HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-07-23DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
July 23, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Isabel
Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: C.J. Randall
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 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
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
605 W. State Street (Finger Lakes Beverage Center)
Pat Moe, Owner;
Tom Fritz, Fritz Contracting, LLC
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. Agenda Review
(No changes were made to the agenda.)
2. Privilege of the Floor
Dan Hoffman, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) member, spoke in opposition to the 130
Clinton Street project. He added that the NAC should be treated as an involved agency, for
the purpose of environmental review.
Rima Shamieh, Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) Chair, spoke in opposition to the
130 Clinton Street project. Noting she is not speaking on behalf of the CAC, she expressed
concern the Planning Board is considering a Negative Declaration of environmental
significance. In fact, it is the first project she has personally reviewed that may genuinely
deserve a Positive Declaration of environmental significance. She also objected to the lack
of opportunity to review all the project documents, prior to the Board’s making its decision.
Michael Culotta, CAC member, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project,
noting he and other CAC members are concerned with the project’s visual impact. In
addition, he remarked, the area across from the project (behind the Urban Outfitters store)
was originally been envisioned as a public space, which would now be threatened if that plan
were ever implemented. Culotta noted the steep slope is also a significant concern; and he is
concerned the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was never made publicly
available.
Brian Eden, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) member, spoke
in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project. He objected to the fact that, once the Public
Hearing has taken place, the public is effectively sidelined from the entire process. He is
also concerned that interested parties are not being given enough opportunity to review all
the project documents, which should always be submitted at least one week before Planning
Board meetings. Applicants should be held to firm deadlines and not permitted to provide
materials the day before a meeting.
Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke in support of the 130 Clinton Street project, remarking that too
many community members regularly express unnecessary opposition to local development
projects, with little or no demonstrable basis for their claims.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
John Dennis, 893 Cayuga Heights Road, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street
project. It represents an egregious use of the site. (The original subdivision should never
have been permitted.) It seems to him that ― if developers simply appear enough times
before the Board and merely respond in some fashion to Board member comments and
recommendations ― the Planning Board concludes the developers have become vested and
feels obligated to approve their projects. Dennis indicated he believes the project has
generated enough opposition to merit some kind of legal action. He suggested the Planning
Board and staff consult with the City Attorney to evaluate the integrity of the whole Site Plan
Review process.
3. Site Plan Review
A. 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.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 2
Acharya asked if the City Traffic Engineer signed off on the revised version of the project
proposal. Nicholas replied, yes.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jones-Rounds suggested the Board address the statement in Section #18 (“Impact on Growth
and Character of Community or Neighborhood”) that says: “Proposed action will set an
important precedent for future actions.” She asked if the project would not, in fact, have a
future impact on steep slope-related issues. Acharya replied, yes, unless the City passes
steep slope legislation, the project most likely would have an impact. Cornish agreed it is a
good point and it should probably be addressed somewhere in the Part 3. Schroeder agreed.
No changes were made to the Part 2.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3
Schroeder indicated it is his understanding the current proposal does not include tie-backs.
Engineering Consultant Wood replied, that is correct.
Schroeder observed that one of the most significant mitigations requires a certain portion of
the site remain undisturbed.
Acharya asked if Board members had any comments about the proposed mitigations. Jones-
Rounds asked how the “third-party registered landscape architect” would be selected, for
reviewing the stabilization/landscape plan. Cornish replied Planning staff could do that.
Schroeder proposed some language regarding the installation of slope-monitoring devices.
Acharya agreed that is a good mitigation. Jones-Rounds asked what procedure would be
followed to ensure the appropriate City Departments/staff are kept informed of slope-
monitoring activities. Cornish replied the Building Division would be responsible for the
project, once the final site plan has been approved, and would be notified of anything amiss
as part of its standard inspection process.
Blalock asked what repercussions would arise if the applicant started construction on the
project, but ultimately determined it is not feasible. He can envision a situation like the
former Ithaca Gun site, which is half-completed, but too expensive to return to its original
condition. Cornish responded that is a good point (although the former Ithaca Gun site was a
different situation). Acharya remarked there does not appear to be anything the City could
do in such a situation. Cornish indicated the applicant would be required to return the site to
its original condition.
Architect Sharma indicated the applicant would certainly re-establish the original vegetation,
in such a scenario.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott asked who would monitor the water-related impacts during construction. Cornish
replied, both the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and City
Environment Engineer are responsible for that. Acharya asked if the SWPPP is a public
document. Nicholas replied, yes.
Elliott observed that a lot of construction equipment uses diesel fuel (and many of the
cheapest contractors employ poorly-maintained equipment), which would negatively impact
the air quality in the downtown area. He asked if there had ever been any issues associated
with this before and what air-monitoring practices are generally employed by the City, the
DEC, or other parties. Cornish replied that is an interesting point. To her knowledge, the
City does not have any air-monitoring procedures or standard in place, beyond what the DEC
itself requires. That is certainly something the Planning Board should address.
Jones-Rounds suggested adding visual screening along the Creek Walk, especially if an open
public area were ever to be established there, as was mentioned earlier. Schroeder responded
that could be addressed during Site Plan Review.
Blalock asked if the Police Chief was consulted about the project (e.g., ingress and egress of
police vehicles). Cornish replied that when the applicant obtained the Building Permit, a
complete transportation plan would have been required for trucks, construction equipment,
contractors, etc., which would have included the Police Department. She added the Police
Department also receives all Site Plan Review application materials.
Whitham indicated the applicant had not yet met with the new Police Chief, but it is a good
idea.
Acharya asked if a trip-generation analysis had been done for the project. Project Engineer
Herrick replied, no, since the subject was not brought up in discussions with the City Traffic
Engineer. Acharya suggested Herrick follow up with the City Traffic Engineer. Nicholas
agreed the City Traffic Engineer would want that data (even if it is not something that would
be designated as a potentially large impact in the environmental review).
Blalock observed he had not heard any formal comments regarding the project’s impact on
the character of the surrounding neighborhood, from any of the major land owners or
developers near the site, as had been suggested by one of the public speakers.
