HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-11-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
November 26, 2013
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; C.J.
Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Purity Ice Cream
Bruce Lane, Owner;
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects, PLLC
South Meadow Marketplace Expansion
Matthew Oates, Benderson Development
Green Street Garage ― Trash & Recycling
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
David Lubin, Owner;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
Duplex with Parking Area
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
Cherry Street Cross-Fit Gym
David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C.;
Adam Klausner, Esq., MAD4CHERRY, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
4-Story Hotel
Andrew Terragnoli, Optima Design & Engineering, PLLC
(via conference call)
Statler Hall Renovations
Davies Orinda, Cornell University
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Acharya noted the Planning Board would not be able to proceed with the final vote on the
Purity Ice Cream project’s Site Plan Review, until a fifth Board member was present, since
the County Planning Department’s 11/26/13 comments on the project require a supermajority
vote (i.e., majority plus one).
2. Privilege of the Floor
None.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Purity Ice Cream, 700 Cascadilla St., John Snyder Architects, for Bruce Lane,
Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Modified Site Plan Approval. The applicant
is requesting changes to the site plan approved on July 23, 2013. The modified project
includes interior renovations of the existing masonry and steel-framed building, as well as
the additional second-story level to include 2,866 SF of new office space, elevator tower,
lobby space, restrooms, mechanicals and an outdoor terrace seating area. Site work will
include: an outdoor patio; pedestrian walkways; new sidewalk paving and pedestrian areas
on Cascadilla Street; reorganization and repaving of the parking area to include 25 spaces (17
were approved in the previous site plan); landscaping; and a wooden guard-rail fence along
Fulton Street. The previously-approved access road from the parking area to Cascadilla
Street has been removed, as has the Fulton/Esty Street parking lot. The Cascadilla Street
parking lot is unchanged from the approved site plan. Proposed modifications are consistent
with the environmental review (including required mitigations) that was completed for this
project on June 25, 2013.
Acharya announced that, because of the County's GML letter (excerpted below), which was
just received mid-afternoon today, a supermajority of 5 votes, not the usual 4, would be
needed to pass the modified site plan approval resolution for the project.
“This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment
by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -I and -m of the New York
State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has
determined that it may have negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts as described
below. We recommend modification of the proposal. If the Board does not incorporate the
recommendations, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus
one) of all members of the decision-making body.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Recommended Modifications:
• As was stated in our April 22nd letter on this proposal, the proposed parking scheme appears to
run counter to several aspects of the West End Urban Design Plan. We continue to recommend
that the proposed parking at CascadiIIa and North Meadow be eliminated and a new parking
proposal more in line with the West End Urban Design Plan be devised.”
Applicant Snyder updated the Board on the project’s current status and submitted a revised
planting plan and memorandum, containing the applicant’s responses to City Traffic
Engineer Tim Logue’s questions and concerns. He also provided a color drawing showing
the proposed connection to Cascacadilla Street, in response to another of Logue’s comments.
The project would include pedestrian walkpaths to that area through the sidewalk, using
colored concrete.
(Blalock arrived at 6:12 p.m.)
Schroeder suggested the sidewalk to Cascadilla Street should be clearly distinguished from
the paving in the public seating area. He believes Logue’s intent was to separate the seating
area from the sidewalk. Snyder replied that would not be a problem.
Snyder remarked that the applicant examined the bike parking and determined it would need
to be increased (located at the Purity Ice Cream location and Meadow Street, as well as
around the entrance on the north side of the building).
Modified Site Plan Approval Resolution
Schroeder moved to vote on the resolution.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: Randall
Absent: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
Snyder asked the Board if the County’s concerns had not already been brought up and
effectively overriden as a result of the original 7/23/13 Site Plan Review approval. Acharya
replied he could certainly ask Planning Division staff whether that is the case.
Randall explained that she is voting against the project, because she agrees with the contents
of the County’s GML letter (i.e., the proposed parking scheme appears to run counter to
several aspects of the West End Urban Design Plan, the proposed parking at Cascadilla and
North Meadow Streets should be eliminated, and a new parking proposal more consistent
with the West End Urban Design Plan should be devised).
