HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-09-25DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
September 25, 2012
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Noah Demarest;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John
Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning &
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning &
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning &
Development
Applicants Attending: 7-Car Parking Lot (634 W. Seneca St.)
Rick Manning, Project Consulant;
Eric Levine, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU)
4-Space Rear-Yard Parking Area (137-139 Hudson St.)
George Avramis, Applicant;
Zac Boggs, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Collegetown Crossing (307 College Ave.)
Josh Lower, Applicant;
Jagat P. Sharma, Architect;
Rob Morache, Project Consultant;
David West, Project Consultant;
C.J. Randall, Project Consultant
Planned Parenthood Clinic & Offices (616-626 W. Seneca St.)
Grace Chiang, Chiang O’Brien Architects, DPC;
Joe Sammons, Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
INHS Housing Project (400 Spencer Rd.)
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Joe Bowes, PathStone;
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Seneca Way Apartments
David Sisson, HOLT Architects;
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Jeff Smetana, Developer;
Bryan Warren, Developer
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Chair Acharya indicated the original agenda item “E.” (Building Renovations & Site
Improvements, Rick’s Rental World, 800 Cascadilla St.) would need to be removed from the
agenda, since the project is not ready to move forward at this time. No objections were
raised.
2. Privilege of the Floor
None.
3. Site Plan Review
A. 7-Car Parking Lot, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU), 634 W. Seneca St.,
AFCU, Applicant & Owner. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The
applicant proposes to install a 7-car parking lot (modified from the original proposal of 8
spaces) for staff use on the 3,600 SF parcel, at the northeast corner of N. Fulton and W.
Seneca Streets. The project includes demolition of existing 2-story building on the site,
installation of 2,840 SF of new paving, 760 SF of new landscaping, a new curbcut on N.
Fulton St., drainage improvements, signage, and lighting. Circulation through the parking lot
will be one-way, with the proposed parking entry at the new curbcut on Fulton Street and the
exit at the existing curbcut on Seneca Street. The project is on the WEDZ-1 Zoning District.
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. The project has received an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and a
NYS DOT highway work permit.
Applicant Rick Manning presented a general overview of the proposed project.
Jones-Rounds asked the applicants if they explored the possibility of working with the Rhine
House tavern to share parking arrangements in some way. Applicant Eric Levine replied, no;
however, Rhine House customers already routinely on the existing AFCU parking lot, even
though no formal agreement exists.
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Demarest disclosed that he assisted in developing an earlier version of the project design, but
he no longer maintains any kind of working or financial relationship with the applicant.
Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a 7-car parking lot to be located at 634 West Seneca Street by Alternatives
Federal Credit Union (AFCU), applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to install a 7-car parking lot (modified from the original
proposal of 8 spaces) for staff use on the 3,600 SF-parcel at the northeast corner of N. Fulton and
W. Seneca Streets. The project includes the demolition of the existing 2-story building on the site,
installation of 2,840 SF of new paving, 760 SF of new landscaping, a new curbcut on N. Fulton
St., drainage improvements, signage, and lighting. Circulation through the parking lot will be one-
way, with the proposed parking entry at the new curbcut on Fulton Street and the exit at the
existing curbcut on Seneca Street. The project is on the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. The project has
received an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and a NYS DOT highway work
permit, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Transportation and the
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, both potentially involved agencies, consent to the
Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation and the City of Ithaca Board of
Zoning Appeals have consented to the Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for
this project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6
(B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on January 20,
2012, and
WHEREAS: on March 27, 2012, the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, 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 “Survey Map Lands of Patrick
Joseph O’Conner III, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 59.-7-
25,” prepared by Regan Land Surveying and dated 12/9/98, and “Site Plan (L-1),” prepared by
Rick Manning, ASLA, RLA, and dated February 24, 2012; and other application materials, and
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning Board recognizes that a surface parking lot is not the most desirable use
of the site, given its prominent location in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District, and along a corridor
intended for buildings with a two-story minimum height. The Board also recognizes there are
factors unique to the site and the project that mitigate potentially negative impacts from this use.
