HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-03-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
March 26, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (6:08 p.m.); Jack
Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C. J. Randall; John
Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: 1
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Cornell Laundry (527 W. State St.)
Brian Buttner, Applicant, ADR Associates
Maguire Fiat
Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect;
Tim Maguire, Owner
Klarman Hall Cornell University, Goldwin Smith Hall Addition
Fred Koetter, Architect, Koetter Kim & Associates, Inc.;
Mark C. Deshong, Architect, Koetter Kim & Associates,
Inc.;
Gary Wilhelm, Senior Project Manager, Cornell University
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya indicated Zoning Appeal #2902 (108 Homestead Avenue) should be reviewed earlier in
the meeting, since the appellant is already present. Nicholas remarked the Lake Street Pocket
Neighborhood Sketch Plan originally listed on the agenda will not be reviewed at this time, at
the applicant’s request. Schroeder added he would like to discuss issues relating to the current
Board vacancy. No objections were raised to any of proposed adjustments to the agenda.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2. Privilege of the Floor
Tom Shelley, Conservation Advisory Council member, invited the Board to the Climate
Smart & Climate Ready regional conference he has been helping organize, on April 18-21,
2013. He stressed the conference is specifically designed to include participants from local
governments and their boards/committees.
3. Special Order of Business ― Collegetown Zoning Presentation by Megan Wilson
Wilson walked through an overview of the Collegetown Working Group’s recent efforts.
Much like previous proposals, she noted, the Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD)
proposal is a hybrid code, combining elements of form-based zoning with use and density
regulations. As noted in her 3/20/13 concept memorandum to the Planning Board, Wilson
remarked the CAFD plan is intended to:
• Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction;
• Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher-
density and lower-density zoning districts;
• Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the
character of the established residential neighborhoods;
• Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic
component of the urban environment; and
• Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate
modes of transportation.
Schroeder remarked that former City Historic Preservation Planner Chatterton believed
funding would be available to hire a consultant for some streetscape drawings for the CAFD
plan. Cornish replied that is not correct; there is no money available for that purpose.
Schroeder suggested adding CAFD to the Planning Division’s annual workplan, so it can be
moved up on list of City planning priorities. If funding can be obtained, Cornish replied, she
agreed that would be worth doing.
Wilson noted it will probably take 8 weeks to complete the document, once a contract for the
drawings has been signed. In addition to updating the drawings, the consultant will also
generate graphical renderings for each of the zoning district categories.
Cornish indicated the current intent is to have the CAFD plan adopted at the July 2013
Common Council meeting.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Site Plan Review
A. Shipping/Receiving Annex for Cornell Laundry, 527 W. State St., Brian Buttner,
Applicant for Owner, John Gorsky. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval.
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. The applicant has received
permission from NYS DOT for the size and configuration of the curbcuts.
Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that the applicant
finally reached an agreement with the state Department of Transportation to permit two 28-
foot driveways, with an island in between.
Cornish asked if the island would be curbed. Buttner replied, yes, with concrete curbs.
Cornish remarked that standard City guideline call for granite extending to the sidewalk, with
curbing around the entire island. Buttner responded that would be done.
Schroeder asked for revised drawings that would clearly labels the curbs, which Buttner
agreed to provide.
Cornish asked if the fence, labeled on the west side of the site, exists there currently. Buttner
replied, yes, although it will be shortened slightly. Cornish asked if fencing would be
installed on both sides. Buttner replied, no, just on one side. In that case, Schroeder
remarked, curbing should be installed on the east side to protect the shrubs.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
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
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 and will require a tree permit to
remove a City tree. The project has received approval from NYS DOT and the required area
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), 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: on March 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 the 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 March 27,
2012, 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, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in accordance with §176-6 D. of the
City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, did on February 26, 2013 review and accept 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 Board did, on February 25, 2013 make a negative determination of
environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on March 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a
revised “Proposed Storage/Shipping Annex (Site Plan),” with revision dates of 3/26/12, 7/8/12,
10/5/12, 11/20/12, and 2/20/13, prepared by ADR Associates; and other application materials,
now, therefore, be it
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to Cornell Laundry to be
located at 527 West State Street, subject to the following condition:
• Submission to staff of a revised site plan, showing curbing around the center island
between the two entry drives and defining the landscape area at the west edge of the
west entry drive and the east edge of the east entry drive. The latter curb shall continue
east on the inside of the east hedge, to the east property line.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
[See section “5. Zoning Appeals,” below, for the associated recommendation to the BZA.]
B. Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd. (formerly, GreenTree Nursery), Thomas Schickel,
Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Partnership. Consideration of Preliminary &
Final Approval. 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 second-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; 6 display spaces facing at the front of the site; 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; and add two planting islands with
shade trees on the adjacent property. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and has
received the required area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that the project
received two area variances from the BZA. He noted there have been just a few changes to
the project, since it was last reviewed by the Board, including the addition of granite curbs, a
bike rack, and the submission of revised site details and grading. All the elevations are
identical to the ones presented at the last meeting.
Cornish remarked that having wheelstops in the display parking area had also been
discussed. Schickel replied that the applicant was planning on adding lawn mounds in the
display parking area. Cornish asked why the applicant could not install actual wheelstops,
instead.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Maguire responded that the drawback to wheelstops is that rest of the parking lot does not
have them, so there would be a lack of consistency. Cornish noted that the City’s primary
concern is to keep tires off lawn areas. Maguire replied that the applicant would do whatever
needs to be done to prevent that.
Schroeder inquired into the rooftop mechanicals. Schickel replied there will probably be
some, but the applicant has not determined precisely how they would be masked.
Schroeder asked if the vines on the north elevation could also be made to appear on the
landscape plan. Schickel replied, yes.
Schroeder remarked that the Board would also like the opportunity to review the building
material samples (which could simply be submitted to staff), which Schickel agreed to do.
Schroeder inquired into the issue of remediating the soil, as requested by City Forestry
Technician Jeanne Grace, wherever trees are being planted. Schickel indicated the applicant
would do that.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
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 second 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 (16 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 has received 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
7
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: 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 January
22, 2013, 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, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on
February 26, 2013 review and accept 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 Planning and Development Board did, on February 26, 2013 issue
a negative declaration of environmental significance for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on March 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate,
new, revised, and previously unrecorded drawings entitled: “Layout Plan (C1),” dated 1/4/13,
with revision dates of 1/8/13, 2/8/13, and 3/20/12, “Planting Plan (L2),” dated 1/22/13, with a
revision dates of 2/11/13, 2/20/13 and 3/2013; “Pavement Plan (C3),” “Grading Plan (C4),” and
“Utility Plan (C5),” all dated 9/20/12 with a revision date of 3/20/13; and “Site Details (C6),”
dated 9/20/12 with a revision date of 3/20/13; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant preliminary and final site plan approval to
the proposed Maguire Fiat project to be located at 308 Elmira Road, subject to the following
conditions:
i. Applicant shall use remediated soil in the new planting areas, as per a
recommendation of the City Forestry Technician, and
ii. Submission to staff of a revised “Planting Plan (L2),” showing the vines
intended to grow on the north building wall, per color drawing “Elevation
(A2),” and
iii. Submission to staff of a revised “Layout Plan (C1),” showing curbing along
all Maguire Fiat project site green spaces, and
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
iv. Staff to review building materials samples, and
v. Any rooftop mechanicals shall be architecturally integrated into the building
or screened from public view.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
C. Klarman Hall, 232 East Ave., Cornell University, Cornell University, Applicant &
Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a 67,511 SF
addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear of Goldwin Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re-
roof the building. Klarman Hall will contain classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium,
and an enclosed public gathering space. The two buildings will be connected by enlarging
five existing windows on the ground floor of the hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The
proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both for exterior walls and the roof, and
includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several levels. The project includes
landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the sidewalk contiguous to the
building site. The project site is located in the lawn area behind Goldwin Smith Hall and
East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between Goldwin Smith Hall
and Lincoln Hall. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act §617.4(b.)(9), and requires environmental review. The project is in the U-1
Zoning district and the Arts Quad Historic District and requires a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).
Chair Acharya asked each Board member to divulge any potential conflict(s) of interest
she/he may have, involving the project:
• Acharya indicated his wife works at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
(CALS).
• Schroeder indicated he is a Cornell alumnus. (He also works for the Cornell Daily Sun,
but it is unaffiliated with the university.)
• Elliott indicated he is Associate Professor of Design and Environmental Analysis, at the
Cornell College of Human Ecology.
• Blalock indicated he is Associate Professor at the Cornell School of Applied Economics
and Management.
• Jones-Rounds indicated she is a Cornell alumna. Her husband is employed by the
Cornell Human Development EEG and Psychophysiology Laboratory.
• Randall indicated she is a Cornell alumna.
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Wilhelm recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He indicated the design
team is working towards Platinum LEED certification.
Wilhelm asked what requirements would need to be fulfilled for the review of the roof
project. Schroeder responded the Board would simply need documentation of the building
materials, along with images of the samples. Schroeder remarked the roof project appears
beautifully done.
