HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-06-25DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
June 25, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Isabel
Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C. J. Randall; John
Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 325 Elm Street Subdivision
Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS)
901 East State St., Collegetown Terrace Apartments Subdivision
Tom Nix, Applicant;
John Novarr, Owner
Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project)
Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates;
David Lubin, Owner/Applicant;
Craig Jensen, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects
130 Clinton Street Apartments
Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates;
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects;
David A. Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C.;
Gary L. Wood, Engineering Consultant
700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream
Kate Krueger, John Snyder, John Snyder Architects;
Bruce Lane, Purity Ice Cream;
Heather Lambert, Landscape Architect
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Thurston Avenue Apartments
Greg Martin, Applicant;
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya indicated the Board would not review the agenda item for “602 Seneca Street Apartments
― Request for Modifications to Approved Signage,” at the owner’s request.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Pam Markham, 520 Chestnut Street, spoke in opposition to the 325 Elm Street Subdivision
application.
Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke in opposition to the moral degradation in portions of the city’s
urban environment and concomitant drug use, prostitution, and panhandling.
Michael Kasel, 320 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to the 325 Elm Street Subdivision
application, noting that INHS does not properly manage another of its properties, just a little
further down the street, judging by the kinds of people he has observed living there and the
absence of a safe environment.
Sharon Kasel, 320 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to the 325 Elm Street Subdivision
application. While she admires and supports the applicant’s work in community, she feels
the West Hill neighborhood has already been saturated with low-income housing (which she
believes may have contributed to the recent increase in violence in the area). She added that,
while INHS has no current plans to develop the site, that would likely change in 6-12
months.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 325 Elm St., Tax Parcel #76.-2-10, Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services (INHS), Applicant & Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency,
Determination of Environmental Significance, Public Hearing, and Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.732-
acre property into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.472 acres (20,560 SF), with 154 feet of
frontage on Elm Street, 124 feet of frontage on West Village Place, and containing an
existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 0.260 acres (11,326 SF) with 88 feet of
frontage on West Village Place. The property is in R-2a Zoning District, requiring a
minimum lot size of 5,000 SF, width at-street of 45-50 feet, front yard and side yard setbacks
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
of 25 and 10 feet, respectively, and a rear yard setback of 25%, or 50 feet. 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.
Applicant Paul Mazzarella recapitulated the salient details of the proposed subdivision. The
purpose is to create a slightly more easily-developed site for potential future development.
INHS already explored some conceptual plans for potential projects on the site (primarily
one- or two-family owner-occupied homes). While Mazzarella sympathized with the
neighbors’ concerns, he emphasized that most of the negative occurrences mentioned were
due to poor property management, and are not the direct result of the kind of project INHS
would likely build on the site. In fact, one of the reasons INHS is not currently undertaking a
development project on the site is that it first wants to ensure people feel comfortable buying
property and living there.
Jones-Rounds disclosed she is a recipient of INHS first-time homebuyer financial assistance.
As a result, she is not particularly sympathetic to the contention first-time homebuyers would
somehow detract from the neighborhood’s quality-of-life. She added that any project INHS
may pursue in the future would go before the Planning Board, when neighbors and other
community members would be free to express their views.
Cornish explained that single- and two-family homes are also required to go through a
limited staff-led Site Plan Review process. Furthermore, were there ever any indication or
concern that a project would generate public controversy, then it would be referred to the full
Planning Board. Cornish remarked that there is no justifiable reason for not approving a
subdivision application that meets the letter of the law.
Schroeder agreed he does not believe there is any basis for the Planning Board’s denying the
application. It would be fair to inquire, however, if that segment of Elm Street is
appropriately zoned.
Acharya noted that considerable thought should be given to designing a better plan for that
area, including rezoning as an option. He stressed that concerned neighbors should really be
addressing their concerns to Common Council.
Elliott indicated the ideal ratio for a mixed-income neighborhood is 25:75 (low-income to
moderate-income). Any higher than 25% risks destabilizing a neighborhood. If there is a
genuine problem in this particular neighborhood, the ratio may be out of balance (which
INHS may want to account for, in any future plans).
Elliott asked Mazzarella if INHS ever considered postponing the subdivision application.
Mazzarella replied, no, since INHS is contracted to sell 325 Elm Street, contingent on the
subdivision, and the buyer has already moved in, under a pre-possession agreement.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #76.-2-10,
by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), owner and applicant, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.732-acre property into two parcels:
Parcel A, measuring 0.472 acres (20,560 SF), with 154 feet of frontage on Elm Street, 124 feet of
frontage on West Village Place, and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B,
measuring 0.260 acres (11,326 SF) with 88 feet of frontage on West Village Place. The property
is in the R-2a Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF, width at-street of 45-50
feet, front yard and side yard setbacks of 25 and 10 feet, respectively, and a rear yard setback of
25%, or 50 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation
of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all
comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on May 28, 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; a plat entitled “Subdivision
Map No. 325 Elm Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller,
P.C., and dated 3/19/13; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-2a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration
for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing.
Sharon Kasel, 320 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to the 325 Elm Street Subdivision. She
observed the 200-block of Elm Street is poorly managed and directly across the street from
her. She asked to be notified of any future development plans in the neighborhood. Kasel
suggested Jones-Rounds recuse herself from formal consideration of future development
proposals for the site, given her relationship with INHS.
Jeff Jordan, 130 Chestnut Street, spoke against the Elm Street Subdivision, noting that the
neighborhood has measurably deteriorated, since he moved in decades ago. There are
constant troubles, crime, shootings, etc.
Pam Markham, 130 Chestnut St, spoke against the Elm Street subdivision, remarking that
INHS does not have a good history of maintaining the areas adjacent to its properties (e.g.,
shoveling sidewalks, mowing lawns, etc.).
Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke against the Elm Street subdivision, in light of the persistent
drug use in the neighborhood, which the City should be using its influence to reduce.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Elliott, and
unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Acharya remarked the most important issue to emerge from the neighbors’ complaints is that
the neighborhood needs to have a say in the process. It is imperative INHS hold regular
conversations with neighborhood residents. Acharya reiterated it is Common Council which
needs to address these kinds of issues, since it is the sole body with zoning authority.
Schroeder agreed.
Acharya observed there also appears to be confusion regarding what the subdivision process
actually entails. It is merely the act of splitting the original parcel into two separate parcels,
and nothing more.
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Fernández asked if INHS would be required to maintain the property on its half of the parcel.
Cornish replied, yes, and other City laws already govern those kinds of issues (e.g., exterior
property maintenance regulations).
Acharya asked the applicant for clarification of the claim that snow shoveling and exterior
property maintenance have not been properly performed on some INHS properties.
Mazzarella replied he thinks INHS actually does a very good job, in both respects. His only
thought is that there may have been some occasions when some people lived in or visited a
property, and caused some problems (e.g., a live-in companion), which INHS could not
possibly have prevented. He added most of the properties associated with these kinds of
complaints are not INHS properties.
Blalock observed that it seems the interests and incentives of both community residents and
INHS are aligned, in this situation; and they should certainly be able to maintain regular
communication with each other.
Mazzarella remarked that many of the concerned neighbors probably overlook that a large
proportion of the people living in the area are both low-income residents and good
neighbors.
Jones-Rounds noted her personal connection to INHS should not represent a conflict-of-
interest, in this case, since only a Subdivision application is being considered. No objections
were raised.
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #76.-2-10,
by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), owner and applicant, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.732-acre property into two parcels:
Parcel A, measuring 0.472 acres (20,560 SF), with 154 feet of frontage on Elm Street, 124 feet of
frontage on West Village Place, and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B,
measuring 0.260 acres (11,326 SF), with 88 feet of frontage on West Village Place. The property
is in the R-2a Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF, width at-street of 45-50
feet, front yard and side yard setbacks of 25 and 10 feet, respectively, and a rear yard setback of
25%, or 50 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation
of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners
notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on June 25,
2013, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all
comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on May 28, 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; and a plat entitled “Subdivision
Map No. 325 Elm Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller,
P.C., and dated 3/19/13; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 25, 2013 make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and
reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-2a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed minor subdivision of City of Ithaca
Tax Parcel #76.-2-10, by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), owner and applicant,
subject to submission of three paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and
signature of a registered licensed surveyor.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
B. Minor Subdivision, East State St. (Collegetown Terrace), Tax Parcel #83.-2-15.3,
John Novarr, Valentine Vision Associates, LLC, Applicant & Owner. Declaration of
Lead Agency, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to
Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 11.171-acre
property into two parcels: Lot 3A, measuring 0.2636 acres, with approximately 635 feet of
frontage on E. State Street and 213 feet on Valentine Place and containing 901 E. State Street
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
and Buildings 3 (under construction), 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 (all completed and occupied) of the
previously approved Collegetown Terrace Apartments project; and Lot 3B, measuring 8.535
acres, with 50 feet of frontage on Valentine Place and to contain proposed Buildings 5, 6,
and 7 of the previously approved Collegetown Terrace Apartments project. The proposed
Lot 3A is in the R-3A Zoning District and the proposed Lot 3B is in the R-3 and P-1 Zoning
Districts. The subdivision requires a variance for lot area, lot coverage, and rear yard
setback. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder,
seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Applicant Tom Nix recapitulated the salient details of the project.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #83.-2-15.3
by Valentine Vision Associates, LLC, owner and applicant, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 11.171-acre property into two
parcels: Lot 3A, measuring 0.2636 acres, with approximately 635 feet of frontage on E. State
Street and 213 feet on Valentine Place, and containing 901 E. State Street and Buildings 3 (under
construction), 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 (all completed and occupied) of the previously approved
Collegetown Terrace Apartments project; and Lot 3B, measuring 8.535 acres, with 50 feet of
frontage on Valentine Place and to contain proposed Buildings 5, 6, and 7 of the previously
approved Collegetown Terrace Apartments project. The proposed Lot 3A is in the R-3a Zoning
District and the proposed Lot 3B is in the R-3a and the P-1 Zoning Districts. The subdivision has
received the required variances for lot area, lot coverage, and rear yard setback, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation
of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners
notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on June 25,
2013, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and no
comments have been received to date on the aforementioned, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on May 28, 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; and a plat entitled “Amended
Subdivision Plat Showing Lands of Valentine Vision Associates, LLC,” prepared by T.G. Miller,
P.C., and dated 5/20/12, with a revision of 4/9/13; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on May 28, 2013 make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes the applicant has received the
required area variances for this subdivision, so the resultant parcels are in conformance with the
City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed minor subdivision of City of Ithaca
Tax Parcel #83.-2-15.3 by Valentine Vision Associates, LLC. Owner and applicant subject to
submission of three paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature
of a registered licensed surveyor.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
3. Downtown Zoning Changes
(No discussion took place.)