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Snyder indicated he discussed the West End Urban Design Plan with former City Planning
Director Thys Van Cort, who remarked that the plan did not go far enough in its attempt to
create a street wall. Schroeder conceded that may have been Van Cort’s point of view, but it
ran counter to the overwhelming consensus at the time the West End Urban Design Plan was
adopted.
Schroeder remarked that he is sure that the County’s and Randall’s concerns could be
addressed in some way, with a simple modification to the current site plan proposal.
Randall noted she was not present for the initial Site Plan Review approval vote. The
original project proposal included a significant, positive trade-off, in the form of additional
housing, which she regrets was eliminated.
Snyder stressed that the proposed project is a wonderful project, with significant landscape
design improvements, environmentally-friendly features, like photovoltaics, and so on. He
expressed dismay at the length of the review process. Schroeder responded it is not fair for
the applicant to include the applicant’s own Modified Site Plan proposal as part of that
timeline.
Lane remarked that all he was trying to do was improve his corner of the West End and
create a beautiful area, including a two-block section of landscaping and making his portion
of Route 13/North Meadow Street as pedestrian-friendly as possible. He pointed out that
current City zoning regulations do in fact permit the proposed parking lot. He is
disappointed the project was not approved.
Schroeder suggested a conversation with the City Attorney might shed some light on the
process and what might be done to salvage the project.
Lane observed the parking lot appears to be the principal focus of objection; however, he
would plan on building it, regardless of the results of today’s vote. He would also
communicate to his customers why the overall project was not approved. He stressed that
the majority of his customers use vehicles, so he feels compelled to provide more parking.
Acharya indicated the Board has the option of: (1) formally moving to reconsider the vote;
(2) exploring whether the current County GML letter should be considered to have been
overridden as a result of the original Site Plan Review vote; or (3) addressing the issue at
another Planning Board meeting, when more members are present.
Lane observed that the West End Urban Design Plan does not actually lay out any
requirements, per se. It also states that the ideal situation would be to have fencing dividing
the commercial area from the residential one.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder noted he would like guidance from the City Attorney. He also suggested Randall
could request a re-vote, if she chooses, and she feels she could be persuaded to vote for the
project.
Randall noted, while the County Commissioner of Planning based his determination on the
West End Urban Design Plan, the same issue is brought up in the Northside plan, Turning
the Corner, A Vision for the Northside Neighborhood, adopted by Common Council on
December 3, 2003. She would support asking Planning staff to determine how to deal with
the County’s GML letter.
Lane asked if a simple structural renovation of the Purity Ice Cream building would
hypothetically require Planning Board approval. Schroeder replied, conceivably not, if it
only involved internal modifications, without a parking lot. If it included a parking lot with
more than four spaces, however, it would require Planning Board approval. Lane indicated
he would not invest any more in the business, if he cannot provide more parking to
accommodate more customers.
Pyott asked for clarification regarding whether a secondary motion was in fact made
supporting the initial motion to call a vote on the resolution. No Board members responded
that they had seconded the motion.
Given that the initial motion was not seconded, Schroeder observed, no legitimate vote
effectively took place, so the applicant could request the project be considered at the next
Planning Board meeting. Acharya agreed that would probably be the best approach.
Snyder indicated the applicant is seeking to bid the project out in mid-December, so he was
hoping to keep the project moving forward.
Acharya responded the Board could also consider holding a special meeting, if necessary,
which he would be willing to do. No objections were raised. Snyder and Lane both replied
they would prefer a special meeting.
Acharya noted that Planning Board members and Planning staff would determine the
feasibility of scheduling a special meeting as soon as possible and follow up with the
applicant.