Nicholas noted the applicant was required to notify all the neighbors within 200 feet of the
site, before the Public Hearing.
5
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 Acharya:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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-
BR, and twelve 2-BR). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the City of Ithaca Police
Station to the west and Six Mile Creek (SMC) to the north. The site is steeply sloped with areas
in the building site at, or over, 35%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope. The
project will occupy 1.1 acres of the site between the Ithaca Police Station and the property
owner’s other apartment buildings, located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include
removal of over an acre of vegetation, including 27 mature trees, and excavation of
approximately 3,500 CY of soil. The project includes retaining walls, a concrete walkway from
the lower parking lot (on Prospect 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
also includes reconfiguration of the parking area on the adjacent tax parcel, resulting in a decrease
of 3 spaces, as well as the development of a lower parking area on Prospect Street for two
accessible parking spaces. 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).
IMPACT ON LAND
The proposed building site is contiguous to SMC to the north and across the creek from the
downtown core. The Ithaca City Police Department / City Court Building is downhill and to the
west of the site, and existing high-density residential development is uphill and to the east.
Single- and multi-family homes are on the other side of E. Clinton and Prospect Streets. The tax
parcel on which the project is proposed is one of four contiguous parcels owned by the applicant
and containing a complex of three apartment buildings and associated parking areas, walkways,
and green space. The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and contains the remnants
of an access road (in the location of the proposed buildings), and a stone and concrete retaining
wall facing SMC. Although the site is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents
a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area and unique in the downtown core.
The project site is steeply sloped and heavily vegetated. In the area slated for development, the
site has a vertical drop from 471 feet at the existing parking area to 432 at the western property
line over a span of 75’, representing a 52% slope.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
All vegetation within the limits of disturbance (as shown on drawing C102, dated 7/5/13) will be
removed, including 27 mature trees. The applicant has indicated approximately 3,500 CY of fill
will be excavated to grade the site. Before commencement of grading and clearing, a sheet-piling
retaining wall system will be installed on the north slope, approximately 15’ from north-facing
(creek) façade of the proposed Building C.
In an e-mail dated July 18, 2013 (from Jagat P. Sharma to Lisa Nicholas), the applicant stated the
following about the siting choices for the project:
“The property known as Terrace Hill was subdivided into five lots. The owner began
conceptualization [of] a project on lot A [Parcel A] back in 2011. We explored several schemes
consisting of a series of four story buildings starting from the Clinton Street parallel to the police
station and then wrapping around facing Six Mile Creek. We then investigated the site for
project feasibility and discovered that the lot A basically consists of two separate and distinct
areas. The portion facing the SMC and running parallel to it is a steep wooded site. The portion
facing the police station comparatively has remnants of earlier disturbances made of a drive
lane, stone walls, abandoned walks, concrete steps and railings. We concluded that the portion of
lot A bordering the Six Mile Creek shall be set aside as a ‘Not to Be Developed Site’ and the new
project shall be limited to the portion of lot A facing the police station.”
The Lead Agency has received multiple comments on the project from groups and individuals
concerning potential impacts of developing the steeply-sloped site adjacent to SMC. Among the
comments are the following:
In a February 25, 2013 letter from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Marx recommended the City require a minimum 100-foot no-
disturbance buffer from Six Mile Creek.
Multiple comments from the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), received between February
15, 2013 and June 17, 2013, expressed concerns about development on steep slopes, erosion, loss
of habitat, lack of stream buffer, potential for slope collapse and impacts to SMC. The CAC
recommended that the Lead Agency require the following additional information:
• Vegetation Survey & Tree Inventory.
• Determine depth-to-bedrock and assess stability of slope.
• Conduct archaeological survey.
• Rigorous stormwater treatment plan.
• Visual Impacts Survey.
Comments from the Ithaca Shade Tree Advisory Committee, dated February 20, 2013, expressed
concerns about the loss of tree canopy and other vegetation, the potential for serious erosion
impacting SMC, and the appropriateness of some of the species proposed in the Planting Plan.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Comments from the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, dated March 25,
2013, strongly recommended a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be required before
considering approval of the project, due to the fact that project materials (submitted as of that
date) did not satisfactorily address environmental concerns.
Of primary concern to the Lead Agency is the potential risk of slope failure as a result of
development on the steeply-sloped site, and its impacts to SMC and downtown Ithaca. The
downtown area was subject to damaging flooding in 1868, 1905, 1935, and 1982. In 1982, SMC
overflowed its banks and washed out the old pedestrian bridge and walkway on the property.
High flows during that flood caused damage to the wall on the north side of the creek, resulting in
extensive repairs. The Lead Agency is concerned slope failure into SMC could: (1) cause
damaging erosion into the waterway, negatively impacting the ecology, functioning and
enjoyment of the waterway; and (2) constrict high flows and cause flooding in the downtown
area.
The Lead Agency, due the concerns outlined above, required the applicant to submit geotechnical
information to demonstrate the site could support the proposed development without potential
risk of slope failure or significant erosion into SMC.
The applicant submitted a “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,” dated January 2013 and
prepared for the applicant by Ravi Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. The report indicated
soils on the construction site contain fill to the first 10-15 feet, with granular natural soils
beneath. The report listed requirements for the construction of footings on the site, but did not
specify the foundation design and construction. The report was reviewed by the City Director of
Engineering and the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency determined it did not contain enough
information to adequately evaluate potential environmental impacts.
In response, the applicant submitted a “Feasibility Analysis,” prepared by Gary L. Wood and
dated May 24, 2013, containing the following excerpt. [Note: The “2.2” paragraph number is
copied from the numbering system of the original Wood document.]