3. Site Plan Review
A. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135, & 137-139 E. State St. on
the Commons, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Adoption of
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
FEAF, Part 3. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 11-story (including
roof
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
space), mixed-use building of approximately 151,000 GSF. The project will include one
story (11,555 SF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (51,185 SF) of upper-story office, and
six stories of residential (up to 46 units). The residential tower has been redesigned from
previous submissions. It is set back 62’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade with
two one-story step-backs. The building will have two main entrances, on the Commons and
Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The applicant proposes an exterior
bridge connecting the third floor to the Green Street parking garage. In addition to typical
rooftop mechanical elements, the top of the tower will include a glassed-in multipurpose
room for use by building office and residential tenants, as well as a small fitness room and a
west-facing terrace. The applicant proposes to work with the City to reconfigure the service
functions at the rear of the building, including trash/recycling storage and pick-up and
deliveries. 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. The project may require a
State Building Code Variance.
Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the applicant team
had a productive meeting with the Project Review Committee.
Discussion of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
Cornish expressed concern the applicant may not be able to meet the originally agreed-upon
construction schedule and, if so, whether that would have any impact on the City’s Commons
redesign project. Whitham replied the applicant remains on schedule and the timing of
construction on both projects should continue to be aligned.
Schroeder asked if the City Traffic Engineer approved the project. Cornish replied she
believes he is comfortable with it (although he has not seen the documents submitted today).
Elliott remarked the principal problem he has with the façade design is that it simply looks
like one broad brush-stroke, rather than a collection of independently designed styles. If the
applicant is merely altering the superficial details of the design, it will not be sufficient to
address the New York State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) concerns.
Randall observed that the auto-turn radius is only for a 30-foot truck, which may be a
problem. Whitham replied the applicant would respond to that and provide all the turning
radius information.
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 11-story (including roof space), mixed-use
building of approximately 151,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,555 SF) of
ground-floor retail, three stories (51,185 SF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential
space (up to 46 units). The residential tower has been redesigned from previous submissions. It is
set back 62’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade, with two one-story step-backs. The
building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one facing Green Street, with an
atrium linking the two streets. The applicant proposes an exterior bridge connecting the third floor
to the Green Street parking garage. In addition to standard rooftop mechanical elements, the top of
the tower will include a glassed-in multi-purpose room for use by the building's office and
residential tenants, as well as a small fitness room and a south-facing terrace.
The project is in the CDB-60 and CDB-140 Zoning Districts and requires an area variance for rear
yard setback. 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.
The project may require a State Building Code Variance.
IMPACT ON LAND
The project site is in the downtown core and has been extensively developed. The site currently
contains the two-story building at 123-127 E. State Street, the one-story building at 133 E. State
Street, and the two-story building at 135 E. State Street, all of which will be demolished to allow
redevelopment of the site. The three-story Sage Block at 137-139 E. State Street at the east of the
site will be retained and incorporated into the project.
Construction duration is estimated at 18 months, beginning Spring 2014.
Foundation Work:
The current basement floor plan illustrates a full-depth basement under most of the proposed
structure. The existing buildings on the site to be demolished also have full basements; therefore,
the applicant expects the amount of excavation to be limited. At the north side of the site, abutting
the Commons, the intent is to save as much of the existing basement retaining walls as possible, to
act as embankment shoring. As needed, the soils will be benched back into the Ithaca Commons
and its coinciding construction project. To maintain as much of the rear alley way as possible for
construction access, sheet piling shall be provided along the south edge of the site. The existing
basement walls of the neighboring buildings to the east and west will be completely exposed
during demolition and excavation. Sheet piling along the north side (Commons) is not anticipated,
if the foundation activities occur simultaneously with, or prior to the completion of, the Ithaca
Commons Repair and Upgrade Project underground utilities replacement work.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Based upon expected loads and soil conditions of neighboring projects, it is currently assumed the
new structure will be completely supported on a mat foundation. In the applicant’s wording:
“A mat foundation is essentially a holistic approach to total building support. It provides the most
simple foundation systems as used by the Egyptians to support the pyramids or a gravity dam. It is
a single footing that will be below street level that is 3 feet thick, 20,000 SF comprising 2,300 CY
of concrete. The footing relies on its contiguous construction and gravity to tie the whole building
substructure. It is composed of 3 simple steps; dig a big hole, set concrete reinforcing as designed
by the New York State registered engineer in the hole and then fill said hole with 3 feet of concrete
continuously until the pour is done. It should be noted that the foundation consists of all natural
ingredients of steel and concrete made of fired limestone, sand, natural qualified and graded
aggregate and pure Finger Lakes water and will be installed using best practices for sustainable
construction.”
The entire basement slab shall be a soil-supported slab-on-grade. Most of the work will be done
within the project footprint, and within the parameters described in the construction routing plans
and narrative.
The foundation work is anticipated to coincide and be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons
utilities replacement work.
Potential Construction Impacts — Foundation Work:
• Lack of access to rear alley. The proposed construction limit line extends to the parking
garage, completely blocking the public way for the duration of the project.
• The project site is in close proximity to residential, office, and retail uses. Construction
activities will create short-term, but nevertheless significant disturbances to all daytime users,
particularly in combination with the concurrent Commons project.
• Encroachment on City properties / utilities.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
• Upon exposure of the neighboring basement foundation walls, their condition will be
assessed and repairs will be coordinated, as required, with the building owners to maintain
the integrity of those buildings and a safe construction environment.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• Noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
• The applicant shall provide a pedestrian access plan for review and approval by the City
Transportation Engineer and the Planning and Development Board.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON WATER
No impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required.
No impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Construction impacts only.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON ÆSTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site is in the downtown core and has been extensively developed. The site currently
contains the two-story former CVS/Race Office Building at 123-127 East State Street, the one-
story 133 East State Street, and the two-story former Harold’s Army and Navy Store at 135 East
State Street, all of which will be demolished to allow redevelopment of the site. The three-story
Sage Block at the east of the site will be retained and incorporated into the project.
Due to the proposed 11-story residential tower on the Green Street side of the building (six stories
of residential, plus roof programming, above four stories of retail and office), the building will be
visible from many points in the city, including downtown, and East, West and South Hills. The
building will also have a visible presence along the Green Street and Cayuga Street corridors.
Because of its height and prominent location, the appearance of all building facades is significant,
including the portion of the north façade that is on the Commons.
Building details, materials and colors will be further developed during Design Review and Site
Plan Review to ensure they are in harmony with existing Ithaca Commons buildings and the new
Ithaca Commons project finishes.
In a letter dated 3/26/13 from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lisa
Nicholas, Senior Planner, the following initial comment was submitted regarding impact to
æsthetic resources:
“It is encouraging to see the project intention to build in accordance with U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED guidelines. To further advance energy savings, we suggest the consideration of a
green roof for the portion which fronts the Commons. This would also provide a much more
aesthetically pleasing view for the occupants of residential units. If a green roof is not required,
then at minimum light colored reflective roofing materials should be required.”
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In a subsequent letter, dated 4/22/13, from Marx to Nicholas, the following comment was
submitted regarding æsthetic resources:
“We also recognize the visual modeling provided with this application as a first step to analyzing
visual impacts, but recommend that the City require an industry standard visual impact
assessment that superimposes the proposed structure on updated photographic imagery and
includes analysis of the various shadow and visual impacts. This analysis should include views
from the County Library and Green Street bus stops where the most significant change in the
character of the built environment is likely to occur.”
The applicant has provided a series of visualizations depicting the project from areas around the
Commons to the satisfaction of the Lead Agency. Nevertheless, visualizations from the library and
bus stop are being prepared.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
• The massing of the new structure will allocate the retail/business portion of its program on
the first four floors at a maximum height of 60 feet, as allowed by zoning code. The taller
residential portion of the project will be positioned along the perimeter of south property line
(parallel to East Green Street), approximately 62 feet away from the Ithaca Commons with
two one-story step-backs.
The applicant states that this organization of building massing is intended to achieve the following:
• Mitigate the perception of the overall height of the building from the street, and maintain the
existing street character and scale along the Ithaca Commons.
• Allow residential units to have maximum access to natural daylight and impressive views of
the surrounding city and landscape.
• The tower portion of the project can establish a visual, iconic ‘marker’ of the Ithaca
Commons district, as it can be viewed from a distance from different surrounding locations.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• Building details, materials and colors will be further developed during Design Review and
Site Plan Review to ensure they are in harmony with existing Ithaca Commons buildings and
the new Ithaca Commons project finishes.
• The possibility of a green roof or light-colored roof will be considered during Site Plan
Review.
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The proposed project is within the boundaries of the Downtown National Register Historic District
and will be visible from within that district. None of the buildings is designated a local landmark.
The Downtown National Register Historic District does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).
Structures to be demolished for the project are the two-story building at 123-127 E. State Street
(formerly, Race Office Supply), the one-story building at 133 E. State Street (formerly, Alphabet
Soup), and the two-story building at 135 E. State Street (formerly, Night and Day). The three-story
Sage Block at 137-139 E. State Street at the east of the site will be retained and incorporated into
the project. All except 133 E. State Street are contributing structures within the National Register
District.