C. Green Street Garage ― Trash & Recycling, 120 E Green St. (Green Street Garage),
Scott Whitham for David Lubin (City of Ithaca, Owner). Declaration of Lead Agency
& Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2. The applicant is
proposing to reconfigure/relocate the trash and recycling area and rearrange existing ground-
level parking and vehicular circulation on the ground floor of the City-owned Green Street
garage. The proposal is to relocate the trash and recycling to the service alley, south of
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Center Ithaca. Site work will require: demolition of a portion of the loading dock;
construction of a new ramp and concrete platform along the south side of the alley;
modification of the existing cleanout; and installation of a new access gate, overhead door,
and roof canopy over the dock. Rearrangement of the ground floor of the parking garage
consists of the following: widening the pedestrian walkway under the garage; refitting the
snow storage silo to include materials storage; converting the 7 diagonal spaces into a
loading zone; adding 15 new parking spaces; and creating a loading zone with 3 spaces. The
project is in the CDB-140 Zoning district. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires approval by the
Board Public Works and Common Council.
Applicants Demarest and Whitham updated the Board on the project’s current status.
Whitham indicated the site plan has not significantly changed.
Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, 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 that a lead agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental
law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for changes to the trash, recycling, delivery, and vehicular circulation on the
ground level of the Green Street Garage, by Scott Whitham, for David Lubin (City of Ithaca,
Owner), and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconfigure/relocate the trash and recycling area, and
rearrange existing ground-level parking and vehicular circulation on the ground floor of the City-
owned Green Street Garage. The proposal is to relocate the trash and recycling area to the service
alley, south of Center Ithaca. Site work will require: demolition of a portion of the loading dock;
construction of a new ramp and concrete platform along the south side of the alley; modification
of the existing clean-out; and installation of a new access gate, overhead door, and roof canopy
over the dock. Rearrangement of the ground floor of the parking garage consists of the
following: widening the pedestrian walkway under the garage; refitting the snow storage silo to
include materials storage; conversion of the 7 diagonal spaces into a loading zone; the addition of
fifteen new parking spaces; and creation of a loading zone with 3 spaces. The project is in the
CDB-140 Zoning District. The project requires approval by the Board Public Works and
Common Council, and
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works and City of Ithaca Common Council, both
potentially involved agencies, have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
Review of FEAF, Part 2
Board members reviewed the FEAF, Part 2. Schroeder noted the only identified impact is
“Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood.” No objections were
raised to the document.
Whitham indicated the applicants had some questions about the timeline and process for how
the proposed project would be approved. Acharya responded that 12/17/13 was still the
anticipated approval date.
Schroeder indicated it would make sense to proceed with the normal Site Plan Review
process for the external components of the proposed project, whereas the trash and recycling
area itself is an internal space, which could be approved on a conceptual and tentative basis
only.
D. Multi-Family Home with Parking Area, 122 Sunrise Rd., Noah Demarest,
STREAM Collaborative Architects. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing,
Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary &
Final Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a two-family residential building
located at 122 Sunrise Road on West Hill. The project involves construction of an owner-
occupied home with an accessory walk-out basement apartment, a 4-car parking area, and
associated driveway. The project spans 2 adjacent (and currently vacant) parcels. Due to the
slopes on the western-most parcels (on which the house is proposed), access is through a
driveway originating on the eastern parcel. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. A cross-easement agreement will be
required.