“2.2 There is currently a lack of definition of the properties of the soils that constitute the actual
project site. As one example — fill was encountered in two borings, but there is no definition of
its lateral or vertical extent. Because of the physical conditions, it will not be possible to
completely explore the site. Nevertheless, it is proposed that an additional boring, to a target
depth of 70 feet, be made in the owner's parking lot opposite the previous B-3. A second boring is
proposed in the relatively flat area in the SW corner of the property. These will provide two
additional profiles, through existing borings B-4 and B-5 respectively, to expand the knowledge
and provide samples for further review. It is proposed that these samples be tested for:
• Natural moisture content which provides an indirect assessment of the density and,
consequently, the strength;
• The particle gradation (or possibly the Atterberg limits) as an additional means of
confirming the soil properties that have been used in the current analyses;
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Any other tests that may seem appropriate based on the nature of the materials encountered.
Inasmuch as the current analyses predict stable conditions, as discussed in the following
paragraphs, it seems reasonable and prudent to conduct these supplemental investigations
concurrently with the building designs. The fall-back position in the event that a less satisfactory
conclusion is ultimately reached, will be to add more reinforcement to the slope ― which is
possible.”
The report then made the following recommendations. [Note: Again, the paragraph numbers are
copied from the original Wood document.]
“4.1 It is recommended that slope monitoring devices be installed prior to starting this
construction so that corrective measures (such as additional sheet piling) can be taken should
any movement be detected. Six permanent survey monuments should be installed at strategic
locations, as shown on Dwg. C 100, and their precise X, Y, & Z coordinates established prior to
the start of construction. This would be followed by monthly checks during construction and
annual checks for the following two years. If no movement is observed during this period, the
monitoring will not need to continue. The monuments should not be removed, however.
4.2 Foundations will be constructed of cast-in-place concrete, based on the design
recommendations contained in the previously-referenced Ravi report.
4.3 It should be apparent that the final details, such as footing dimensions and slopes that vary
with the topography, are part of the actual design phase, and may be adjusted as a consequence
of the additional investigation recommended in ¶ 2.2.”
After reviewing Wood’s comments above, the Lead Agency determined that, consistent with the
report, there was a potential the site plan and foundation design could change significantly, based
on the results of additional recommended boring, as well as the results of the recommended
monitoring and any subsequent additional adjustments. The Lead Agency, therefore, requested a
description and analysis of the “worst case scenario” for additional piling and foundation design.
In response, Wood submitted an “Addendum,” dated June 20, 2013, which stated the following:
“In reference to ¶ 2.2 (of the report dated 24 May, 2013):
The proposal that two additional borings, and associated laboratory testing, be made was to
refine the description of the properties of the indigenous soils. This information will not alter the
design as it is proposed, but is intended to be as cautious as practical in defining this soil deposit.
1 My further recommendation was this could be carried out concurrently with the actual design
of the buildings, for the following reasons: [Wood footnote: 1 My report was apparently
submitted to Mr. Dan Karig for review and he commented in an e-mail to me ‘that terrace is the
top of post-glacial deltaic sequence,’ which implies a heterogeneous, or poorly-sorted, deposit.]
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1. The foundation designs will be based on the recommendations presented in the Ravi report,
viz. ‘bearing on the natural soil using a bearing capacity of 2000 psf, with a minimum width of 2
feet.’ This a conservative value, based on the Building Code, so there is no reason that this
recommendation would not be followed.
2. There is no reason to use piers or piles to carry the loads to the bedrock, as noted above. If
there should be slippage within the soil profile, deep foundations such as these would not offer
any lateral resistance.
3. The strength values that might be adjusted on the basis of this additional investigation are
those associated with the slope stability analyses. As described in ¶ 2.4, analyses of the North
slope in its present condition ,2 without the building superimposed, produced a Safety Factor that
indicates the soil is at least as strong as assumed. As a matter of due diligence, however, the
additional investigation and testing is being proposed. [Wood footnote: 2 These were not
published in my report.]
4. Parenthetically, the weight of the 3500 cubic yards of excavated soil has not been included in
the analyses along the West slope. Throughout most of length of the proposed buildings, this
weight exceeds the weight of the proposed buildings. But there is no similar excavation in the
analyses of the North side. This essentially explains the difference between the satisfactory safety
factor in the first case and the need to add the sheet piling reinforcement in the latter.
In reference to ¶ 4.1 (of the report, dated May 24, 2013):
The monitoring points proposed in this paragraph were added to provide assurance that the
project developer would provide documentation to the City that conditions are, and remain,
stable. No perceptible movement of these points is anticipated, although a few millimeters would
not be of concern so long as it wasn’t progressive. Hence, the recommendation that the
monitoring be conducted at a defined sequence and time span.
This obviously poses the ‘what if’ question and the answer is that there are a few remedial
procedures that could be undertaken, if sufficient movement should occur. In addition to driven
sheet piles, as currently proposed for the North slope, there are other well-established practices
such as micropiles, pile dowels, and augered piles. All of these installations would be invisible
upon completion. It is also noted that, although there is no apparent information on how far the
anchors for the wall adjacent to the Justice Building extend into this site, it is possible to observe
their location along the wall and install any reinforcement in the 9 foot space between.”
In the same June 20, 2013 “Addendum,” Wood also provided these additional comments
regarding an earlier FEAF, Part 3 draft:
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
“The first paragraph on page 3 refers to the proposed retaining wall on the North slope ‘with tie-
back and earth anchors.’ This piling will be driven flush with the ground surface, and follow the
contours. Since there will be no exposed face, there won’t be a place to install tie-backs or
anchors. The purpose of this wall will be to intercept the failure surface predicted by the stability
analyses and the support will be derived from the depth of pile driven below the failure surface.
• Any steel sheet piling will be relatively light ‘Z’ sections such as SPZ 16 which has a
thickness of about ¼ inch and weighs a nominal 16 pounds per square foot.
• Mr. Karig, agreed in his e-mail memo to me, that the bedrock depths tabulated in the May
report are consistent with his knowledge of the area. Since the bedrock will constitute
neither a bearing point for piles nor a boundary condition for slope failures, it is not
necessary to further explore it. Nevertheless, the additional borings proposed may encounter
it and, if so be terminated at that depth.
• It is believed that the bullet points that follow have been addressed, except as follows:
• Surface water control is the subject of the ‘Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan’ and it
must be followed. Groundwater is not anticipated, but the project specifications typically
require its removal. In other words, the project management must prevent this from
becoming a problem.”