The Sage Block (1884) was designed by William Henry Miller (1848-1922) and housed his
professional office. Miller was Cornell University’s first student of architecture under Charles
Babcock in 1868. He designed over 70 structures in Ithaca, including the DeWitt Building, Uris
Library, Risley Hall and three downtown churches. The Sage Block is in the Renaissance Revival
style, with contrasting brick walls and stone trim, terra cotta, and projecting cornice.
Redevelopment aims to preserve and repair the exterior of the structure and connect its upper
floors to a new elevator system, allowing those floors to be fully utilized and programmed.
In a letter dated April 22, 2013 from James Warren of the New York State Division of Historic
Preservation to Lynn Truame, City of Ithaca Historic Preservation Planner, the following
comments were provided:
“Were this under our review as a regulatory matter it would be deemed to have an adverse impact
on historic resources simply for the demolition of properties contributing to the National Register
of Historic Places listed lthaca Downtown Historic District. Manipulation of the design of the
replacement building is a matter of mitigation for that loss.
The proposed building presents a face to the commons that attempts to reflect the rhythm and
articulation of the late 19th century streetscape surviving remarkably well on the opposite (north)
side of the commons. The massing and texture evoke the historic commercial row but the success
of that effort is undercut by a limited palate [sic] of materials and colors. This can be easily
addressed and the input of the historic preservation community in Ithaca will be valuable in
refining the façade. […]
The latest revision does expand the residential floors to make greater use of the allowable setback
envelope, but that gain is offset by only a 12” lowering of the overall height (top of roof). Further
expansion of the lower floors should allow a greater reduction in height — one story, at least —
without a loss of square footage.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The south side of the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of East State Street have suffered a considerable
loss of historic fabric from fires of the late 1960’s, the demolition of Rothschild's and construction
of Centre Ithaca and a new Rothschild's department store. The City of Ithaca should consider the
cumulative effects of ongoing physical development on the historic character of the remaining
historic streetscape. I question whether the fiscal health of The Commons will be well served by
new, competing retail space when commercial vacancies have been a persistent issue on The
Commons. Historic Preservation is an economic problem as well as a brick-and-mortar issue.”
Additionally, City of Ithaca Historic Preservation Planner Lynn Truame, on the fourth page of an
April, 2013 memo, expresses detailed concerns regarding the proposed Commons façade of
Harold’s Square within the context of downtown’s historic buildings.
The Lead Agency is concerned that as a National Register District, the Downtown National
Register Historic District is not protected under the City’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.
Recognizing both the important place-defining role of this district, as well as the increasing level
of development interest in the Commons, the Lead Agency, in reviewing this project, strives to
balance preservation of the district as a whole with allowing for a development that will bring
more vitality to the Commons and provide benefits to all city residents.
To protect the Ithaca Commons’ historic fabric, the Lead Agency has determined it is a high
priority to preserve three or more story contributing Downtown National Register Historic District
buildings, which tend to be those with the most integrity and the least amount of substantial
alteration. In addition, with specific reference to the Harold’s Square project site, the Lead Agency
has determined that the following categories of buildings on this project site have a lower priority,
and may be considered for demolition in the interest of promoting downtown density:
(1) Buildings that have been categorized as non-contributing to the Downtown National Register
Historic District, and
(2) Buildings that, though contributing to this district, are only one or two stories tall.
Of the three buildings proposed for demolition as part of the Harold’s Square project, 133 E. State
Street falls into the first category, and 123-127 E. State Street and 135 E. State Street fall into the
second category.
Prioritizing preservation within the Downtown National Register Historic District in this way has
the following additional rationale:
• The overwhelming majority of contributing buildings within the Downtown National
Register Historic District are three or more stories tall, and would have a high priority for
preservation. (Note: One important two-story contributing building, the State Theatre, is fully
protected by local historic designation.)
• The City goal for any redevelopment of the Commons is to increase density ― to provide
more housing, office and retail space. Sites containing one- or two-story buildings in the
downtown core are, by definition, low-density and potentially underutilized.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Development resulting from the replacement of some one- and two-story buildings,
particularly on the primarily three- to five-story Commons, would have the potential to
regularize the roof / cornice line ― creating an aesthetically unifying effect.
• The appropriateness of any future proposals to demolish one- or two-story contributing
buildings can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
While following this rationale, the Lead Agency recognizes that the loss of the buildings at 123-
127 and 135 E. State Street is not without some impact. Both have unique elements that add to the
historic fabric of the Commons; 123-127 has a distinctive green tile (false) roof, as well as
decorative molding and patterning along the cornice line and carved limestone around the second
floor windows, while 135 has a stone belt course and lintels above second-story wood-shuttered
windows.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
In a letter to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, from Craig Jensen, Project Architect, dated May 31,
2013, the applicant states the project team has incorporated the following considerations to
maintain the distinctive quality of the Ithaca Commons historic district:
• The north façade of the new building will uphold the 60 foot height limit established for
buildings on the Commons.
• The north façade will be visually segmented into three- and four-story portions to provide
vertical variety and interest along the Commons.
• To lessen its perceived overall width, the building’s north façade is articulated every 30 feet
(reflecting building widths typically seen on the Commons).
• Retail occupancy will be located at the Commons level and large areas of glass storefront will
be provided along the pedestrian streetscape in keeping with the historic, commercial nature
of the district.
• The proportions of window openings on the upper floors of the north elevation echo the
proportions of other building openings nearby.
• Horizontal, opaque zones or “banding” on the new façade reflects the existing visual banding
currently prominent on adjacent and neighboring structures.
• Articulated cornices on the new elevation are provided as a gesture to those traditional
elements characteristically found on other Commons buildings.
• Under consideration is the use of varied-colored terra cotta rain-screen cladding on the north
façade; terra cotta is, of course, a traditional cladding material that will well complement the
surrounding materials palette of existing structures.
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• To lessen the likelihood of its visual presence on the Commons, the residential tower portion
of the project is set back 62 feet from the northern edge of the project boundary.
In regard to the Sage Block, the applicant states the following:
With regards to the Sage Block, L Enterprises, LLC has committed to following the standards and
guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties for rehabilitation of historic buildings. While it has undergone a variety of alterations
over time, the Sage Block’s distinctive, decorative terra cotta relief, cornice, and stone banding
have endured and will continue to contribute to the character of the surrounding environment. As
part of the development, the Sage Block will be rehabilitated with a number of improvements,
some of which include:
• Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the building.
• Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls.
• Repair and / or replacement of the existing roof.
• New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the building.
When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated to the point of
requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color, texture, and perhaps
material construction.
• Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided-light
pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block
building.
• The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space.
• The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with
additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• The applicant shall continue to refine the design, materials and colors of the Commons-facing
façade during Design Review and Site Plan Review to increase its compatibility with the
historic fabric of the Commons and to address the concerns noted above.
• Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the
ILPC, using the same standards it uses to evaluate proposed work on locally-designated
buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of the entire cornice; (2) evaluation
of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with significant experience in restoring
wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing and repairing the existing
exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where brickwork is
interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street.
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123-127 E. State Street shall be
salvaged and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the
salvaged carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square
project, if the applicant so desires.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
The project is in the downtown core, proximate to TCAT bus service, three public parking
garages, and pedestrian amenities. Except for deliveries and loading / unloading ― building
visitors, residents, and workers will arrive on foot.
Construction Impacts:
The construction phase is projected to last 18 months. Potential construction-related traffic
impacts include impacts related to construction materials delivery and staging, contractor parking,
and pedestrian circulation.
Construction access will be both from the north (Commons) and south (alley) side of the project.
The applicant anticipates 95% of construction access will be from the rear of the site, since it is
the most reasonable access with the least disturbance to the public and businesses on the
Commons. Commons-side access will be needed approximately 5% of the time, first at the start
of the project for placement and removal of the tower crane, and then at the end of the project for
façade work.
The applicant intends to barricade the sidewalk on the Commons side of the project and the
public way on the alley side of the project ― the latter to the limits of, and under, the City garage
― for the duration of the project. Barricade construction will consist of fencing, scaffolding and
jersey barriers.
Since the building is being constructed as a zero lot line project, there is little opportunity to stage
material on-site until the superstructure is in place. Upon the erection of the building, material
can be stored inside. On-site staging will be limited to the daily delivery of materials to be put in
place. It is the intent of the developer to secure a lot during construction on Route 13 for off-site
construction materials.
Throughout the course of the project, there will be upwards of 150 people employed. The
applicant intends to accommodate contractor parking needs through a combination of permit
parking at existing downtown parking garages and the material staging lot on Route 13, with a
shuttle. Once the building is enclosed, night-shift workers will use the Green Street garage.
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
All construction materials will arrive on site via tractor trailer. The applicant will submit a traffic
control and truck routing plan for review and approval. The applicant anticipates 95% of project
deliveries will come through the alley side, and will be unloaded by tower crane or manual labor
onto the construction elevator, to be located at the southwest corner of the building.
The applicant intends to employ a public safety officer for the project, who will work with project
management to ensure traffic barricades, fencing, site access, and traffic control are maintained.
This person will be the contact person for all City departments, where public safety is concerned.
Construction Impacts:
• Lack of access to rear alley for the duration for the project. The proposed construction limit
line extends to the parking garage, completely blocking the public way.
• Traffic congestion / street closure, due to deliveries.
In a letter dated 4/22/13 from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lisa
Nicholas, Senior Planner, the following initial comment was submitted regarding transportation:
“A full analysis of the impacts of this project should include an assessment of the traffic impacts
of the project to ensure that they are in line with the thresholds established by the traffic analysis
that was conducted in anticipation of the Cayuga Green project. If not, an updated traffic impact
assessment should be required.”
The applicant submitted a trip generation analysis and response to the above comments in a report
by Fagan Engineers, dated 4/30/13, that is under review by the City Transportation Engineer.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• The applicant shall provide a pedestrian access plan for review and approval by the City
Transportation Engineer and the Planning and Development Board.
• The applicant shall provide a traffic control and truck routing plan for review and approval by
the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board.