These factors include the following: (1) the small size of the site ― 3,600 SF presents a challenge
for redevelopment; (2) the project includes removal of the existing unsightly, fire-damaged, and
dangerous building; (3) because a portion of the building to be removed is, according to the
survey, on top of the existing sidewalk area, the project will result in a slightly wider sidewalk; (4)
the proposed landscaping is aesthetically pleasing and will function as both a screen for the
parking lot, as well as a pedestrian amenity; and (5) the development of the parking lot does not
preclude the redevelopment of the site to a more desirable use in the future; and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on March 27, 2012
determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impacts on the environment, and
WHEREAS: the applicant received the required variance form the Board of Zoning Appeals, and
WHEREAS: on September 25, 2012, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate
revised drawings entitled “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “DOT Work Permit Plan
(C102),” and “Details (C103, C104 & C105),” all prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 7/27/12
and showing a slight narrowing of the driveline at the east property line, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the 7-
car parking lot to be located at 634 West Seneca Street, subject to the condition that the applicant
submit one record copy of the site plan, showing a note stating that any damage to the sidewalk as
a result of construction and any substandard portion of the sidewalk currently under the existing
building will be repaired at the applicant’s expense.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
B. 4-Space Rear-Yard Parking Area, 137-139 Hudson St., Russell E. Maines,
Applicant for Owner, Maria Avramis. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing,
Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary &
Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to install a 4-car gravel parking lot in the rear of
the multi-family property. Site development will include surfacing of the driveway and
parking area with crushed stone, installation of curb stops, landscape plantings in the front
and back yards, including a lawn area in the rear yard. The project is in the R-2a Zoning
District and the current 4-space parking area is a legal non-conforming use, but requires site
plan approval. 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. A portion of the project is on the adjacent property to the south. The
project applicant has provided an owner’s authorization and submitted an easement granting
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
the right to maintain the plantings on the adjacent property. This is an update to a previously
submitted application. The previously sent application and environmental forms are from the
original submission.
Applicant George Avramis recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Rudan remarked she really appreciates the grass, shrubs, and trees which were added to the
project. They very much complement the other houses in the neighborhood. Schroeder
agreed.
Acharya asked how the applicant plans to prevent more than 4 cars from parking in the
designated spaces. Avramis replied that the combination of plantings and quarry stone
blocks should make it virtually impossible to do so.
Adopted Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Rudan:
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-car rear yard parking area at 137-139 Hudson Street by Russell Maines,
applicant for owner, Maria Avramis, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to install a 4-car gravel parking lot in the rear of the multi-
family property. Site development will include surfacing of the driveway and parking area with
crushed stone, and the installation of curb stops, boulders, and landscape plantings, including
grass, shrubs, and trees, in the front and back yards. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District and
the current 4-space parking area is a legal non-conforming use, but requires site plan approval. A
portion of the project is on the adjacent property to the south. The project applicant has provided
an owner’s authorization and submitted an easement granting the right to maintain the plantings on
the adjacent property. This is an update to a previously submitted application, 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
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 4-car rear
yard parking area at 137-139 Hudson Street in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Adopted CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Rudan:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a 4-car rear yard parking area at 137-139 Hudson Street by Russell Maines,
applicant for owner, Maria Avramis, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to install a 4-car gravel parking lot in the rear of the multi-
family property. Site development will include surfacing of the driveway and parking area with
crushed stone, surfacing of the driveway entrance with asphalt, and the installation of curb stops,
boulders, and landscape plantings, including grass, shrubs, and trees, in the front and back yards.
The project is in the R-2a Zoning District and the current 4-space parking area is a legal non-
conforming use, but requires site plan approval. A portion of the project is on the adjacent
property to the south. The project applicant has provided an owner’s authorization and submitted
an easement granting the right to maintain the plantings on the adjacent property. This is an
update to a previously submitted application, 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
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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: on September 25, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being
the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead
Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 25,
2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Landscape Plan
– 4 Parking Spaces (L401),” dated 9/18/12, “Existing Wall Elevation (L403 & L405)” and
“Planted Wall Elevation (L404 & L406),” dated 8/14/12, and a revised version of “Landscape Plan
– 4 Parking Spaces (L401),” handed out at the September 25, 2012 Planning Board meeting (but
still dated 9/18/12), showing stone quarry blocks along the entire east edge of the parking area,
and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP; and other application
materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the
proposed 4-car rear yard parking area will result in no significant impact on the environment and
that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be
filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Adopted Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Marcham:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a 4-car rear yard parking area at 137-139 Hudson Street by Russell Maines,
applicant for owner Maria Avramis, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to install a 4-car gravel parking lot in the rear of the multi-
family property. Site development will include surfacing of the driveway and parking area with
crushed stone, surfacing of the driveway entrance with asphalt, and the installation of curb stops,
boulders, and landscape plantings, including grass, shrubs, and trees, in the front and back yards.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The project is in the R-2a Zoning District and the current 4-space parking area is a legal non-
conforming use, but requires site plan approval. A portion of the project is on the adjacent
property to the south. The project applicant has provided an owner’s authorization and submitted
an easement granting the right to maintain the plantings on the adjacent property. This is an
update to a previously submitted application, 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, and
WHEREAS: on September 25, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being
the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead
Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6
(B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on September
25, 2012, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County Planning
Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 25,
2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Landscape Plan
– 4 Parking Spaces (L401),” dated 9/18/12, “Existing Wall Elevation (L403 & L405)” and
“Planted Wall Elevation (L404 & L406),” dated 9/14/12, and a revised version of “Landscape Plan
– 4 Parking Spaces (L401),” handed out at the September 25, 2012 Planning Board meeting (but
still dated 9/18/12), showing stone quarry blocks along the entire east edge of the parking area,
and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP; and other application
materials; and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on September 25, 2012 make a negative determination of
environmental significance, now, therefore, be it
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby grants preliminary
and final site plan approval for the proposed 4-car rear yard parking area located at 137-139
Hudson Street.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
C. Collegetown Crossing (Mixed-Use Housing Project), 307 College Ave., Josh
Lower, Applicant & Owner. Determination of Environmental Significance. The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story structure fronting College Ave. and
construct a six-story, mixed-use building with 50 upper-story apartments (103 bedrooms),
and approximately 5,500 SF of ground floor retail space. The applicant is proposing to
construct a through-block pedestrian walkway and incorporate a TCAT bus stop into the
building façade. The existing residential structure on Linden Ave. will be retained; however,
the back porch will be removed. The proposed project will remove the existing 15 parking
spaces on site. The project is in the B-2b and R-3b Zoning Districts, as well as the
Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ). This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The project
requires an area variance for 57 parking spaces and 3 loading spaces, as well as a rear-yard
deficiency.