Applicant Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Lead Agency Declaration Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a duplex and parking area to be located at 122 Sunrise Road, by Noah
Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Architects, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a two-family residential building located at 122
Sunrise Road on West Hill. The project involves construction of an owner-occupied home with
an accessory walk-out basement apartment, a 4-car parking area, and associated driveway. The
project spans 2 adjacent (and currently vacant) parcels. Due to the slopes on the western-most
parcel (on which the house is proposed), access is through a driveway originating on the eastern
parcel. A cross-easement agreement will be required, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4 B. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding, or carrying out, the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed
duplex and parking area to be located at 122 Sunrise Road.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Randall seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, 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 that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a duplex and parking area be located at 122 Sunrise Road, by Noah
Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a two-family residential building located at 122
Sunrise Road on West Hill. The project involves construction of an owner-occupied home with
an accessory walk-out basement apartment, a 4-car parking area, and associated driveway. The
project spans 2 adjacent (and currently vacant) parcels. Due to the slopes on the western-most
parcel (on which the house is proposed), access is through a driveway originating on the eastern
parcel. A cross-easement agreement will be required, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency for
environmental review of this action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on November 26, 2013 reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Site Plan,” “East
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elevation,” “North Elevation,” “West Elevation,” and “South Elevation,” all dated 10/18/13 and
prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that 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, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, 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 that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a duplex and parking area to be located at 122 Sunrise Road, by Noah
Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a two-family residential building located at 122
Sunrise Road on West Hill. The project involves construction of an owner-occupied home with
an accessory walk-out basement apartment, a 4-car parking area, and associated driveway. The
project spans 2 adjacent (and currently vacant) parcels. Due to the slopes on the western-most
parcel (on which the house is proposed), access is through a driveway originating on the eastern
parcel. A cross-easement agreement will be required, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, 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 November
26, 2013, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received
have been considered, and
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on November 26, 2013 reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Site Plan,” “East
Elevation,” “North Elevation,” “West Elevation,” and “South Elevation,” all dated 10/18/13 and
prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency in environmental
review, did on November 26, 2013 make a negative declaration of environmental significance,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grant Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed duplex and parking area to be located on 122 Sunrise
Road in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of building materials, colors, and samples for staff-level approval, and
ii. Submission to planning staff of revised drawings, showing screening of the southwest
corner of the parking area, sidewalk along Westfield Drive, and differentiation between the
patio and parking area, and a concrete of asphalt paving of the portion of the driveway
within the City right of way, and
iii. Submission to planning staff of cross easement agreement for the proposed driveway.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
Demarest asked if a sidewalk would actually be required. The neighborhood does not
currently have any sidewalks. Schroeder responded, yes. The Planning Board historically
requires sidewalks for all Site Plan Review applications.
B. South Meadow Marketplace Expansion, 744 S. Meadow St. (former K-Mart), James
A. Boglioli, for Buffalo-Greenbriar Associates, LLC, Owner. Public Hearing &
Recommendation to BZA. The applicant proposes to construct a 14,744-SF addition to the
southern end of the existing 128,879-SF commercial development. The expansion is located
in an area currently occupied by paving and the former garden center of the previous retail
tenant. Site work will include: re-orientation of the existing drive aisle into the site to
accommodate: the front vestibule of the adjacent retail tenant; installation of a new sidewalk;
relocation of three existing planting beds; a dumpster enclosure; new paving; a decrease of 5
parking spaces; bike parking; striping; and signage. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning
District and is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines (2000). This is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. This project has been determined by staff to be
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
consistent with the findings of the 2000 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for
the Southwest Area Land Use Plan and does not require additional environmental review.
The project requires an area variance.
Applicant Oates updated the Board on the project’s current status, noting that it received its
variances from Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The only comments received by the
applicant at the Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting related to lanscaping. He asked if
there were any other questions or comments at this time.
Schroeder suggested adding a condition to the resolution that the building materials be
submitted to staff (a standard condition). Oates agreed to do so.
(Blalock departed at 7:20 p.m.)
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for an expansion of the commercial space at South Meadow Marketplace
(formerly Kmart) located at 744 South Meadow Street by James Boglioli, for Buffalo Greenbriar
Associates, LLC., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 14,744-SF addition to the southern end of the
existing 128,879-SF commercial development. The expansion is located in an area currently
occupied by paving and the former garden center of the previous retail tenant. Site work will
include re-orientation of the existing drive aisle into the site to accommodate: the front vestibule
of the adjacent retail tenant; installation of a new sidewalk; relocation of three existing planting
beds; a dumpster enclosure; new paving; an decrease of 5 parking spaces; bike parking; striping;
and signage. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and is subject to the Southwest Area
Design Guidelines (2000) and has received the required area variance, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has been determined to be
consistent with the findings of the 2000 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the
Southwest Area Land Use Plan, 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
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on October
22, 2013, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, 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, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has, on November 26, 2013, reviewed and
accepted as adequate plans entitled: “Partial Topographic/Boundary Survey South Meadow
Marketplace,” undated and prepared by MadgeLand Surveying, P.C; “Demo and Erosion Control
Plan (C-3),” “Site Details (C-4.1),” “Utility Plan (C-6),” and “Utility Details (C-6.1),” all dated
March 2013; “Site Plan (C-4)” and “Storm Drainage and Grading Plan (C-5),” both dated March
2013, with a revision date of 10/15/13, and all prepared by Carmina Woods-Morris, P.C.; and
“Elevations,” dated 8/8/13, and prepared by Benderson Development Company; and additional
application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to the condition that
building materials samples be approved by Planning staff.