• The applicant shall provide a more detailed construction impacts and staging plan for review
and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
In a letter dated 3/26/13 from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lisa
Nicholas, Senior Planner, the following initial comment was submitted regarding energy:
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
“It is encouraging to see the project intention to build in accordance with U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED guidelines. To further advance energy savings, we suggest the consideration of
a green roof for the portion which fronts the Commons. This would also provide a much more
aesthetically pleasing view for the occupants of residential units. If a green roof is not required,
then at minimum light colored reflective roofing materials should be required.”
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency:
• The possibility of a green roof or light-colored roof will be considered during Site Plan
Review.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Construction Impacts:
The construction phase is projected to last 18 months, beginning Spring 2014, partially
concurrent with the Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project. Noise, dust, and truck /
contractor traffic can be expected during the construction phase of this project. As an urban infill
site, it is in close proximity to uses that will be impacted by construction noise ― particularly
during building erection and site development. These include existing retail, restaurant, office,
and residential uses.
Noise-producing phases of construction should be limited to Monday through Friday between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
To the greatest extent possible, construction should be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons
Repair and Upgrade Project.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• Noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
• Construction shall be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project to
minimize noise impacts.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Project development will require demolition of three existing buildings, as well as rehabilitation
of the historic Sage Block. Construction impacts to public health related to demolition of older
buildings include potential handling of toxic materials, such as asbestos and lead.
The applicant has submitted an Asbestos Containing Building Materials, Pre-Demolition / Pre-
Renovation Survey, dated January 2013, and prepared by Fagan Engineers. The survey identified
six asbestos-containing areas that will require involvement of certified professionals for removal
and disposal.
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project site is in the downtown core and has been extensively developed. The project site is
surrounded by multi-story, predominately mixed-use structures. The proposed project addresses
City goals of providing more housing and office space in the downtown area, proximate to bus
service and employment.
The project requires a variance for rear yard setback. The project may also need a State Building
Code Variance for fire separation distance.
Utilities work and the final hardscape for the Commons project will have to be coordinated with
the final design of Harold’s Square. This work needs to begin immediately, as the definition of
the Harold’s Square façade takes place.
The applicant has updated the shadow study at the County’s request.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Only a couple of expressions of concern regarding the building’s height and design have been
received by the Lead Agency.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a 11-story mixed-use building by Scott Whitham, applicant for owner, L
Enterprises, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-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 36 units).
The residential portion of the project is in a tower, set back 62’ from the building’s four-story
Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one
facing Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is on the CDB-60 and
CDB 140 Zoning Districts and requires an area variance for rear yard setback, as well as Design
Review. As proposed, the project may require a State building Code Variance, and
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: 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, and
WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, the Planning Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, declared itself Lead
Agency for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on June 25,
2013 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and revised by the
Planning Board; drawings entitled: “Utility Plan (C2)” and “Construction Operations Plan (C3),”
prepared by Fagan Engineers, and dated 1/30/13, and “Existing Plan,” “Proposed Site Plan,”
“Basement Floor Plan,” “First Floor Plan,” ‘Second Floor Plan,” “Third Floor Plan,” “Fourth
Floor Plan,” “Residential Floor Plan,” “Tenth Floor Plan,’ “Penthouse Floor Plan,” “Diagrammatic
Building Section,” “Existing Commons Streetscape - North,” “Existing Commons Streetscape -
South,” “Building Massing Views,” “Shadow Study,” “Proposed Building Materials,” “Proposed
North Elevation,” “Proposed South Elevation,” “Proposed West Elevations,” ‘Proposed View
Along Ithaca Commons,” and “Perspective View - Green Street,” all dated 5/28/13, and prepared
by Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP; 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, and
WHEREAS: comments received from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
regarding the project, suggested the applicant consider a green roof for the portion which fronts the
Commons (or the requirement of light-colored reflective roofing materials) and recommended the
applicant provide more visual modeling to assess any impacts to the character of the built
environment, and
WHEREAS: in response to the County’s comments, the Lead Agency will consider the possibility
of a green roof or light-colored roof during Site Plan Review and has determined the applicant has
provided sufficient visual simulations to evaluate any impacts to aesthetics and to historic
resources, and
WHEREAS: comments received form the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that,
“Were this under our review as a regulatory matter, it would be deemed to have an adverse impact
on historic resources simply for the demolition of properties contributing to the National Register
of Historic Places listed in the Ithaca Downtown Historic District. Manipulation of the design of
the replacement building is a matter of mitigation for that loss,” and that, “The City of Ithaca
should consider the cumulative effects of ongoing physical development on the historic character
of the remaining historic streetscape,” and
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: in response to the SHPO’s comments, as well as concerns identified by the Lead
Agency, the applicant is being required to provide mitigations for the removal of the two buildings
that are contributing to the Downtown National Register Historic District, as described in Part 3 of
the FEAF, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that, with the
incorporation of the mitigations identified in Part 3 of the FEAF, the proposed site plan will result
in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
B. 130 Clinton Street Apartments, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange
Brick Garage Corp. Potential Review of FEAF, Part 3, and CEQR Discussion ― No
Action. The project consists of constructing three, 3-level residential buildings, each of
which will contain 12 units, four on each of the three floors for a total of 36 units (twelve
studios, twelve 1-BRs, and twelve 2-BRs). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the
Ithaca Police Station to the west and Six Mile Creek to the north. The site is steeply sloped
with areas over 30%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope. The project will
occupy 1.1 acres for the site between the City of Ithaca Police Department and the owner’s
buildings located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include the removal of over an
acre of vegetation, including 27 mature trees, and the excavation of approximately 3,500 CY
of soil. The project includes retaining walls, a concrete walkway from the lower parking lot
(on Clinton Street), an elevated walkway for access to the bottom level of the building, and
several sets of stairs connecting the various levels of the project. 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).
Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Discussion of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
Cornish noted she would like the City Director of Engineering to review the final version of
the Part 3.
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked that all the mitigations need to be specifically listed and identified by
source (e.g., applicant, City, Lead Agency/Planning Board, etc.)
Cornish asked if the applicant has identified a repository for the removed soil. Whitham
replied, no, but it will do so.
Randall asked the applicant what the proposed no-disturbance buffer to Six Mile Creek
would be. (The County’s recommendation is a minimum 100-foot buffer.) Whitham replied
it would be approximately 50 feet. Cornish explained that in many urban contexts the
greatest distance is simply not possible.
Whitham asked if the limits of disturbance have been clearly enough illustrated in the
applicant’s submission. Cornish replied, no (e.g., on drawing C-102). Whitham replied the
applicant would clarify them further.
Elliott observed the vegetation has merely been labeled and classified, without evaluating it
more closely in terms of its role in the larger ecosystem. It would be helpful, for example, to
define primary or old growth vs. secondary growth. Whitham replied there is no primary
growth on the site. Herrick added that the geotechnical report identified some of those kinds
of distinctions. Whitham noted he is sure he can find a satisfactory way of following
Elliott’s suggestion, if the Board could provide some guidance.
Randall noted the applicant could simply ask consultant F. Robert Wesley to define and
elaborate on the specific terms he uses in his May 2013 flora and fauna study cover letter,
since he already appears to have partially addressed the issue.
Schroeder remarked he is fairly certain it is a heavily-disturbed site. Cornish added the
Board would likely receive additional information about the site from the City Traffic
Engineer.
Herrick explained his annotations to the Part 3 were in response to a City request to
harmonize the curb and other features. The City Traffic Engineer wanted to ensure the
backfill materials, trench cuts, level of effort, compaction, and pavement restoration would
be equal to the standards required of the City’s project.
Schroeder observed the City Traffic Engineer also asked for drawings to show the easements
for the tie-backs; he seems to think there was a second easement for the retaining wall.
Herrick replied there was one narrow easement for the utilities, which he is aware of.
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds remarked it would be helpful to see an overlay of both existing and proposed
trees on the planting plan. Cornish agreed. She had not realized the submitted planting
information included existing and new vegetation. Whitham replied the applicant could
certainly provide additional information (e.g., a list documenting the planting methods).
Whitham recapitulated the information he is expected to provide:
• Repository site for removed soil
• Clarification of areas of disturbance
• List of vegetation to be removed included on the demolition plan
• Buffer distance diagram from the center and edge of Six Mile Creek
• Elaboration on May 2013 flora and fauna study
• Report on future meeting with City Traffic Engineer, addressing weight of retaining wall,
traffic counts, complete parking lot plan, and tie-back easement information
• Delineation of areas to be preserved and clear description of planting methods
Acharya noted the Board would continue its discussion of the Part 3 next month. No official
determinations would be made at this meeting. Cornish added that if the applicant satisfies
the great majority of City/Board requests, the last section in the Part 3 (“Staff-Recommended
Determination”) would be removed.
B. Purity Ice Cream, Mixed-Use Project, 700 Cascadilla St., Bruce Lane, Applicant &
Owner. Adoption of FEAF Part 2. The applicant is proposing to expand its ground-floor
operations, add four stories to the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas.
The building will have a footprint of 7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will
include 20-24 one- and two-bedroom residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of
rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location
and include a new addition with a kitchen, seating, and loading area. The ground floor will
also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary space for residents. 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, while
the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. Site
work and exterior improvements include outside seating, sidewalk improvements,
landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton St. The off-
site parking areas are located at 520 Esty St. and 619 Cascadilla St. The Esty St. parking
area has 29 spaces with ingress on N. Fulton St. and egress on Esty St. The parking lot at 619
Cascadilla St. will have 11 parking spaces with ingress and egress on Cascadilla St., and
egress on N. Meadow St. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. 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 and other proposed work in the State right-of-way.
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Krueger recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and walked through a
presentation of the revised project design, highlighting the following modifications and
points-of-interest:
• building façade has been broken up, with more residentially-scaled windows
• landscaping has been added along Fulton Street right-of-way
• interior building details have been modified
• main Purity Ice Cream building site plans remain unchanged
• Fulton Street parking lot site plan includes minor changes, including an auto-turn
analysis
• Solar arbors will provide site lighting (downlights)
[Schroeder asked the applicant to make sure the light does not spill.]