The above reports and responses have been reviewed by the Lead Agency and the City Director
of Engineering. The Lead Agency is satisfied that Wood, a Licensed Professional Engineer, has
adequately addressed the risk of slope failure for this point in the project development.
As of July 17, 2013, the Lead Agency is not in receipt of the following previously requested
information from the applicant:
• Grading Plan showing proposed grading lines for construction activities with cut-and-fill
calculations.
• Construction Staging Plan ― including stockpiling location and erosion controls for
excavated or imported materials.
Mitigations Required by Lead Agency:
• Based on concerns of the Planning Board, as well as comments from various parties, the
applicant made the following revisions to the original site layout illustrated in “Layout Plan
C101,” dated November 15, 2012:
o Removal of the vehicular access road extending from Clinton Street to the terminus of
Building C (building closest to SMC).
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
o Relocation of the buildings approximately 18’ up the slope, closer the parking area to
the east at 102 Prospect Street (Limestone Tower) and away from the Ithaca Police
Station to the west. This change maximized use of the historically disturbed portion of
the site, a leveled area previously used as an access road, and reduced the amount of
slope affected during construction.
• Implementation of a mechanism for the permanent protection of the area labeled “Portion of
Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped (Area = 1.146 Acres),” as shown on T.G. Miller drawing
“Existing Conditions Plan C100,” dated July 5, 2013. Among the mechanisms being
explored for such permanent protection of this portion as a natural area: a deed restriction, a
permanent easement, or donation of land to a preservation organization. The Lead Agency
will require this issue to be resolved and a legally-binding permanent protection of this area
to be in place, in a form acceptable to the Lead Agency, before a Certificate of Occupancy is
issued. The permanent protection of this area will ensure that the most undisturbed and
steeply-sloped portion of Parcel A, and the portion that is most contiguous to Six Mile Creek
and most visible from the SMC Creek Walk, shall remain permanently undeveloped as a
natural area.
• Development of a Stabilization / Landscape Plan that includes significant plantings for
screening and stabilization in the “Portion of Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped” area. The
plan must be reviewed by the City Forester and a third-party registered landscape architect
chosen by planning staff. Plant selection will be determined, at a minimum, by the following
criteria:
o Appropriateness to climate, soils & light levels on the site.
o Suitability & effectiveness for soil stabilization.
o Resistance to disease.
o Resistance to deer damage (or protected appropriately therefrom).
o Sized to maximum practicable for survival.
• This Stabilization / Landscape Plan must include a plan for establishment ― including a
temporary irrigation system. The applicant must also respond to the comments submitted in a
letter dated Monday, June 17, 2013, from City of Ithaca Forester Jeanne Grace, in which she
suggested replacing the proposed viburnum and euonymus. The applicant shall submit a
revised “Mitigation Plan L102,” which more specifically identifies plantings, and the
intended planting protocol, in the “Portion of Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped” area. Before
a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, the applicant must post a performance bond to ensure
the above landscape is successfully established at the end of the third year.
• The applicant shall follow all recommendations contained within the aforementioned
documents and communications provided for this project by Gary L. Wood, including the
recommendation regarding the installation of “slope monitoring devices.” If these devices
detect any significant movement, this fact shall be reported to the City of Ithaca planning and
engineering departments, and if any remedial action is necessary to address such significant
movement, it shall be undertaken by the applicant.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• If applicant’s project, for any reason, is not completed, the project site’s land shall be restored
to its former state.
IMPACT ON WATER
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.”
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.”
IMPACT ON AIR
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.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency:
• The applicant is required to use the following dust-control measures, as needed, during
construction:
o Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
o Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.
o Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
o Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
o Requiring trucks to be covered.
o Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
Although the site is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is
visually typical of the natural area. The existing tree canopy is unique and valuable in the
downtown core for wildlife habitat, aesthetic appeal, air quality, and mitigation of the heat island
effect.
Site preparation will require all vegetation within the limits of disturbance be removed, including
27 mature trees. The applicant has provided a rare flora and fauna survey, conducted by F.
Robert Wesley, and dated April 29, 2013. In Wesley’s report, he concludes he was unable to
find any species listed as Rare, Threatened, Special Concern, or Endangered in New York State
by Natural Heritage or DEC. No federally listed species were found or were ever recorded on the
site.
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Due to the steep slopes on the entire building site, as well as the close proximity to the creek, the
potential for erosion into the creek is high, particularly during the construction phase, but also
during the period of slope re-stabilization. Erosion into SMC could affect aquatic life in SMC ―
which is used for fishing.
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.”
IMPACT ON ÆSTHETIC RESOURCES
The project will be visible from SMC, the Creek Walk, and possibly the Commons. The most
visible portion of Parcel A from these vantage points, however, is the area to be protected from
development. The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and, although it is not within
the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural
area and unique in the downtown core.
The applicant has provided visual simulations showing the buildings from SMC and Clinton
Street and some detailed building elevations. Building architecture, including materials and
colors, will be reviewed by the Planning Board and refined by the applicant during Site Plan
Review. The Planning Board will also consider the adequacy of the plantings between the project
and SMC during Site Plan Review.
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.”
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and, although it is not within the designated
SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area and unique
in the downtown core. It represents visual green space that is valued in the downtown core.
The applicant has submitted visual simulations from SMC Creek Walk, both with and without the
proposed vegetation.
Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.”
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Applicant must submit a construction truck routes plan designed to minimize potential impacts on
residential areas.
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency:
• Applicant shall provide a plan for construction truck routes designed to minimize potential
impacts on neighborhoods, for approval by the Lead Agency.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Construction impacts, including construction vehicle impacts, only.
Refer to mitigation under “Impact to Transportation.”
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project has the potential to impact the City Police Department and City improvements to E.