In favor: Acharya, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
E. Commercial Building, 241 Cherry St., Mad4Cherry, LLC, Applicant & Owner.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant
proposes to construct a 10,384-SF commercial building, gravel, and asphalt parking for 41
cars, landscaping, a sidewalk, signage, lighting, and other site improvements on the currently
vacant parcel. The project is in the Industrial (I-1) zoning district. 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.
Applicants Demarest and Herrick updated the Board on the project’s current status.
Applicant Klausner then walked through a slide presentation of the project, noting that the
applicant increased the height of the windows and the wainscotting, as requested at the last
meeting, to lend the building some character. The applicant also added architectural
elaborations on the west elevation, and differentiated the top and bottom halves of the
building.
Elliott expressed concern with how the project would be impacted by the recent change in
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and the National Flood
Insurance Program, since it lies on a flood plain. He knows these changes are projected to
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
result in sharply higher flood insurance premiums for many properties, unless the floorplate
is above a certain datum. Herrick responded he was aware of the changes. The building
would actually be constructed significantly above the 100-year floodplain level.
Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a commercial building to be located at 241 Cherry Street, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 10,384-SF commercial building, gravel and
asphalt parking for 41 cars, landscaping, a sidewalk, signage, lighting, and other site
improvements on the currently vacant parcel. The project is in the Industrial (I-1) zoning district,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency of the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed
commercial building to be located at 241 Cherry Street.
In favor: Acharya, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 a commercial building to be located at 241 Cherry Street, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 10,384-SF commercial building, gravel and
asphalt parking for 41 cars, landscaping, a sidewalk, signage, lighting, and other site
improvements on the currently vacant parcel. The project is in the Industrial (I-1) zoning district,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency of
environmental review for this action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all received comments
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on November 26, 2013 reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Floor Plan (P1),”
“Elevation (E1)” [sides], “Elevation (E2)” [front/back], prepared by Michael A. Sinniger, P.E.,
Fingerlakes Construction Co., Inc., dated 10/22/13; “Existing Conditions Plan (C100),”
“Demolition and Layout Plan (C101),” “Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan (C102),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (C103),” “Details (C201),” and “Planting Plan (L101),” all dated
11/1/13, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., except the Planting Plan, prepared by STREAM
Collaborative; and “Perspective View” and “Aerial Perspective View,” both dated 11/26/13, and
prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that 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, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Elliott
seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Herrick noted the zoning analysis failed to include 450 square feet of loading space, so the
suggestion was made to designate three of the parking spaces for the loading zone.
Schroeder responded the applicant should submit the revised drawing reflecting that.
Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a commercial building to be located at 241 Cherry Street, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 10,384-SF commercial building, gravel and
asphalt parking for 41 cars, landscaping, a sidewalk, signage, lighting, and other site
improvements on the currently vacant parcel. The project is in the Industrial (I-1) zoning district,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, 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 November
26, 2013 and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all received comments
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has on November 26, 2013 reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Floor Plan (P1),”
“Elevation (E1)” [sides], “Elevation (E2)” [front/back], prepared by Michael A. Sinniger, P.E.,
Fingerlakes Construction Co., Inc., dated 10/22/13; “Existing Conditions Plan (C100),”
“Demolition and Layout Plan (C101),” “Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan (C102),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (C103),” “Details (C201),” and “Planting Plan (L101),” all dated
11/1/13, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., except the Planting Plan, prepared by STREAM
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Collaborative; and “Perspective View” and “Aerial Perspective View,” both dated 11/26/13, and
prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency in environmental
review, did on November 26, 2013 make a negative declaration of environmental significance,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grant Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed commercial building to be located on 241 Cherry Street
in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of building materials, colors, and samples for staff-level review, and
ii. Submission of signed and dated floor plans and elevations, and
iii. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation-related
issues have been resolved, and
iv. Submission of a revised drawing showing a continuous sidewalk across the driveway, and
v. Approval in writing from the Fire Chief that all life safety issues have been resolved, and
vi. Bike racks to be installed before Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
In favor: Acharya, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
F. 4-Story Hotel 4-Story Hotel, 371 Elmira Rd. (Tax Parcels #128.-2-7.1 & #128.-2-
8.11), Optima Design & Engineering, for Ithaca Hotels, LLC, Declaration of Lead
Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel
with approximately 76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.4-acre project site contains two
contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting Elmira
Road, and an auto-body shop in the rear ― with access from Spencer Road and large paved
parking areas. Project development will require demolition of both buildings and removal of
approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site improvements include retaining walls, a privacy
fence, walkways landscaping, lighting, and bike racks. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning
District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Parcel consolidation will be
required.