• Cascadilla Street parking lot curbcut on Meadow Street has been closed and three
parking spaces added in that space. Trees and plantings have been extended. Seven
parking spaces will be signed for employee use only and seven others for customer use
only.
[Fernández asked if the City Traffic Engineer had examined the new parking lot design.
Cornish replied she would check.]
• Fence along east side of parking lot on the residential side would be installed, with
climbing plants. (The applicant examined the south side and determined no fence would
be required there.)
• Applicant consulted with TCAT about planning a bus stop at the Fulton Street parking lot
― TCAT could not make any commitments, but appeared receptive to the idea.
Elliott asked if the applicant could plant more trees on the Meadow Street side of the parking
lot, as a visual buffer. Lambert replied, yes, there would be five trees along Meadow Street.
Jones-Rounds suggested adding additional amenities adjacent to the potential bus stop (e.g.,
landscaping), on the corner. Lambert replied they could place some boulders there and it
should not interfere with the plantings. Cornish cautioned against making that area too
attractive, or it may attract all-night activity.
Elliott suggested alternating the types of parking spaces, so they are not as segregated, which
may alleviate some neighbors’ concerns.
Discussion of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
Fernández suggested adding language to the Part 3 reflecting that several members of the
Planning Board suggested the Cascadilla Street parking include residential parking spaces,
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
but that the applicant disagreed with this suggestion and felt it is important customers have
parking across the street. No objections were raised.
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to expand its ground floor operations, add four stories to the existing
building and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a footprint of 7,434 SF
and a gross floor area of 35,252 SF, and will include 20-24 one-bedroom and two-bedroom
residential rental units and up to 1,000 to 6,000 SF of rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream
store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new addition with a kitchen,
seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary
space for residents. 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, while the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal
panel cladding system. Site work and exterior improvements include outside seating, sidewalk
improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton
Street. The off-site parking areas (totaling 53 spaces) are located at 520 Esty and 619 Cascadilla
Streets. The Fulton Street parking area has 39 spaces, with ingress on N. Fulton Street, and
ingress and egress off Esty Street. The parking lot at 619 Cascadilla Street will have 14 parking
spaces, with ingress and egress on Cascadilla Street. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b
Zoning Districts. 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.
IMPACT ON LAND
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
No impact anticipated.
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
The parking lot at 520 Esty Street appears to require the relocation of one street tree in the State’s
right-of-way.
The applicant has provided detailed planting plans for the principal site as well as both off-site
parking areas.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON ÆSTHETIC RESOURCES
Project site is in a highly visible location at the confluence of N. Meadow and N. Fulton Streets.
The site is a gateway to the West End and to Ithaca, for travelers from any points north. At 5
stories, the building will be one of the tallest and most prominent in the West End and could have
a character-defining impact on this quickly-developing part of the City.
The applicant has submitted visual simulations and renderings. The Lead Agency requested that
the applicant explore ways to give the north façade a more welcoming and residential character. In
response, the applicant has added detailing similar to the south façade, clerestory windows and
water table detailing into the lower brick wall, and landscaping along the Fulton Street right-of-
way. Further development of this façade will be done during Site Plan Review.
The project includes three parking lots. The applicant has submitted landscape plans for each of
the sites; however, the plans need to be developed with a finer level of detail to determine if the
plantings provide adequate required screening. Much of the screening for the Esty Street parking
lot appears to be in the State’s right-of-way ― over which the City has no jurisdiction.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
The City Transportation Engineer requested the following from the applicant:
• Information regarding pedestrian access during construction-related sidewalk closure along
Cascadilla Street.
• Trip generation analysis.
31
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Removal of existing driveway / curbcut on Cascadilla Street, along the new portion of the
building. If the applicant is expecting deliveries from the street, a concrete walk will be
allowed to a full-height curb.
• Extension of the sidewalk along the east property line of the Fulton Street parking lot a few
more feet to the south, to connect to the Esty Street sidewalk.
In a June 19, 2013 memo, the applicant’s architect John Snyder replied as follows to the above
four concerns, stating:
• Customers walking from the east of the project site to the temporary Purity space on the west
side of Fulton Street will have to walk a block south of Cascadilla Street along Esty Street,
since there is no sidewalk on the south side of Cascadilla Street.
• A trip generation analysis is included in the revised June 11, 2013 SRF report.
• The aforementioned Cascadilla Street curbcut is needed to allow forklifts and hand dollies to
meet the delivery needs of the new building. Applicant hopes that reducing the width of this
curbcut to approximately 8’ will satisfy the City Transportation Engineer’s concerns.
• Applicant agrees to extend the sidewalk along the east property line of the Fulton Street lot to
connect to the Esty Street sidewalk.
In addition, the following City Transportation Engineer comment was submitted about the Fulton
Street parking lot:
“I still don’t think the Esty Street [i.e., Fulton Street] parking lot dimensions will work. Coming in
from Fulton Street, they are showing an 18’ long parking space and a 12’ wide drive aisle, for a
total of 30’ between the curbs. Architectural Graphic Standards (8th edition) recommends a 48’
dimension instead, suggesting that it will be very difficult to get in or out of these spaces, which
include the ADA accessible spaces. Similarly, the rest of the lot is shown as either the same
condition (western half) or as a double-loaded two-way aisle. For this condition, AGS suggests a
66’ dimension and the plan shows 56 feet.”
The applicant has reconfigured the Fulton Street parking lot (reducing its size from 40 to 39
spaces), increased landscaped area, and simplified the entrance on Fulton Street. Applicant has
also submitted a narrative and drawings in support of its position that this reconfigured lot meets
functional requirements. The majority of landscaping appears to be off the property in the State’s
right-of-way, which is not under City jurisdiction and would require NYS DOT approval.
In a memo to the Planning Board, dated June 17, 2013, the City Transportation Engineer stated
that a two-way driveway on Cascadilla Street will be allowed and should be located as far to the
east as possible. He also requested the lot be signed for employee-only parking.
32
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In a memo from the Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) to the Planning Board, dated
May 28, 2013, CAC members remarked the project does not adequately consider and incorporate
the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, and they requested the applicant provide additional
pedestrian and bike amenities. The CAC also requested the applicant substantiate its stated
parking needs and attempt to integrate the site more into the City’s existing transportation system.
In response, the applicant has provided updated and clarifying information, prepared by SRF
Associates, and dated June 11, 2013, on the parking evaluation. The information concludes that
the project requires a total of 47-49 off-site parking spaces, in addition to the proposed on site
spaces. The applicant is proposing 53 off-site parking spaces.
See mitigations related to transportation issues included under the “Impact on Growth & Character
of Community or Neighborhood” heading below.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
Although the project as a whole implements several City goals, the stand-alone parking area on
619 Cascadilla Street is problematic. The proposed lot is contiguous to two residential properties.
The applicant has proposed a 6’-tall fence along the east, and a portion of the south, property line.
Parking spaces are nose-in on the eastern side and approximately 3’ from the fence. The 14-space
parking lot has one two way curbcut on Cascadilla Street. The NYS DOT has requested that the
applicant close the current curb cut on North Meadow Street.
The proposed parking lot is in the WEDZ-1b Zoning District, which, along with WEDZ-1a, was
created to implement the West End Urban Design Plan (1999). Both the Zoning Districts and the
plan set forth standards to foster dense, mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
redevelopment, and an urban visual character. They also promote the creation of a strong street
wall, with buildings pulled close to the sidewalk and a broad tree lawn between sidewalk and curb.
Breaks in the street wall were intended to be kept at a minimum, by requiring any parking areas
be located behind buildings, where possible, and between buildings, where rear parking is not
feasible.
33
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The principal aims of creating the WEDZ zones included the following planning objectives:
• Redevelopment that results in a visually appealing, urban, mixed-use district, including retail,
and encouragement of office and residential uses; and
• Protection of the traditional residential neighborhoods east of Meadow Street; and
• Easing of impacts of the anticipated transition west of Meadow Street from single-family
houses to denser mixed uses, which may include residential uses, without diminishing the
overall potential for redevelopment; and
• Creation of an attractive and safe pedestrian environment, co-existing with high-volume
traffic.
In a memo from the Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) to the Planning Board, dated
May 28, 2013, CAC members remarked the project does not adequately consider and incorporate
the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, and they requested the applicant provide additional
pedestrian and bike amenities, including those that make travel to the site more appealing and
hospitable, like enhanced plantings, strengthening the street wall by developing all three corners
with multi-story buildings that anchor the corner lot and reinforce the street wall, and providing
additional bike infrastructure. The CAC argues that enhancing multi-modal amenities “will not
only enable patrons to more readily walk or bike to Purity, but also enhance the visual urban
character of the neighborhood.”
The CAC also requested the applicant substantiate its stated parking needs and attempt to
integrate the site more into the City’s existing transportation system.
In response, the applicant has provided updated and clarifying information, prepared by SRF
Associates and dated June 11, 2013, on the parking evaluation. The information concludes that
the project requires a total of 47-49 off-site site parking spaces in addition to the proposed on site
spaces. The applicant is proposing 53 off-site parking spaces.
The Lead Agency requested the applicant either: (1) investigate redesigning the on-site and
Fulton Street parking areas for better spatial efficiency, resulting in more parking spaces in one or
both of these parking areas and, thus, remove the 14-space Cascadilla Street lot; or (2) investigate
locating parking at the future Enterprise Rent-A-Car site. The applicant has done this as
requested and has not been able to eliminate the 14-space lot.