Clinton and Prospect Streets currently in process. In a memo to the Planning Board from Tim
Logue, City Transportation Engineer, dated March 15, 2013, he states the following:
“On the drawings, the applicant should provide a site plan overlaying the proposed building and
site work, including stairs, walkway, and any proposed parking lot work with the Prospect Street
construction plans, which we sent to the applicant. It is difficult to see if or how this project will
work with the street work that is scheduled to start up in May and be finished by August. In
regard to the schedule, we will not be interested in utility cuts soon after the street project is
completed. It would be in the owner's interest to coordinate utility needs with the City's project
manager, Addisu Gebre, and with Fahs Construction, the City’s contractor.
Lastly, there is not information on the drawings for the tie-backs and the City's easement for the
steel retaining wall for the Police Department. The only note I see is for a five foot utility
easement. The drawings are showing hemlocks planted on top of the tie-backs, but we will
probably not want anything that substantial there.
… Based on feedback from the City's consulting engineer for the Clinton / Prospect Street
project, it still looks like they will be building on the City's right-of-way at the east end of the new
retaining wall. The City owns approximately 7 ft (minimum) behind the rear face of the new wall.
The use of City property is subject to Chapter 170 of the City Code. The concern about
surcharging the existing wall with a vehicle loading should not be a concern since it appears
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
they are only proposing a pedestrian path; however, during construction, as shown on drawing
C102, a vehicle driveway is proposed. We will need a full structural evaluation of this proposal
by a licensed engineer. Similar to comment on previous plans: several utilities have been
relocated as part of the City project in the area of the wall. The feasibility of relocating utilities
as part of the apartment project will need to be thoroughly investigated based on their final
location at the completion of the City project.
The location chosen for the five bike racks will not provide enough space around the racks for
bicycles. We can provide design guidelines upon request.”
In response to the City Transportation Engineer’s comments the applicant has provided the
requested overlay of City construction on the drawings C101 through C104 together with notes
“Existing Street, Curb and Walk Under Construction.” The applicant states that the only impact
to the City’s new work is the removal of the westerly curb cut currently serving the parking lot at
#114 Prospect Street, which has been reviewed by the Transportation Engineer.
Only a short length of sidewalk and stairway will cross over the City right-of-way line. This is
not uncommon to development projects that link public sidewalks with private access. The
Transportation Engineer did not expect this condition to be significant, but said it may require a
renewable lease agreement to be executed with the City.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant:
• The applicant states that the latest drawing submission no longer includes any temporary or
permanent vehicle driveway behind the City’s new retaining wall.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency:
• All repair, including backfill materials, compaction and pavement restoration, of any portions
of the Clinton / Prospect Street reconstruction project made necessary by applicant’s project,
shall be done in a manner equal to the standards required in the City’s project.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
There is public controversy regarding this project. To date, the Planning Board has received
several letters and public comments, raising the following concerns:
• Impacts to drainage ― run-off and erosion into SMC.
• Impacts to plants & animals.
• Impacts to land (particularly steep slopes).
• Impacts to open space.
• Impacts to aesthetic resources.
• Impacts to views & vistas.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Concern about construction on steep slopes has prompted the Planning Board to discuss potential
steep slopes legislation that it may recommend to Common Council.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Schroeder
Opposed: Jones-Rounds
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
Jones-Rounds expressed concern the project still seems to represent a considerable risk of
erosion, destruction of vegetation, etc.
Schroeder indicated that slope preservation has long been his concern; but he remarked that
the project site has clearly been disturbed before and is not a pristine site. Protecting the
narrow portion of the site, adjacent to Six Mile Creek, is a significant step forward in his
opinion, since it protects and defines that green space in the city for the first time.
Jones-Rounds remarked she would like to see a more formal planting plan, in the advent
construction on the site were ever be disrupted, as was mentioned earlier. Schroeder
responded that could also be incorporated into Site Plan Review.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for 3 apartment buildings at 130 E. Clinton Street by Scott Whitham, applicant
for owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp., and
WHEREAS: 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-BR, and twelve 2-BR). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the City of
Ithaca Police Station to the west and Six Mile Creek to the north. The site is steeply sloped with
areas in the building site at, or over, 35%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope.
The project will occupy 1.1 acres of the site between the Ithaca Police Station and the property
owner’s other apartment buildings, located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include
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 Prospect 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
also includes reconfiguration of the parking area on the adjacent tax parcel, resulting in a decrease
of 3 spaces, as well as the development of a lower parking area on Prospect Street for two
accessible parking spaces. The project is in the B-1a Zoning District. The project requires a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and
17
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)(k), B(2), and B. (5), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the
local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan
approval 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: “Existing Conditions Plan (showing portion of parcel A to
remain undeveloped) C100,” “Layout Plan C101,” and “Demolition Plan C102,” prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Planting Plan L101” and “Mitigation Plan L102,” prepared by Whitham
Planning & Design, LLC and all dated July 5, 2013; “Building Elevations A303,” dated June 6,
2013; “Erosion Control and Sediment Plan C103” and “Grading and Utility Plan C104,” prepared
by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Floor Plans A101,” “Elevations, Building Sections A301,” “Site Sections
A302,” “View from Clinton Street R1,” “View from Six Mile Creek R2,” “Looking North Along
Boardwalk R3,” and “Looking West From Parking Lot R4,” all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma and
all dated May 24, 2013; 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 all comments received have been considered, as described in the FEAF,
Part 3, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, identified potential impacts to land,
water, vegetation, aesthetic resources, and open space, as detailed in the FEAF, Part 3, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has required mitigations to all impacts
as detailed in the FEAF, Part 3, 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 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, Schroeder
Opposed: Jones-Rounds
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5. Old Business
• Steep Slope Regulations Discussion
Schroeder indicated he likes the proposed steep slopes language former Board member Noah
Demarest drafted, since it addresses a number of issues and basically places the burden-of-
proof on an applicant to demonstrate the feasibility of a project:
“No site plan shall be approved which provides for construction or other disturbance of land in
environmentally sensitive areas, including but not limited to, wetlands, watercourses, steep slopes,
unique natural areas, or rare plant or animal habitats, unless the applicant demonstrates with
professional evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Planning Board that such construction may
occur without adverse environmental effects upon such areas. Nothing in this subsection is
intended to permit construction or other activities in areas where the same are prohibited or
regulated by other laws or regulations of the federal, state, county, or local government.”