Applicant Terragnoli introduced the Board to the project through a slide presentation. He
provided some new information: the hotel will be a Holiday Inn Express.
Schroeder observed the City Transportation Engineer submitted the following comment
about the Elmira Road sidewalk:
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
“The Site Plan indicates that the sidewalk along Elmira Rd. is not within the City ROW; this
may be a prudent opportunity to consider its relocation/reconstruction ― which would also
provide more development space on the private parcel. If the sidewalk remains in the current
location, then any defective conditions must be repaired and there should be verification that a
public easement is in place: There should also be some buffer space (which could be concrete
or landscaping) between the sidewalk and the building face so that the entire sidewalk width is
available for pedestrian use {at least 5’ of effective width is needed).”
Schroeder strongly encouraged the applicant to revise the sidewalk per the above comment,
while also preserving the existing Elmira Road street trees. (The current proposal does show
the existing street trees being preserved, plus the addition of three additional ones.)
Regarding rendering #12, Schroeder observed that a detail of the fence it depicts shows
spaces between the pickets; however, the fence will need to be solid to provide effective
screening. Terragnoli agreed to change the fence.
Acharya observed the parking lot on rendering #14 does not appear exactly proportioned. It
looks too large and elongated, making the parking area appear to dominate the entire site.
Terragnoli replied that is simply a question of adjusting the rendering software, which he
agreed to do.
Schroeder noted the applicant is proposing a row of crabapple trees on the middle terrace on
the Spencer Road side of the property; however, he would much prefer to see a row of
screening evergreens (such as arborvitae) on that terrace location instead, with a row of
canopy street trees being added along Spencer Road itself. In addition, he strongly
encouraged the applicant to create a pedestrian connection through the site, from Spencer
Road to Elmira Road (as was recently done for the nearby Fairfield Inn project). Terragnoli
replied he would certainly explore that, although he cautioned that there is a 20-foot drop
from one end to the other. He already investigated creating a pedestrian walkway and
determined an accessible ramp for it would need to be particularly long. Terragnoli added
that Holiday Inn Express would be very concerned with the safety and liability implications
of such a walkway.
Schroeder indicated the applicant would need to provide a sidewalk on the Spencer Road
side of the project, since that is a City street; so the streetside profile there would be: Spencer
Road, curb lawn with street trees, the new sidewalk, and then the fence and terraces shown
on the current drawings. Terragnoli agreed to do so.
Acharya asked the applicant to submit contextual site plans, depicting the precise footprint of
the proposed building within the overall context of the surrounding area. Terragnoli agreed
to provide those.
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Elliott observed the design would be much improved if there were added three-dimensional
articulation on the façade, especially around the windows; the windows look too flat in the
current design. Schroeder agreed. Terragnoli agreed to do that.
Schroeder indicated there should also be some bike racks at the main entrance, in addition to
those already shown at the rear entrance, which Terragnoli agreed to add.
Schroeder asked that the transformer either be better screened or moved to a less visible
location. Terragnoli replied he would screen it more effectively.
Schroeder remarked that the City Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has designated the
burning bush the applicant is proposing as an invasive species, so he would ask the applicant
to replace that with another species. Terragnoli agreed to do so.