In a March 26, 2013 letter from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lisa
Nicholas, Senior Planner, the following initial comments were provided:
34
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
“In support of the City's West End Urban Design Plan (1999), the applicant should be required
to restructure the way in which parking is proposed. The current proposal is both inefficient and
runs counter to one of the plan’s principal aims: ‘creation of an attractive and safe pedestrian
environment co-existing with high-volume traffic.’ We support the plan’s design standards,
which call for the creation of a strong street wall, where ‘on site parking must be located at the
rear of the building where possible and shared parking is encouraged.’ The plan further stated
that ‘parcels at block corners are especially important to visual character. When possible,
buildings should be located on these sites.’ The proposed parking scheme appears to run counter
to several aspects of West End Urban Design Plan, which could result in an adverse impact to the
West End.
If parking were allowed on the corner of Fulton and Esty, we believe the amount of pavement
could be significantly reduced without reducing the number of parking spaces and allow for the
establishment of added green space. The four spaces closest to Fulton Street and the access drive
to those spaces could be eliminated and the four spaces accommodated elsewhere on the
redesigned lot.”
The Lead Agency finds the proposed Cascadilla Street parking area would institutionalize an
undesirable use, would be contrary to fundamental principles of the West End Urban Design Plan
and would have negative visual and noise impacts on the neighborhood.
Some members of the Planning Board believe that allowing only residents and employees (and no
customers) to use the Cascadilla Street parking lot would mitigate its impacts, but the applicant
disagrees with this approach, stating that at least half of this lot (7 spaces) must be available for
customer parking.
The applicant has stated that the project incorporates alternative solutions as outlined in the West
End Urban Design Plan ― such as using plantings if a street wall is not possible ― and has
provided the following response to concerns about incompatibilities with the plan. Applicant
states that the principal aims of the study include:
• Redevelopment that results in a visually appealing, urban mixed-use district, including retail,
office, and residential uses. The project team argues that that this goal has been achieved as
proposed.
• Protection of the traditional residential neighborhoods east of Meadow Street. The project
team proposes that this goal has been achieved with the fence at the rear lot line of 621
Cascadilla Street (see mitigations below).
• Easing the impacts of the anticipated transition west of Meadow Street from single-family
houses to denser mixed-uses, which may include residential uses without diminishing the
overall potential for redevelopment. The project team proposes that this goal has been
achieved with the fence at the rear lot line of 621 Cascadilla Street and with the landscaping
(see mitigations below) that connects the lots along Cascadilla Street the applicant also notes
that the goal states that the overall potential for redevelopment should not be sacrificed in
favor of optimizing the relationship between adjacent neighborhoods.
35
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Creation of an attractive and safe pedestrian environment co-existing with high-volume
traffic. The project team proposes that this goal has been achieved as proposed with the
landscaping plans submitted, as well as the building design.
Mitigations Proposed by Applicant:
• The applicant proposes “the holistic landscaping plan along Cascadilla Street that connects
the three lots in the project and goes well above the quality expected of projects in the City.
Use of tightly packed, native, drought tolerant planting, interesting paving, and bike racks on
City property alongside a building that effectively engages with the streetscape should make
for a very lively addition to the West End ... Existing trees will be incorporated into the
plan, and the existing loading area width will be reduced. Similarly attractive landscaping
will be added to the City right-of-way on Esty St. at the southern edge of the Fulton St. lot as
well.”
• The applicant states that the Cascadilla lot is currently empty and in need of improvement and
intends to install an aesthetically pleasing fence that (he argues) exceeds the requirement to
screen the proposed parking area from the adjacent residential zone.
• The applicant proposes to use pervious paving in the Cascadilla lot to serve as an exemplar of
sustainable stormwater management.
• The applicant has initiated a conversation with TCAT to plan for the possible future
installation of a TCAT bus stop on the Meadow St. side of the corner. Preliminary
discussions with TCAT have been measured (see letter from Doug Swarts of TCAT dated
June 12, 2013). Installation of the stop would depend on TCAT route changes that would
serve the new development and the northern West End, which TCAT currently does not do.
The applicant feels that this proposal meshes well with the Board's interest in encouraging
transit- and pedestrian-oriented development in the West End, and that the Purity Project can
spark the evolution of bus routes to an underserved area.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• The applicant shall erect prominent “Employee Parking Only” signage for the 7 parking
spaces on the east side of the Cascadilla Street parking lot to reduce turn-over traffic, thereby
minimizing the negative impact to the neighborhood, as well as to pedestrians, from this
parking area. Purity customers would be permitted to use the 7 parking spaces on the west
side of the lot.
• The applicant shall install a low rock garden within the landscape areas at the northwest
corner of the Cascadilla Street parking lot to provide greater urban definition at this
intersection corner, designed in a manner that does not interfere with vehicle sight lines.
36
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
None, at this time.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Jones-Rounds indicated she opposes the CEQR resolution, due to the transportation-related
and other concerns she raised, but would vote in favor of Site Plan Approval.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock:
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, add four stories to
the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a footprint of
7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will include 20-24 one- and two-bedroom
residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream
store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new addition with a kitchen,
seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary
space for residents. 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, while the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal
panel cladding system. Site work and exterior improvements include outside seating, sidewalk
improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton
Street. The off-site parking areas are located at 520 Esty and 621 Cascadilla Streets. The Esty
Street parking area has 39 spaces with ingress on N. Fulton Street, and ingress and egress on Esty
Street. The parking lot at 621 Cascadilla Street will have 14 parking spaces, with ingress and
egress on Cascadilla Street.. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. The project
requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut and other proposed work in the State
right-of-way, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1) (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
37
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on 4/23/13 declare itself Lead Agency for
the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all
comments received to date from the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 25, 2013
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and revised by the
Planning Board; and drawings entitled “Location Plan G101,” “Construction Staging Plan G102,”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C101,” “Layout Plan C102,” “Grading and Drainage Plan
C103,” “Utility Plan C104,” “Details C201,” “Schematic Planting Plan 700 Cascadilla Street
L100,” “First Floor Plan A100,” “Second and Third Floor Plans A101,” “Fourth and Fifth Floor
Plans A102,” “Roof Plan A103,” “Elevation Rendering A200–A203,” “Survey 555 N. Fulton
Street C110,” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Esty Street C111,” “Layout Plan 555 N. Fulton
Street C112,” “Grading and Drainage Plan 555 N. Fulton Street C113,” “Schematic Planting Plan
555 N. Fulton Street L110,” “Survey 621 Cascadilla Street C120,” “Layout and Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan 621 Cascadilla Street C122,” “Grading and Drainage Plan 621 Cascadilla
Street C123,” and “Schematic Planting Plan 621 Cascadilla Street L120,” all prepared by John
Snyder Architects, and dated 5/2/13; “Proposed Purity Ice Cream Expansion Parking Evaluation,”
prepared by SRF Associates, and dated 6/11/13; “Perspective View – Cascadilla Street,”
“Perspective View – Fulton Street,” “Perspective View – Cascadilla Street Proposed Bus Stop,”
“Interior View – Typical Apartment,” “Perspective View – Cascadilla Street (looking in),”
“Perspective View – Cascadilla Street (looking out),” all prepared by John Snyder Architects, and
dated 6/13/13; three Fulton Street Vehicle Turning Diagrams, entitled “15’ Wide One-Way Drive
Aisle – Accessible Van,” “15’ Wide One-Way Drive Aisle,” and “20’ Wide One-Way Drive
Aisle,” (undated); “Grading & Drainage Plan C123,” prepared by John Snyder Architects, and
dated 6/18/13; “Erosion and Sediment Control & Layout Plan C122,” prepared by John Snyder
Architects, and dated 6/18/13; “Schematic Planting Plan L100,” “Schematic Planting Plan L110,”
and “Schematic Planting Plan L120,” all prepared by John Snyder Architects, and dated 6/25/13;
“Site Design – Cascadilla Street Fence Example,” two photographic renderings of Cascadilla
Street parking lot perspective views, and one photographic rendering of Purity Ice Cream building,
prepared by John Snyder Architects (undated); and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: in a March 26, 2013 letter from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the commissioner stated: “The proposed parking
scheme appears to run counter to several aspects of West End Urban Design Plan which could
result in an adverse impact to the West End,” and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board also finds the proposed parking lot at 621
Cascadilla Street conflicts with the principal aims of the West End Urban Design Plan, as outlined
in the FEAF, Part 3, and
38
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant has proposed mitigations, as described in Part 3, to “Impact on Growth
and Character of the Community or Neighborhood” and “Impact on Transportation,” and
WHEREAS: the applicant has also provided updated and clarifying information, prepared by SRF
Associates and dated June 11, 2013, evaluating the project’s parking needs; this information
concludes that the project requires a total of 47-49 off-site parking spaces, in addition to the
proposed on-site spaces, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency finds that the mitigations proposed by the applicant to be
satisfactory, and has proposed additional mitigations as described in Part 3 to which the applicant
has agreed, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
site plan 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, Elliott, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: Jones-Rounds
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Schroeder asked the applicant for the complete site plan. Jones-Rounds asked for a signage
plan.
Fernández noted she would provide the applicant and the Board with information on informal
surveillance and possible approaches for designing the Fulton Street parking lot to make it
less vulnerable to all-night activity and potential crime.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing.
Xinmin N. Zhao, 616 Cascadilla Street, spoke in opposition to the Purity Ice Cream project,
noting that, even now, there is a significant amount of vehicular traffic in the area. She is
concerned with the amount of additional traffic, noise, and trash which would be generated.
Zhao also expressed concern with the potential safety impacts associated with the project and
the construction-related noise and impacts for such a large project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder seconded by Fernández,
and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
39
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
E. Thurston Avenue Apartments, 312 Thurston Ave., Greg Martin, Applicant for
Owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant will
provide new drawings at the meeting. The project includes the construction of four 3-story
residential buildings at the corner of Thurston Avenue and Highland Avenue on a 1.43-acre
portion of a larger site. The project will result in twenty-four parking spaces (including two
handicap spaces) and associated loading, walkways, landscaping, storm drainage, and site
amenities. The proposed site plan includes a new porous asphalt parking lot, site lighting,
and an interconnected walkway system. A concrete walk is proposed to parallel the
driveway, while a more informal stonedust trail is proposed to traverse the hill and link to the
intersection of Highland and Thurston Avenues. Benches and bike racks are located at
building entrances. Curving stone walls are proposed along the base of the hill along
Highland Avenue, to serve as tree wells and preserve existing trees, and to serve as benches,
creating a natural park-like atmosphere at the street intersection. The patio at the terminus of
the parking lot accommodates fire truck turn-around space. Site development will require
the removal of vegetation on most of the 1.8-acre site, including many mature trees. A new
landscape plan has been proposed. The project is located in the R-U Zoning District and is
within the Cornell Heights Historic District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4], (n), and (2), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b.) (9), and is subject to environmental review.