Elliott remarked that New Hampshire uses actual numbers to restrict any development on
slopes greater than 25%. Acharya indicated he would like to see that language, as well.
Shamieh remarked the CAC has also discussed the issue at length. (In fact, Shamieh
developed a steep slope model ordinance for Cayuga County.) Any steep slope ordinance
should be very specific and designed according to the unique topographical conditions of the
jurisdiction it covers. For Ithaca, one would not want to use language that absolutely
precludes building on slopes greater than 25%, since Ithaca has so much land falling into that
category.
Schroeder responded that there are some steep slopes in the city where he would like to
prohibit development; so he is sympathetic to the suggestion that any steep slope ordinance
have some teeth to it. The difficulty is that the more teeth it has, and the more specific it
designed to be, the harder it would be to get Common Council to pass it.
Shamieh remarked that she recently worked with a prospective CAC member, who is highly
capable with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and performed a variety of different
slope analyses, which was extremely helpful. She imagines establishing a 35% slope cut-off
would have a relatively low impact.
Acharya indicated the Planning Board needs some draft language to initiate the whole
process and serve as a basis of further analysis. It would be helpful if the CAC could assist
in drafting that language. Shamieh replied she would be willing to do that.
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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.
Snyder recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that no changes were
made to the project since the Board last reviewed it.
Acharya indicated he feels the north façade still appears somewhat sterile or clinical. Snyder
replied he would have been better prepared to respond to that concern, if it had been
communicated to him at the Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting. Snyder added that
the north façade is virtually identical to the south façade and there have been vast
improvements made to both façades.
Schroeder responded that the two facades are not absolutely identical. There are more
‘blank’ areas on the north façade. Snyder replied it is best to view the illustrative rendering
more three-dimensionally. The façade would actually look more differentiated than the
rendering reflects.
Elliott suggested the applicant animate the façade a little more.
Acharya conceded the project’s design is a vast improvement from its initial iteration.
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder observed that the left portion of the elevation is almost entirely composed of brick
and metal paneling. He suggested some accent windows on the side, or some other
articulation or texture, would be an improvement. Snyder replied he would be happy to
implement something like that, as a condition of approval.
Jones-Rounds expressed continuing qualms about the Cascadilla Street corner parking lot.
She would like to see a condition requiring a little more exploration of some alternatives that
might minimize the use of that parking lot by customers (e.g., substituting some kinds of
dedicated spaces for others, so the parking lot could be used solely by residents and
employees). Blalock agreed.
Cornish indicated that addressing Jones-Rounds’ concern in the form of a condition would
enable it to become part of the official record. If a situation ever arose in the future, like an
accident, then the original concern could be revisited and the Board would have something to
refer to.
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by JR:
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
Fulton 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
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (1) (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 23, 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 and revised by the
Planning Board; and drawings entitled “Survey 700 Cascadilla Street C100” dated
12/7/12,“Survey 555 N. Fulton Street C110” and “Survey 621 Cascadilla Street C120,” dated
2/26/13, all prepared by TG Miller P.C., and “Location Plan G101,” dated 7-10-13, “Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan C101,” “Layout Plan C102,” “Grading and Drainage Plan C103,” “Utility
Plan C104,” “Details C201,” “First Floor Plan A100,” “Second and Third Floor Plans A101,”
“Fourth and Fifth Floor Plans A102,” “Roof Plan A103,” “Construction Staging Plan G102,”and
“Elevation Rendering A200” all dated 5-2-13, and “Layout Plan & Erosion and Sediment Control
621 Cascadilla Street C122,” dated 7-10-13, “Grading & Drainage Plan 621 Cascadilla Street
C123,”dated 6/18/13 and “Layout Plan 555 N. Fulton Street C112,” dated 7-10-13, “Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan Esty Street C111,” and “Grading and Drainage Plan Esty Street C113,”
both dated 5-2-13, and “Exterior Elevations A201 & A203: hand dated 4-3-13, and “Perspective
View – Cascadilla Street,” “Perspective View – Fulton Street,” and “Perspective View –
Cascadilla Street Proposed Bus Stop,” all dated 6/13/13; and “Schematic Planting Plan L100,”
“Schematic Planting Plan L110,” and “Schematic Planting Plan L120,” all hand-dated and date-
stamped 6/23/13 by staff and all prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other application
materials, 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: on June 25, 2013 the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board found that the
proposed site plan would result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the above referenced project, 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 to Planning Board of colored building elevations with all materials keyed, and
iii. Submission to Planning Board of a color copy of the materials board and/or product cut-
sheets, and
iv. Submission to Planning Board of all project details, including but not limited to site
furnishings, lighting, signage, paving, fencing and enclosures, and railings, and
v. Submission to Planning Board of drawings showing screening of NYSEG transformer at
north corner of Purity site, and
vi. Submission to Planning Board of revised landscape plan showing all three project parcels on
a single sheet with their landscaping and pedestrian connections, and
vii. Submission to Planning Board of revised Cascadilla parking lot drawings showing:
a. Additional street tree along Meadow Street where curbcut is being removed, and
b. Signage identifying this as a Purity parking area, and
c. Prominent “Employee Parking Only” signage for the seven parking spaces on the east
side of this lot (required mitigation per FEAF, Part 3), and
d. Installation of a low landscape anchor element within the landscape areas at the
northwest corner of this parking lot to provide greater urban definition at this
intersection corner, designed in a manner that does not interfere with vehicle sight lines
(required mitigation per FEAF, Part 3), and
viii. Applicant shall consider ways to add refinement/detail to the now largely plain wall surfaces
on the east third of the north facade, and
ix. All rooftop mechanicals shall be either screened from public view or architecturally
integrated into the building, and
x. Applicant shall further explore the possibility of the Cascadilla parking lot being used solely
by project residents and employees, and
xi. Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by the City of
Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer, and
xii. The project requires DOT approval for work in the State right-of-way and City of Ithaca
approval for work in the City right-of-way, and
xiii. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: Fernández
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
C. 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
FEAF, Part 3. 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 (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.
