area Form Districts — a comprehensive
rezoning proposal for the Collegetown area intended to address these serious deficiencies and
substantially improve the urban form, contextuality and appearance of new Collegetown
development — is very near completion, and will likely be presented to Common Council for
consideration and adoption this spring, and
WHEREAS, it is highly desirable, from both community and planning perspectives, that new
Collegetown development proposals that are potentially spurred by the removal of minimum
parking requirements be designed and submitted under the above new zoning regulations, rather
than under the seriously-problematic current zoning regulations, and
WHEREAS, current infrastructure for alternative modes of travel in Collegetown — especially
for pedestrians — ranges from inadequate to seriously deficient, and
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS, removal of minimum parking requirements in Collegetown would eliminate any
possibility of enacting a fee-in-lieu-of-parking system, which — in the 2009 Collegetown Urban
Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines — was intended to provide a dedicated source of revenue
to help fund the badly-needed transportation improvements (especially intended to benefit
pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users) identified in this plan; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board strongly recommends that, simultaneously with the action
of removing minimum parking requirements as recommended in the resolution entitled “Planning
and Development Board Resolution of Support for Elimination of Minimum Parking
Requirements” dated February 26, 2013, and for the reasons stated above, the Common Council
enact a Collegetown Area Form Districts proposal for the Collegetown area; and be it further
RESOLVED, that other measures to regulate private development, particularly outside
Collegetown, shall be thoroughly discussed with new regulations set forth as quickly as possible.
These measures should be considered within the context of a future form-based code for the City,
and should not rely on the construction of, payment in lieu of the construction of, or any subsidy
to the construction of parking and the incentivization of the single-occupancy automobile and/or
consequently the direct disincentivization of other modes of transit; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends that the Common
Council put in place as soon as practicable a system to charge the proper market-driven price for
public on-street and garage parking, and enact a system whereby such revenue directly benefits
specific areas from which these revenues are derived; in the case of Collegetown, this would
provide a substitute for the dedicated stream of revenue (intended to fund pedestrian, bicycle and
transit improvements) that had been identified in the Collegetown plan.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
B. Comprehensive Plan Update
Cornish reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has formed the chapter groups
associated with each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. At least one focus group for each
chapter’s topic area will meet to discuss the content to be included in their respective
sections of the plan. The Committee is in the process of finalizing focus group participation
and facilitation. It is anticipated that focus group meetings will be conducted in March-April
2013.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
6. Reports
A. Director of Planning & Development
Old Elmira Road “Complete Streets” City Improvement Project & Site Plan Review
Cornish reported that the City received a grant to completely renovate Old Elmira Road,
including sidewalks, tree lawns, etc. There has been a considerable amount of concern
expressed by property owners, however, about the cost of the project to them. As a result,
Cornish received numerous phone calls from the public about exactly when the project would
go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Acting City Superintendent Ray
Benjamin indicated he does not believe the project would require Site Plan Review, since it
is merely reconstructing an existing road. Cornish asked Benjamin to summarize in writing
why he believes this to be the case, at which point the City Attorney’s Office will review the
project and make its own determination.
B. Planning Board Chair
(None.)
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya noted a considerable amount of time-sensitivity is associated with the Old Elmira
Road “Complete Streets” City Improvement Project. The intent is for the BPW to vote on it
at its next meeting.
7. Approval of Minutes: 1/22/13
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Demarest, the revised draft 1/22/13 meeting minutes
were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Demarest, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:58 p.m.