The project received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) on April 9, 2013.
Architect Nathan Brown recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, highlighting
the following recent changes:
• Proposed finishes would include a dark brown brick, with smooth reddish tones, along
most of the Thurston Avenue and Highland Street façades.
• Buildings would feature a stucco finish, with multiple colors (beige, tan, and grey), so all
the buildings would have a mixture of colors and not appear as monotonous.
• Roof would be asphalt shingle, with white trim.
Architect Trowbridge then itemized the following changes, made specifically in response to
Planning Board concerns:
• addition of drop-curb at loading zone
• addition of “No Parking” & “No Parking ― Fire Lane” signs (mandated by Fire Department)
• proposed Autumn Blaze Maples changed to State Street Maples
• current total of 450 trees & shrubs
• addition of bollards to illuminate limestone path
• inclusion of notations of what vegetation would be preserved
40
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Trowbridge noted the City Forester ultimately decided the issue she raised regarding the site
walls should be an issue of discussion, rather than a requirement. He added that the City
Environmental Engineer appears pleased with the project. The only outstanding item would be
completion of the final SWPPP.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing.
Michael Decatur, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the vast majority
of the neighborhood is opposed to it, particularly due to concerns with its density, loss of old
growth trees and green space, etc. He added the current owner is not part of the local community
and has not been good steward of the Highland House property (e.g., not shoveling sidewalks,
not disposing of old construction debris, etc.). Another concern is the additional truck traffic the
project would generate, including garbage collection.
Erika Fowler Decatur, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the project
will remove too many mature trees. There appears to be little protection for trees over 8 inches
GBH (girth at breast height). Furthermore, the project does not preserve the neighborhood
character (which she believes is part of the Planning Board’s official charge). Decatur explained
the neighborhood was specifically conceived to include large swaths of green space, which is
why she and her husband moved there in the first place.
William Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the area represents
a unique residential neighborhood. He is concerned the delicate balance of the neighborhood
would be compromised and it would destroy the park-like nature of the area.
Susan Lewis, 106 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, noting she already lives
too close to student housing, as it is. The area is well-balanced between largely owner-occupied
residential properties and student rental properties. She is concerned with the project’s density
and its impact on the historic district.
Barbara Ley, 110 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, expressing concern with
the inevitable increase in congestion at the Highland Avenue-Triphammer Road intersection, as
a result of the project. She added there are probably at least 100 old growth trees on the site and
she cannot conceive the slope would remain stable with their removal.
41
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Ken Vineberg, 122 Roberts Place, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the proposed
building design is not ideal for the surrounding neighborhood. A single, larger building would
have been better. He would also like to understand the relationship between the building
heights. He added he does not believe he ever received any notice of the project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Schroeder, and
unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Trowbridge remarked a house was originally built on the site, with a few large trees along
Highland and Thurston Avenues; and these are precisely the ones the applicant would be
preserving. All the other trees on the site cannot be categorized as ‘old growth’ trees in any way.
Schroeder remarked numerous very large trees would be preserved, according to the proposal.
Responding to a public comment, Martin noted there may be a chunk of concrete and a larger
concrete structure on the site; however, neither was ever a part of the Highland House
construction project. Schroeder asked if that concrete was going to be removed. Trowbridge
replied, yes.
Responding to another public comment, Trowbridge displayed an illustration of some model
views, depicting varying building heights from multiple perspectives.
Cornish observed the initial project design included significantly taller buildings, including one
more building, which was subsequently removed. The remaining buildings were raised up
further onto the hill to preserve more vegetation. The project has undergone a considerable
number of positive changes. Schroeder agreed.
Jones-Rounds indicated she would not be comfortable making a recommendation regarding the
vegetation without a more thorough study, given that the City Forester is not issuing a formal
recommendation. She also expressed concern the Board had only heard negative feedback from
neighbors.
Cornish declared that, if the Planning Board cannot legitimately cite a specific reason(s) for not
approving the project, it has to at least be able to provide the applicant with some clear guidance
on how to improve it.
Responding to another public comment, Brown noted there would be at least one person living in
the local area, specifically responsible for listening to community members and maintaining the
property.
42
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Discussion of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
Elliott expressed skepticism the project would not have any impact on transportation. Schroeder
replied the Part 3 only states it would have no “significant” impact. Acharya also observed the
City Traffic Engineer did not ask for a trip generation analysis (which he would not have
hesitated to do, had there been any concerns).
Elliott remarked the one concern he has with the building materials is the asphalt shingle. It just
seems like the cheapest, most generic kind of material. Schroeder and Blalock both agreed.
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the construction of four 3-story residential buildings at the corner of Thurston
Avenue and Highland Avenue, on a 1.43-acre portion of a larger site. The project will result in
twenty-three parking spaces (including two handicap spaces) and associated loading, walkways,
landscaping, storm drainage, and site amenities. The proposed site plan includes a new porous
asphalt parking lot, site lighting, and an interconnected walkway system. A concrete walk is
proposed to parallel the driveway, while a more informal stone-dust trail is proposed to traverse
the hill and link to the intersection of Highland and Thurston Avenues. Benches and bike racks
are located at building entrances. Curving stone walls are proposed along the base of the hill along
Highland Avenue to serve as tree wells to preserve existing trees, and as benches, creating a
natural park-like atmosphere at the street intersection. The patio at the terminus of the parking lot
accommodates fire truck turn-around space. Site development will require the removal of
vegetation on most of the 1.8-acre site, including many mature trees. A new landscape plan has
been proposed. The project is located in the R-U Zoning District and lies within the Cornell
Heights Historic District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n) and (2) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act §617.4 (b.) (9), and is subject to environmental review. The project received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the ILPC on April 9, 2013.
IMPACT ON LAND
The project site is a corner lot with varied slopes. The upper and lower portions of the site are
relatively flat, while approximately 27% of the site has slopes of 15 percent or over. Site
preparation requires removal of 52 trees and other vegetation, as well as extensive grading.
Regrading will extend the more gently sloped area at the top of the site, to create a buildable area.
43
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The potential for increased erosion, both during and after construction, is a concern on sloped
building sites. The design incorporates several mitigations for re-stabilizing the slope and
capturing post-construction run-off. The pervious asphalt and planted bio-retention basins will
capture run-off from the parking area, buildings, and walkways. The applicant has proposed
extensive revegetation, including planting 60 new trees, as well as the protection and retention of
20 mature trees, some of which are the largest and most prominent trees on the site.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
The project site is a corner lot with varied slopes. The upper and lower portions of the site are
relatively flat, while approximately 27% of the site has slopes of 15% or over. Site preparation
requires removal of 52 trees and other vegetation, as well as extensive regrading. The regrading
will extend the more gently sloped area at the top of the site, to create a buildable area.
The potential for increased erosion, both during and after construction, is a concern on sloped
building sites. The design incorporates several mitigations for re-stabilizing the slope and
capturing post-construction run-off. The pervious asphalt and planted bio-retention basins will
capture run-off from the parking area, buildings, and walkways. The applicant has proposed
extensive revegetation, including planting 60 new trees, as well as the protection and retention of
20 mature trees, some of which are the largest and most prominent trees on the site.
The project also requires a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP).
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Project construction will begin in Fall 2013 and is expected to last approximately 10 months.
Project development requires clearing of approximately one acre of vegetation, as well extensive
grading.
Construction and site preparation activities will create the potential for increased airborne dust and
dirt particles. The amount of construction-generated dust depends on several factors, including
soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and sun, weather-
related factors, and construction practices.
The applicant should be required to use the following dust-control measures, as needed, during
construction:
• Misting or fog-spraying site to minimize dust.
44
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to construction site.
• Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
• Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
• Requiring trucks to be covered.
• Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
Site preparation requires removal of 52 trees and other vegetation. The applicant has proposed
extensive revegetation, including planting 60 new trees, as well as the protection and retention of
20 mature trees, some of which are the largest and most prominent trees on the site.
Some Board members have expressed concern about removal of trees without knowing the impact
in the greater habitat.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON ÆSTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site is a highly visible corner lot in the Cornell Heights Historic District. The site is
currently undeveloped and heavily vegetative, creating a park-like setting in the residential
neighborhood. Development of the site will alter views from some points within the Historic
District.
Site preparation requires removal of 52 trees and other vegetation. The applicant has proposed
extensive revegetation, including planting 60 new trees, as well as the protection and retention of
20 mature trees, some of which are the largest and most prominent on the site.
Since the project was originally proposed, the applicant has revised the design several times,
including lowering the building height and changing the architectural style and building materials,
in an effort to make the project more compatible with the surrounding Cornell Heights Historic
District. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission issued a Certificate of Appropriateness
on April 9, 2013 for the project, conditioned upon final review of all exterior and site details.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The project site is a highly visible corner lot in the Cornell Heights Historic District. The site is
currently undeveloped and heavily vegetative, creating a park-like setting in the residential
neighborhood. Development of the site will alter views from some points within the Historic
District.
45
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Since the project was originally proposed, the applicant has revised the design several times,
including lowering the building height and changing the architectural style and building materials,
in an effort to make the project more compatible with the surrounding Cornell Heights Historic
District. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission issued a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the project on April 9, 2013, conditioned upon final review all exterior site and details.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Project construction will begin in Fall 2013 and is expected to last approximately 10 months. The
project site is in a residential neighborhood and construction noise has the potential to impact
nearby residents. To minimize this impact, noise-producing construction activities should be
limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project site is a highly visible corner lot in the Cornell Heights Historic District. The site is
currently undeveloped and heavily vegetative, creating a park-like setting in the residential
neighborhood. Development of the site will increase density in this residential neighborhood.