Schroeder noted that Director of Zoning Administration Phyllis Radke has indicated that two
loading spaces would be required for the project, which Terragnoli agreed to add.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder,
seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a 4-story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with approximately
76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.4-acre project site contains two contiguous tax parcels,
containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting Elmira Road, an auto-body shop in
the rear with access from Spencer Road, and large paved parking areas. Project development will
require demolition of both buildings and removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site
improvements include retaining walls, a privacy fence, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and bike
racks. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. Parcel consolidation will be required, and
19
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. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed 4-
story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road.
In favor: Acharya, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
G. Statler Hall Renovations, Statler Hall, East Avenue Entry Renovations & Second
Floor Infill, Statler Hall, 106 Statler Dr., Cornell University Campus, Davies Orinda,
Applicant for Cornell University. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes
to infill the second-floor atrium area to create academic program space and increase energy-
efficiency in winter. A major goal for the entry renovation is to create a sustainable and
long-lasting structure, which will deal with air infiltration effectively and efficiently by not
allowing excessive heat loss and by conditioning the air captured in an adjusted volume of
space. The design reconfigures the entry and re-orients the entrance doors towards the south.
The project adds 319 SF to the ground floor and 1,300 SF to the second floor, and aims to
provide a consistent architectural vocabulary with the recently renovated parts of Statler Hall
along Campus Road and Statler Drive. The project also includes a new sidewalk and corner
treatment, outdoor gathering space, seating, and lighting. 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.
Applicants Davies Orinda, Andrew Magré, and David Cutter, Cornell University, and
Benjamin J. Shermeta, KSS Architects, LLP, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project.
Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for renovations to the East Avenue entrance of Statler Hall, by Cornell
University, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to infill the second-floor atrium area to create academic
program space and increase energy-efficiency in winter. A major goal for the entry renovation is
to create a sustainable and long-lasting structure, which will deal with air infiltration effectively
and efficiently by not allowing excessive heat loss and by conditioning the air captured in an
adjusted volume of space. The design reconfigures the entry and re-orients the entrance doors
towards the south. The project adds 319 SF to the ground floor and 1,300 SF to the second floor,
and aims to provide a consistent architectural vocabulary with the recently renovated parts of
Statler Hall along Campus Road and Statler Drive. The project also includes a new sidewalk and
corner landscaping treatment, outdoor gathering space, seating, and lighting, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed
renovations to the East Avenue entrance of Statler Hall.
In favor: Acharya, Elliott, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4. New Business
• New State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Model Forms
Randall reported that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
launched new SEQR forms, effective 10/7/13. The City is currently considering how its own
existing forms will be modified to reflect the new State forms. Randall noted she attended a
training session on the new forms and would prepare a memorandum to explain the process
(e.g., how to get the electronic form to automatically fill in a specific parcel and related
information). She referred Board members to the following web site:
www.dec.ny.gov/eafmapper/.
• Proposed R-3aa Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Schroeder remarked that the essential idea involved averaging the building footprints of R-3aa
Zone. R-3aa was originally devised for the Fall Creek area, where parking is not a significant
problem; so while averaging footprints works in the Cornell Heights Historic District, what
does not work is the parking requirement, given its larger lots and buildings. Schroeder noted
that eliminating the minimum parking requirement would likely be a contentious issue. He
suggested the proposal may be more easily and more quickly approved if it were modified to
say that where the R-3aa Zone lies in a Historic District, there would be no minimum parking
requirement.
Schroeder moved to make that recommendation. Randall seconded the motion. No
objections were raised. Schroeder indicated he would be willing to describe the Board’s
recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development Committee in person.
Elliott noted the issue is not so much about building size, as much as it is about buildling
function. Building typologies are innately different; so it ma not be fair to compare the
typology of an apartment building with that of a large house. He should suggest saying that
if it is historically a single-detached building, it should remain single-detached.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Achary noted that completion of the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts document
was delayed slightly (primarily because of technical delays in generating some of the
renderings). There will be a Public Information Session to present the proposed Collegetown
Area Form Districts on 12/11/13, immediately preceding the Planning Committee meeting.
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
None.
8. Approval of Minutes: None
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
23