Cornish remarked the roof would ordinarily be a part of the Site Plan Review process, but
since the applicant needs to move forward with it, it will be acceptable to forego formal
approval of it.
Acharya observed the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) will also review it.
Deshong remarked the design team took particular care in designing the project not to block
sight lines. He noted the circulation of people in the new building would continue to connect
the Ag Quad with the Arts Quad; and the public space will still permit the ‘U’ shape of
Goldwin Smith Hall to be recognized. Envisioned as a piazza, the ground floor space will be
almost entirely accessible to the public.
Jones-Rounds inquired into the accessibility of the ground floors. Deshong replied there
would be three accessible entrances.
Deshong noted that at the June 2013 Planning Board meeting Schroeder suggested creating
stonework that is more compatible with Goldwin Smith; so the applicant has created a
textured, sandblasted stone panel system.
Acharya remarked he works in an Ithaca College LEED Platinum building, which
experienced a number of temperature-control problems; he would strongly recommend
troubleshooting the Klarman Hall temperature controls, in advance. Wilhelm responded that
the project schedule allows the applicant some time to work those kinds of issues out. (The
applicant is working with an expert engineer who worked on the Physical Sciences Building,
which has worked almost perfectly as a model.)
Blalock asked if the Admissions Office outdoor counseling space could be made publicly
accessible during non-work hours, since it seems a waste of space otherwise. Wilhelm
replied he would explore that.
Elliott observed that honeysuckle is an invasive plant; the applicant may want to re-assess
that choice. Deshong indicated the applicant would look into that.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds inquired into the number of bicycle parking spaces. Deshong replied that the
applicant surpassed the LEED requirement by a considerable number. Jones-Rounds
remarked that there is a shortage of bicycle spaces in the city and 28 does not necessarily
seem such a large number, for such a large building. She suggested contacting Cornell Big
Red Bikes. Wilhelm replied they did speak with them briefly and they would follow up with
them.
Elliott observed the sunshading system might be an opportunity for some additional solar
panels. Deshong replied they had actually explored that; they determined they really could
not do that and retain the overall quality of lighting they we were looking for.
Blalock inquired into the project’s impact on birdlife. Deshong replied that the applicant has
an Audubon Society report and the bosque is what was recommended for bird protection.
The applicant consulted with Avian Flyaway, which assessed the design. He noted the
building’s atrium roof slopes at too uncomfortable an angle for birds to perch on.
Elliott indicated his only major problem with the project is that the entrance could be made
larger and grander. The entrance box appears a little understated for the kind of grandeur the
rest of the building evokes.
Deshong responded that the appearance of the entrance on the drawings is a little deceiving,
since the whole first floor and the entrance lie at the same elevation. If the entrance were to
be made larger, it would compete too much with the rest of the building.
Jones-Rounds indicated she had similar concerns as Elliott, the first time she saw the
entrance. She suggested making it a slightly different shape. Schroeder agreed, although he
suggested making the entry a little more expressive instead, in order to differentiate it.
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 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 Klarman Hall to be located at 232 East Avenue by Cornell University,
applicant and owner, and
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 67,511 SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear
of Goldwin Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re-roof the building. Klarman Hall will
contain classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space.
The two buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of
the hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both
for exterior walls and the roof, and includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several
levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the
sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between
Goldwin Smith Hall and Lincoln Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and the Arts
Quad Historic District and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
§617.4(b.)(9), 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 Klarman Hall
to be located at 232 East Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: 1
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2901, Area Variance ― 1204 N. Cayuga St.
Appeal of Andrew Willford and Vasantha Narayanan for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 11, front yard, Column 12, side yard, and Column
14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an
addition in the rear yard of the property located at 1204 N. Cayuga Street. The foot print of the
addition will extend into the area where an existing garage is currently located. The garage will be
demolished and the new addition will be constructed for the purpose of a therapy room for their
disabled daughter. The attached new addition will increase the lot coverage from 42.4% to 48.9%.
The ordinance requires a maximum of 35% lot coverage. In order to allow enough floor area for the
proposed use, the applicants would like to position the addition 3’ from the side lot line. The
ordinance requires a minimum of 10’ for the side yard. The rear yard dimension will also be
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
diminished to .06% or 4’8” of the required 25% or 50’ of the zoning ordinance. The property has an
existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued.
The Board agrees that the applicant’s intent is reasonable; however, a drawing of the
proposed addition would be needed to comment on neighborhood compatibility.