Site preparation requires removal of 52 trees and other vegetation, as well as extensive regrading.
The applicant has proposed extensive revegetation, including planting 60 new trees, as well as the
protection and retention of 20 mature trees, some of which are the largest and most prominent on
the site.
46
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
The ILPC received a number of public comments in opposition to earlier proposed designs of the
project. The Planning and Development Board received several negative comments regarding the
current proposal, expressing concern about loss of trees, increased traffic, maintenance of the site,
and potential upsetting of the balance between tenants and permanent residents in the Cornell
Heights neighborhood.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6
of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require 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 the construction of apartments to be located at 312 Thurston Avenue by Greg Martin,
applicant for owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n) and (2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b.) (9),
and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the project is the construction of four 3-story residential buildings at the corner of
Thurston and Highland Avenues on a 1.43-acre portion of a larger site. The project will result in 24
parking spaces (including two handicap spaces) and associated loading, walkways, landscaping, storm
drainage, and site amenities. The proposed site plan includes a new porous asphalt parking lot, site
lighting, and an interconnected walkway system. A concrete walk is proposed to parallel the
driveway, while a more informal stone dust trail is proposed to traverse the hill and link to the
intersection of Highland and Thurston Avenues. Benches and bike racks are located at building
entrances. Curving stone walls are proposed along the base of the hill along Highland Avenue to serve
as tree wells to preserve existing trees, and as benches, creating a natural park-like atmosphere at the
street intersection. The patio at the terminus of the parking lot accommodates fire truck turn-around
space. Site development will require removal of vegetation on most of the 1.8-acre site, including
many mature trees. A new landscape plan has been proposed. The project is located in the R-U
Zoning District and is within the Cornell Heights Historic District. The project received a Certificate
of Appropriateness, with conditions, from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) on
April 9, 2013, and
47
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: on May 28, 2013, 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: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 25, 2013
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted
by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff with Part 3 revised by the Planning
Board; and drawings entitled “Layout Plan AP107,” “Grading Plan AP108,” “Planting Plan AP109,”
“Rendered Site Plan AP110,” and “Site Details AP111 & AP112,” all dated June 5, 2013; and
“Typical Floor Plans AP119” and “Rendered Site Views AP 122, 123 & 124,” dated April 22, 2013,
and “Site Photometric Plan AP125,” dated May 7, 2013; and “Demolition Plan AP106,” “Site Utility
Plan AP114,” “Storm Drainage Plan AP115,” “Erosion & Sedimentation Plan AP116,” “Site Civil
Details AP117 & AP118,” “Building 1 Exterior Elevations AP120,” “Buildings 2 & 3 Exterior
Elevations AP121,” and “Building 4 Exterior Elevations A126,” all dated May 23, 2013, and all
prepared by Holt Architects, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, and TG Miller, P.C., and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and no comments
have been received to date on the aforementioned, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None.
Vacancy: None
Jones-Rounds expressed concern with the communication process between the applicant and
the neighborhood residents. It seems the project could have benefited from a more extensive
series of dialogues between the two, but the impetus for making a formal decision may have
artificially foreshortened that whole process.
Schroeder observed that the current procedure, with the Public Hearing taking place so late
in the review process, may not be the most productive approach.
48
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for the construction of apartments to be located at 312 Thurston Avenue by Greg
Martin, applicant for Owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the project is the construction of four 3-story residential buildings at the corner of
Thurston Avenue and Highland Avenue on a 1.43-acre portion of a larger site. The project will
result in 23 parking spaces (including two handicap spaces) and associated loading, walkways,
landscaping, storm drainage, and site amenities. The proposed site plan includes a new porous
asphalt parking lot, site lighting, and an interconnected walkway system. A concrete walk is
proposed to parallel the driveway, while a more informal stone dust trail is proposed to traverse
the hill and link to the intersection of Highland and Thurston Avenues. Benches and bike racks
are located at building entrances. Curving stone walls are proposed along the base of the hill along
Highland Avenue to serve as tree wells to preserve existing trees, and as benches, creating a
natural park-like atmosphere at the street intersection. The patio at the terminus of the parking lot
accommodates fire truck turn-around space. Site development will require removal of vegetation
on most of the 1.8-acre site, including many mature trees. A new landscape plan has been
proposed. The project is located in the R-U Zoning District and is within the Cornell Heights
Historic District. The project received a Certificate of Appropriateness, with conditions, from the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) on April 9, 2013, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n) and (2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
§617.4 (b.) (9), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on May 28, 2013 declare 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 June 25,
2013, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 25, 2013
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff with Part 3 revised by the
Planning Board; and drawings entitled “Layout Plan AP107,” “Grading Plan AP108,” “Planting
Plan AP109,” “Rendered Site Plan AP110,” and “Site Details AP111 & AP112,” all dated June 5,
2013; and “Typical Floor Plans AP119” and “Rendered Site Views AP 122, 123 & 124,” dated
April 22, 2013, and “Site Photometric Plan AP125,” dated May 7, 2013; and “Demolition Plan
AP106,” “Site Utility Plan AP114,” “Storm Drainage Plan AP115,” “Erosion &
49
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Sedimentation Plan AP116,” “Site Civil Details AP117 & AP118,” “Building 1 Exterior
Elevations AP120,” “Buildings 2 & 3 Exterior Elevations AP121,” and “Building 4 Exterior
Elevations A126,” all dated May 23, 2013, and all prepared by Holt Architects, Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels, and TG Miller, P.C., and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and no
comments have been received to date on the aforementioned, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 25, 2013 make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Approval to the Thurston Avenue Apartments to be located at 312 Thurston Avenue by
Greg Martin, applicant for Owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC, subject to the following
conditions:
i. Noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m., and
ii. Submission of documentation that the ILPC has approved all exterior and site details, and
iii. Approval of exterior color palette applies to colored building elevations and not renderings,
and
iv. Exterior elevations of Buildings 2 & 3 should differ from each other in color distribution, to
better display the full exterior color palette, and
v. Submission of revised layout plan with no parking signs at ‘community patio’ clearly labeled,
and
vi. Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by the City of
Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer, and
vii. Applicant to ensure that the final location of the tree well walls will optimize the likelihood
of survival of the existing trees within them, and
viii. Rather than the flat roofing shingles illustrated on drawing AP127, dated June 25, 2013,
roofing shingles with greater texture (to be approved by Planning Division staff) shall be used
on the project building, and
ix. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: Jones-Rounds
Absent: None
Vacancy: None
50
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2914, Area Variances ― 511-513 Dryden Road
Appeal of Michael Fraker, owner of 511-513 Dryden Road, for area variances from Section
325-8, Column 6, Lot Area and Section 325-8, Column 7, Lot Width Requirements, of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 511-513 Dryden Road property
through the City’s subdivision process. The intent of subdividing the parcels is so that a new
house can be built on the new lot. The applicant proposes to build a single-family home that
will be compliant with zoning setbacks, parking, and lot coverage; however, the existing lot
is too small to be divided into two conforming lots. The new lot will be deficient in lot area
and lot width. Section 325-8, Column 6, of the Zoning ordinance, requires a lot area of 6,000
SF; proposed is a lot of 5,270 SF. Section 325-8, Column 7, requires a lot width of 50 feet;
proposed is a lot width of 41.9 feet.
The 511-513 Dryden Road property is located in an R-1b Zoning District where the proposed
use is permitted; however, City Code, Section 290-2, requires an area variance be granted
prior to the subdivision process being undertaken by the Planning and Development Board.
The Planning Board supports the variance request, based upon the planning principle that it
would be consistent with the original Bryant Park plat and the property was originally
intended to be two separate lots.
Appeal #2915, Area Variances ― 113 W. Lincoln Street
Appeal of Christopher Glaubitz, owner of 113 West Lincoln Street, for area variances from
Section 325-8, Columns 10, 12, 13, and 14/15, Lot Coverage, Other Front Yard, Side Yard,
and Rear Yard, respectively, being requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed is a two-story addition, 781 SF in size, to a single-family home, located at 113
West Lincoln Street. The addition will enlarge the living space on the first floor, expand the
kitchen, increase the size of an upstairs bedroom, and provide a one-car garage. This
property is located at the corner of West Lincoln and Auburn Streets and has two front yards.
The front yard on Auburn Street currently does not meet Section 325-8, Column 10, Front
Yard Setback requirements of 10 feet. The existing house is set back 5’-6” from the front
yard property line on Auburn Street. The addition will be set back approximately 7’-10”
from the front yard property line at the point of attachment to the existing building. The
addition will continue the front yard deficiency for, approximately, an additional 26’7” in a
southerly direction. The existing side yard is also deficient. Section 325-8, Column 13, of
the Zoning ordinance, requires a 5-foot side yard setback. The existing house is only 3’-6”
from the side yard property line. The addition will be set back the required 5 feet from the
51
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
52
side yard lot line. Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Column 14/15 requires a rear yard of at
least 20 feet. While the existing rear yard is compliant, the proposed addition will be set
back from the rear yard property line 5’-4” and will be deficient. Finally, Zoning Ordinance
Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, allows lot coverage up to 35%. The addition will
increase lot coverage from 29.4% to 51.8%.
The property at 113 West Lincoln Street is in the R-2b use district where the proposed
addition is permitted; however, Section 325-39 requires zoning variances be granted before a
Building Permit can be issued.
The Planning Board supports granting the variance request.
7. Old Business
• Steep Slope Regulations
(Not reviewed due to time considerations.)
• Off-Site Parking Lots as Accessory Uses
(Not reviewed due to time considerations.)
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
None.
B. Director of Planning & Economic Development
None.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
None.
9. Approval of Minutes: 5/28/13
(Not reviewed, due to time considerations.)
10. Adjournment
On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:16 p.m.