Board members reviewed the language of the FEAF, Part 3.
Rudan asked the applicants if they have in fact abandoned the initial proposal of providing
free TCAT bus passes and carshare credits to all the project tenants. Project Consultant Rob
Morache replied, yes.
Rudan remarked the parking study does not appear to address the fact that car-owning
tenants would be looking for parking in a wide variety of spaces, and not just public parking
garages, as implied. She believes the applicant has neglected to identify a comprehensive
defined set of potential parking spaces for its tenants. Ordinarily, Rudan added, the
developer is responsible for defining the locations of parking spaces.
Project Consultant David West responded that the applicant addressed that issue in the
parking study and that kind of data was simply too difficult to obtain.
Rudan observed that the parking study ends up being too speculative, in that case.
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
West stressed that the proposed mitigation measures will mean that fewer tenants will bring
cars than would have otherwise been the case. He also he observed that other Collegetown
residents are already being left to find parking on their own, in a similar manner.
Rudan replied that the Board has to consider the project in the context of the specific
variance request; and she has serious reservations that the parking study accurately reflects
real parking availability in Collegetown. She noted that private parking arrangements are
very different from public parking. The parking study should at least state that it only
incorporated public parking into its analysis.
Jones-Rounds indicated she is comfortable with the parking study’s findings.
Cornish noted that one consideration to keep in mind is that the project would establish a
significant precedent, if approved; and may end up being the first of many similar projects.
Schroeder indicated he believes the TCAT and carshare components of the original project
proposal should be retained.
West responded that the cost of the TCAT passes and carshare credits would be considerable.
While she would also prefer to retain the TCAT and carshare mitigations, Jones-Rounds
noted, she is more concerned with ensuring that all of the physical/structural kinds of
mitigations are as well-designed and fully-implemented as possible.
Rudan reiterated that the TCAT and carshare mitigations were one of the most attractive
parts of the whole project, as it was originally conceived and presented to the Board. In her
opinion, they probably represent the best of all the mitigations that have been presented, to
date. Schroeder agreed.
Jones-Rounds remarked that the TCAT and carshare mitigations only amount to what might
be characterized as ‘soft’ mitigations, since they would most likely not be permanent.
Rudan observed that the applicant would already benefit considerably from being able to
build a bigger building, if it receives the variance, giving it more space to rent to more
tenants for greater profit. As a result, Rudan cannot see that the additional expense
associated with the TCAT and carshare mitigations would be overly burdensome.
Marcham suggested offering the free TCAT passes only to those tenants who request them.
Lower indicated the applicant would be willing to subsidize 25% of the cost of the bus passes
for those tenants who request them and who do not already have a car on site.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Schroeder remarked he would also like to see a more permanent bus waiting area that is inset
into the building (with heating, lighting, and protection from the elements) and accessible 24
hours day.
Schroeder noted a wider sidewalk should also be installed, given the additional demands that
would be placed on pedestrian traffic. (The current sidewalk is woefully inadequate to begin
with.)
Morache observed that the two supporting pillars of the building would be the main
impediment to increasing the amount of sidewalk space. For structural reasons, Sharma
remarked, the two pillars should not be removed.
Adopted FEAF, Part 3
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION:
The proposed project will be constructed on a consolidated parcel that was formerly 307 College
Avenue and 226 Linden Avenue. The existing two-story building fronting 307 College Avenue
will be demolished, making room for a new six-story mixed-use building. The proposed building
will have 50 upper-story apartments and approximately 5,500 SF of ground-floor retail space.