Architect Jensen walked through the following applicant responses to comments made by the
Design Review Committee at its 7/11/13 meeting:
To address the Committee’s concern about varying window size/proportion and breaking
down the large scale of windows to better reflect the solid:void ratio of existing historic
Commons buildings, the applicant generated a comparison of its design with the Sage
Building, as a point-of-reference. The result was that the two are reasonably comparable to
each other and the project is generally in keeping with buildings on the Commons.
Regarding a window on the corner of the Sage Building, Jensen indicated that, if the
applicant were to insert a window on that corner, it would have to be very narrow and
recessed about 2 feet behind the column; so the applicant does not favor inserting windows
on floors 2, 3, and 4. The applicant would consider inserting a window on the 4th floor,
however, behind the atrium. Schroeder responded he likes that idea. It addresses his
concern.
Regarding the cornices, Jensen noted the applicant studied the other cornices on the
Commons and quantified the frequency of different styles (e.g., flush, slightly articulated,
greatly articulated, etc.). The frequencies of different cornice styles are actually fairly even
divided.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
In terms of green roofs, Jensen indicated the applicant is not yet sure what will be feasible.
One thing that is certain is that there will be some rooftop equipment, so the applicant has
begun to perform some studies of where that could be placed and how green roofing could be
configured around it, at a reasonable cost.
[See section “4. Zoning Appeals,” further down, for associated recommendation to BZA.]
D. Sketch Plan ― 605 W. State Street (Finger Lakes Beverage Center)
Project Consultant Tom Fritz walked through the following characteristics of the proposed
project:
• building exterior would be updated
• Finger Lakes Beverage Center (FLBC) layout would be expanded
• existing sidewalk around building would be retained and a permanent walkway added
(with steel standing-seam roof and supporting columns)
• retail store entrances would be defined with larger columns
• visual scale of building would be reduced, minimizing its warehouse-like appearance and
making it more welcoming
• walkway connecting the different spaces would encourage more shopping
• current FLBC entrance would be removed and moved to the side
• FLBC would be situated in the back of the building
Elliott remarked the placement of the columns may need to be reconsidered. The columns on
the side suggest that they frame an entrance that does not actually exist.
Schroeder noted the color scheme will have a great impact on the appearance of the project,
so the Board will definitely need to see that. He added that the terminal canopy needs a more
substantial feature; the corners need to be more definitively anchored.
Fernández suggested using some of the same architectural language employed for the large
entrances on the smaller staff entrance, as well.
Nicholas suggested moving the parking spaces further away from State Street. Fritz
responded the applicant could not move those spaces any further and still have enough space
to operate (e.g., accommodating the FedEx-Kinko’s loading zone).
Cornish suggested installing curbstops. Fritz replied that should be possible.
Jones-Rounds recommended adding some tree islands (or other vegetative plantings or
accents) in the parking lot.
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder suggested adding landscaping to protect the columns from vehicles, as well as a
bike rack.
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2912, Area Variances ― 205 Williams Street
Appeal of Pamela Johnson owner of 205 Williams Street for area variance from Section 325-
8, Column 4, Column 6, Column 7, Column 10, Column 11, Column 12, Column 13,
Parking, Lot Area, Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard and Other
Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to remove a dilapidated existing addition that was added to the first
floor of the building at 205 Williams Street. This addition is located at the rear of the
building and is supported on posts, instead of conventional basement walls. The proposed
addition will have an enclosed basement. The new addition will extend no further into the
rear yard than the existing foundation, but the addition will increase the footprint of the
existing addition by 60.5 SF. This will increase the current lot area by 2.7%, to 43.1 %. The
property at 205 Williams Street is located in an R-3a Zone. In this zone, the allowable
percentage of lot coverage under Section 325-8, Column 6, is 35%.
The property at 205 Williams Street also has existing side yard deficiencies. Section 325-8,
Column 12, requires a side yard setback of 10 feet and Section 325-8, Column 13, requires
the other side yard have a setback of 5 feet. The existing side yards are 3.6 feet and 3.5 feet,
respectively. The new addition only affects the western side yard that is 3.6 feet deep. The
addition will extend this side yard deficiency approximately 9.68 feet further into the rear
yard. The front yard also has an existing deficiency that will not be increased by the
proposed addition. Section 325-8, Column 11, requires the front yard be 10 feet; the front
yard is 1.5 feet deep.
The property at 205 Williams Street is also deficient in lot area and lot width. Section 325-8,
Column 6, requires a lot area of 7,000 SF; the lot size is 3,000 SF. Section 325-8, Column 7,
requires a lot width of 50 feet; the lot width is 40 feet. Finally, the proposed addition is
deficient in parking. The proposal under Section 325-8, Column 4, requires 5 parking
spaces. There are no parking spaces on site, but the property has grandfather rights for 4
spaces.
The new addition will allow the applicant to change the number of bedrooms and bathrooms
in the two units without increasing the occupancy in the building, which is limited to 10
persons. The basement will go from a two-bedroom unit to a three-bedroom unit. The first
and second floor unit will go from eight bedrooms to seven bedrooms. Among other things,
the expansion of the basement apartment will provide more natural light and ventilation in
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
the bedrooms and code-compliant emergency escape windows. The applicant altered the
building in 2008 under a building permit to change the number of units at 205 Williams
Street from three units to two. This proposal would have only needed to go to the BZA if the
property had been deficient in parking or lot area. Unfortunately, the Code Inspector signed
the building permit without realizing that by increasing the bedrooms in one of the units, the
number of required parking spaces changed from 4 spaces to 6. In addition, the Code
Inspector did not realize the property is deficient in lot area; therefore, the alterations made
in 2008 to 205 Williams Street require variances from the BZA, because parking became
deficient by changing the number of dwelling units and the property is deficient in lot area.
The applicant requests that the BZA grant variances for the increase in parking spaces and
for the lot area deficiency, if the BZA denies the variance request for the proposed new
addition. If the BZA denies both variance requests, the applicant will have to return the
building to its pre-2008 apartment configuration.