Appeal #2902, Temporary Accessory Apartment Permit ― 108 Homestead Ave.
Appeal by Brian Buttner, the owners’ agent and architect, for a temporary accessory apartment permit
allowing the construction and occupancy of a second dwelling unit at 108 Homestead Avenue in
accordance with accessory apartment regulations under Section 325-10 of the City’s Zoning
Ordinance. Jennifer and Clay Birkhall reside in a single family home located at 108 Homestead
Avenue. They are looking to add a new apartment and had the applicant Brian Buttner design this
new unit. The new accessory apartment will be approximately 427 SF. The Accessory Apartment
Ordinance states that the second dwelling unit cannot be more than 1/3 the size of the habitable space
in the main unit. As designed, the accessory apartment will be approximately 18.5% as large as the
habitable space in the main unit as the total habitable space in the existing building is 2,301 SF. This
second apartment will be located above the garage on the second floor of the house in the north east
corner of the building. A new stair enclosure will begin on the upper story’s side yard deck. Inside the
enclosure, a new flight of stairs will bring a tenant up to a shared enclosed landing where a person can
either access the apartment or enter into the primary living quarters. The new apartment has been
designed as a one person studio apartment as and because under Ithaca’s Housing Standard the
bedroom area is only large enough for one person. The property at 108 Homestead Avenue is in an R-
1a zoning district where the proposed use is a permitted accessory use; however, Section 325-10
states that the Board of Zoning Appeals must grant a temporary accessory apartment permit before
the dwelling unit can be constructed and occupied.
The Board recommends approval of this appeal provided that there are no unresolved
neighborhood concerns.
Appeal #2903, Area Variance ― 309 E. Court St.
Appeal of Anna Sears, owner of the property at 313 E. Court St., for area variances from Section 325-
8, column 7, lot width, 325 -8, lot coverage, 325 -8, column 11, front yard setback and 325-8,
Column13, other side yard setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to
resubdivide two adjacent properties at 309 E. Court St. and 313 E. Court St. so that approximately
1,776 square feet of 313 E. Court Street’s, rear yard can be given to 309 E. Court St.. The reason the
applicant wants a portion of the rear yard at 313 E. Court St. to be given to 309 E. Court St. is so that
Anna Sears can preserve the Victorian garden in the backyard of these two properties. Before Anna
Sears became the owner of two properties her mother, Joan Sears, a landscape architect owned both
properties. Joan Sears developed the Victorian garden. Her daughter, now the owner, must sell both
properties because she lives in Rochester; however, she intends to resubdivide the two properties
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
through the subdivision process so her mother’s garden can be saved. To keep the garden is a
testimony to her mother’s skill. She also wants to keep the garden so that then nearby community can
enjoy her work. The property as subdivided would increase its size by approximately 1776 square
feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 6,065 to approximately 7,840 square
feet. Required Is 7000 square feet. It will no longer be deficient in percentage of lot coverage.
Currently the percentage of lot coverage is 41.6%, proposed is 32.6%. It is deficient in lot width.
Required is 50 feet, lot width is 48.96 feet. It is deficient in front yard setback. Required is 10 feet.
The front yard setback is 5 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback. Required is 5 feet.
The existing deficiency is 2 feet. 313 E. Court St. is in an R3 a use district. Section 290 – 17 requires
that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The applicant cannot re subdivide
313 E. Court St. and 309 E. Court St. without the BZA granting area variances for the deficiencies
listed above.
Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal. The garden is accessed
only from 309 Court Street. Granting this appeal will insure the preservation of the garden
as a continuous unified landscape and a testament to Ms. Sears, who was a longtime patron
of the arts in Ithaca. The Board looks forward to reviewing the forthcoming subdivision
application.
Appeal #2904, Area Variance ― 313 E. Court St.
Appeal of Anna Sears, owner of the property at 313 E. Court St., for area variances from Section 325-
8, column 6 lot size, 325 -8, column 7, lot width, 325 -8, column 10, percentage of lot coverage, 325 -
8, column 11, front yard setback and 325-8, Column13, other side yard setback, requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to resubdivide two adjacent properties at 309 E. Court St.
and 313 E. Court St. so that approximately 1690 square feet of 313 E. Court Street’s, rear yard can
be given to 309 E. Court St.. The reason the applicant wants a portion of the rear yard at 313 E. Court
St. to be given to 309 E. Court St. is so that Anna Sears can preserve the Victorian garden in the
backyard of these two properties. Before Anna Sears became the owner of two properties her mother,
Joan Sears, a landscape architect owned both properties. Joan Sears developed the Victorian garden.