The property at 205 Williams Street is in an R-3a Use District, where the proposed use is
permitted. Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be
issued.
The Board hopes the rendering submitted with the application, which shows a flattening of
the eave above the bay window, does not accurately depict the intended treatment of the
roofline on the front façade. Other than that issue, the Board recommends granting this
appeal.
Appeal #2913, Area Variances ― 815 Taber Street
Appeal of Fredric Bouché, owner of 815 Taber Street, Ports of New York Winery, for area
variances from Section 325-8, Columns, 10, 12, 13, and 14/15, Lot Coverage, Side Yard,
Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed is the construction of 1,000 SF greenhouse, behind the Ports of New York winery
located at 815 Taber Street. Ports of New York has received variances from the Board of
Zoning Appeals on two other occasions in which existing deficiencies of Section 325-8,
Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column 13, Other
Side Yard, were granted. The proposed greenhouse will increase the existing side yard
deficiencies and create two new deficiencies relating to lot coverage and rear yard setback.
Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, allows a maximum of 50% lot
coverage. Currently, the building has lot coverage of 29.8%. The proposed greenhouse will
increase lot coverage to 52%. Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Setback, requires the
building be set back 20 feet from the rear lot line. With the greenhouse addition, the rear
yard setback will be reduced to 3 feet. The current side yard deficiency in the east yard (side
yard) is 9’-2” and in the west yard (other side yard); the deficiency is 3’-2”. The Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 12 and 13, Side Yard and Other Side Yard, respectively,
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
requires the side yards be 12 feet on one side and 6 feet on the other side to be in compliance.
The proposed greenhouse will increase the 9’-2” side yard deficiency to 6’-8”. The other
side yard will have the 3’-2” side yard deficiency extended another 50 feet, the length of the
greenhouse.
The property at 815 Taber Street is in an I-1 Use District, where the proposed greenhouse is a
permitted use; however, Section 325-39 requires variances be granted before a Building
Permit can be issued.
The Board feels that this is an appropriate use of the site and recommends granting this
appeal.
Appeal #2916, Use Variance ― 709 N. Tioga Street
Appeal of Michael Kozanitis, for Brian and Eileen McKelvey, the owners of a three-unit
multiple dwelling at 709 North Tioga Street, for a use variance from the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance Section 325-32 C., “extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or
structures.” Section 325-32 C. states that a non-conforming use cannot be extended or
enlarged without a use variance.
The applicant proposes to purchase a 3-unit multiple dwelling at 709 North Tioga Street and
live in one of the units, as an owner/occupant. The building was originally constructed
around the turn of the twentieth century as a single-family home. It has been a non-
conforming use since at least 1977, when the Building Department began inspecting rental
dwellings for compliance with Ithaca’s Housing Ordinance. The building has three one-
bedroom apartments for occupancy of six unrelated persons. The applicant proposes to
reconfigure the first floor front apartment to make additional room for the owner-occupied
rear apartment. He proposes to remove the existing kitchen and living room, change the
existing bedroom into an entry-level living room, and build a second story for two bedrooms.
This proposal including a new 8’x16’ entry deck to accommodate the rear entry and will
increase the total square footage by 128 SF.
In his letter to the Board, the applicant shows it would be financially infeasible to use the
building as either a single-family home, or a two-dwelling unit. He also shows the proposed
alterations are necessary in order to continue operating the building as a three-unit multiple
dwelling.
The applicant states he will limit the occupancy of the renovated apartment to two persons.
The applicant also proposes to limit the occupancy of the other two apartments to one person.
This will lower the building’s current occupancy from six to four persons.
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The property at 709 North Tioga Street is located in an R-2b Use District, in which the
proposed use is not permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires a use variance be granted
before a Building Permit is issued.
The Board feels the proposed modifications improve the property and recommend granting
this appeal.
Appeal #2917, Area Variance ― Harold’s Square, 123-127,133,135-139 E. State Street
Appeal of Scott Whitham, for owner, L Enterprises, LLC, for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Depth Requirement, of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed use building of approximately
132,000 GSF known as “Harold’s Square.” The building is designed to have commercial
business on the ground floor, three stories of upper-story office space, 6 stories devoted to
residential use, and an 11th story penthouse. The residential portion of the building is in a
tower configuration that will be set back 62’ 8” from the building’s four-story façade facing
the Commons. This tower will be located in the CBD-140 Zone and reach a height of 140
feet. The four-story portion will be located in the CBD-60 Zone and have a height of 57’
10”. The building will have two main entrances: one on the Commons, and the other facing
the Green Street Alley between the Commons and the Green Street garage. The size of the
project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the building. District regulations require the
project have a 10-foot rear yard setback. The applicant proposes to have no rear yard for this
project. The proposed building will include an access bridge connection to the Green Street
garage, a canopy roof covering the rear exit, and exit doors that swing pass the rear property
line and encroach on City property.
The applicant is currently in contact with the City to develop an agreement for these
encroachments. Harold’s Square will be located in a CBD-140/CBD-60 Use District, where
the uses of the proposed building are permitted; however, Section 325-38 and 325-39 require
an area variance be granted before a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be
issued.
The Planning Board supports granting the variance for this appeal.
6. Old Business
• Off-Site Parking Lots as Accessory Uses
Cornish remarked that the Purity Ice Cream Site Plan Review process has generated
considerable new interest in re-evaluating off-site parking lots as accessory uses. She
suggested the Board may want to recommend to Common Council that the ordinance be
clarified.
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Off-Site Parking Lots as Accessory Uses Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, having observed that
permitting off-site parking lots as accessory uses does not always result in the most desirable use
of a given property, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends that §325-
20, “Off-street parking,” be clarified.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
• Proposed City of Ithaca Sidewalk Improvement Districts (SIDs)
Cornish informed the Board it will be receiving a complete packet of information about the
proposed Sidewalk Improvement Districts, to comment on as part of the formal circulation.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
None.
B. Director of Planning & Development
None.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
None.
8. Approval of Minutes: 5/28/13
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, the draft May 28, 2013 meeting minutes
were approved.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
31
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Blalock , seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.