Her daughter, now the owner, must sell both properties because she lives in Rochester. However she
intends to resubdivide the two properties through the subdivision process so her mother’s garden can
be saved. To keep the garden is a testimony to her mother’s skill. She also wants to keep the garden,
so that then nearby community can enjoy her work. Before resubdividing the property at 313 E.
Court St. the property would not be deficient in the percentage of lot coverage. The proposed
deficiencies would be lot area. The property as subdivided would decrease its size by approximately
1690 square feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 5987 square feet to
approximately 4225 square feet. Required Is 7000 square feet. It will be deficient in lot width.
Required is 50 feet. The lot width is 45.3 feet. It will be deficient in percentage of lot coverage.
Currently, percentage of lot coverage is 26% proposed is 36.6%. It is deficient in front yard setback.
Required is 10 feet. The front yard setback is 8 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback.
Required is 5 feet. The existing deficiency is .5 feet. 313 E. Court St. is in an R-3 use district.
Section 290-17 requires that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The
applicant cannot re subdivide 313 E. Court St. and 309 E. Court St. without the BZA granting area
variances for the deficiencies listed above.
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal. The garden is accessed
only from 309 Court Street. Granting this appeal will insure the preservation of the garden
as a continuous unified landscape and a testament to Ms. Sears, who was a longtime patron
of the arts in Ithaca. The Board looks forward to reviewing the forthcoming subdivision
application.
Appeal #2905, Area Variance ― 310 First St.
Appeal of Carl Feuer and Carol Cedarholm, 310 First Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8,
column 11, the front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants, Mr. Feuer
and Ms. Cedarholm, have owned the property at 310 First Street for over 30 years and wish to
redesign the existing front portion of the house converting it from a duplex to a single family home.
The redesign of the house includes a new wraparound porch in the front yard and at the south side of
the house. The new porch will replace an existing porch in the front yard that extends approximately
5 feet into the required 10 foot setback. On the south side of this house, this approximately 5 foot
wide porch will also extend approximately 5 feet into a 10 foot required front yard setback. This will
extend the existing 5 foot deficiency in the front yard by approximately 25 SF. The portion of the
front porch that will extend into the front yard is approximately 17 feet x 5 feet or 85 square feet. The
property at 310 First Street is in a R-2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however,
Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a use
variance can be granted.
The Board strongly recommends approval of this appeal. The proposed changes improve the
aesthetics of the house and benefit the neighborhood.
6. Old Business
A. Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements Proposal ― Comments to
Common Council
Cornish remarked that the Board already commented on the Elimination of Minimum
Parking Requirements proposal last month to the Planning Committee.
On a related subject, Schroeder suggested it may make sense to retain the maximum parking
requirements in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, for projects over a certain size (e.g., Stone
Quarry Apartments). Cornish responded that she believes that all the changes to the R-1 and
R-2 Zoning Districts will be repealed, since they are not enforceable by the Building
Division.
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B. Downtown Rezoning Proposal ― Comments to Common Council
Cornish indicated the Planning & Economic Development Committee has requested some
changes be made to the proposal, after which it will be circulated to a wider group for
comments.
Acharya observed that former Planning Board member, Noah Demarest, should probably not
be serving on the Collegetown Working Group anymore, given his declared conflict of
interest.
Acharya asked if the Planning Boar would have enough time to comment, if it waited a
month. Cornish replied, yes.
Acharya remarked that the main concerns expressed by the Planning Board have been
addressed.
6. New Business
A. Planning Board Membership
Schroeder remarked it recently occurred to him that the Planning Board’s membership
appears to be heavily concentrated in Ward 5 and he is concerned with that kind of
disproportionate representation. Acharya agreed that is an important concern.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
None.
B. Director of Planning & Development
Cornish reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has begun the process of
convening its designated focus groups, which have elicited some very good discussions and
some excellent attendance, so the Comprehensive Plan is making some progress.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya reported that the BPW had a very long meeting regarding funding the new City
water treatment plant. Acharya also noted he is on the City’s Sidewalk Task Force, which is
seeking ways to get sidewalks funded by the community-at-large, rather than individual
property owners. Schroeder responded that fewer sidewalks may end up being built, if that
were the case. He also wonders if this would hinder the Planning Board’s ability to require
sidewalks in the projects it reviews, since it would be obligating the City to build them.
Acharya agreed that is an important consideration.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Blalock observed it would also be important to ensure non-profit organizations contribute
towards the construction of new sidewalks by the City, since they do not pay property taxes.
8. Approval of Minutes
No minutes were approved.
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.