The applicant is proposing to construct a through-block pedestrian walkway from College to
Linden Avenue and will incorporate a TCAT bus waiting area under the building arcade. The
existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling unit on Linden Avenue will be retained;
however, the back porch will be removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms,
bringing the total number of units proposed on the parcel to 53, and the total number of bedrooms
to 113.
The proposed project will remove the existing 15 parking spaces currently on the site. The
project is in the B-2b and R-3b Zoning Districts and the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone
(CPOZ). This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is
subject to environmental review. The project requires area variances for 57 parking spaces, 3
loading spaces and a rear-yard deficiency.
An updated variance request for this project was filed on January 20, 2012.
Impacts identified under Part 2 of the FEAF that will result in moderate-to-large impacts from the
proposed project are identified below.
1) Impact on Transportation
2) Impact on Quality of Daily Life
3) Impact on Growth & Character of Community or Neighborhood
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4) Impact on Aesthetic/Visual Resources
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) must balance benefit to applicant with detriment to the
health, safety and welfare of the community. The BZA must consider the following:
1) Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant
2) Undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties
3) Whether request is substantial
4) Whether request will have adverse physical or environmental effects
5) Whether alleged difficulty is self-created
IMPACT ON LAND
No significant impact on land is anticipated as a result of this project. The site under
consideration is already developed.
IMPACT ON WATER
No significant impact on water is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No significant impact on drainage is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AIR
No significant impact on air is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACTS ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No significant impact on plants and animals is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Because all four façades of the building will be highly visible from the public rights-of-way, the
quality and contextuality of the architectural design, as well as the choice of building materials
and exterior finishes, are important. Theses elements will be further developed during Site Plan
Review, at which time the Planning Board will give them careful consideration.
No significant impact on visual resources is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No significant impact on historic resources is anticipated as a result of this project.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
No significant impact on open space and recreation is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
In 2011, the Collegetown Transportation Working Group and the Collegetown Zoning Working
Group worked with planning staff to draft amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as described in
the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, which was endorsed by
Common Council. Amendments to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), brought
before Common Council in May 2011, consisted of 1) establishment of a payment in lieu of
parking system, 2) elimination of the option to provide off-site parking areas within the CPOZ,
and 3) reduction in residential parking requirements for certain zoning districts within the CPOZ.
Although, the amendments passed, the vote was later repealed due to a protest from property
owners affected by other related zoning changes.
Impacts on existing transportation include the following:
• Altering present movement patterns of people and goods, and
• Potential traffic issues on move-in/move-out days for residents, and
• Potential stress on existing on-street parking, as a result of residents of the proposed
development who bring cars to Ithaca and are not incentivized to park in the Dryden
garage; and
• Increased demand on/for sidewalks, bicycle facilities, TCAT services, transit stops, etc.
The applicant submitted an in-house study showing there is a potential that some residents will
bring cars, despite incentives to discourage it. In order to generate more reliable data, the Board
required the applicant to conduct an independent professional study to provide a more credible
and objective basis for the proposed mitigations. The study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What percentage of college students living in Collegetown have cars in Ithaca?
2. Of those students, how many would continue to keep cars in Ithaca if they were offered a free
TCAT Omni Ride pass and $50 in Carshare credits?
3. At what price (for parking) will students decide not to keep a car in Ithaca?
4. What is the price range and availability of parking in Collegetown?
The applicant submitted the final draft of the study entitled Collegetown Parking Study, Ithaca
New York, July 18, 2012, produced by Upstate Research Group. In response to the questions
above, the study concluded that:
1. The rate of car ownership among residents of apartment buildings with 20 or more units is
26.8%, and
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2. The rate of car ownership among residents of apartment buildings with 20 or more units who
said that their building did not offer parking is 16.7%
3. 39% of Collegetown apartment residents with a car would give up their car in exchange for
either a free bus pass or $50 in car share credits , or both, and
4. 30% of Collegetown apartment residents with a car who said that their building did not
provide parking would give up their car in exchange for either a free TCAT bus pass or $50
in Car Share credits or both, and
5. Approximately 82% of respondents stated that the maximum amount they would pay for
parking was $240 or less per month, with 18% willing to pay over $240 per month, and
6. Prices paid for parking varied widely from under $40 per month to over $240 per month, with
the median range being $101-$130 per month, and
7. All parkers who said their building did not offer parking rented private spaces elsewhere, and
therefore were not parking on streets.
Based on these findings, combined with the existing parking requirements, the Board accepted
the study’s statistically-based conclusion that the proposed development could be expected to
produce a maximum of 19 cars, under existing conditions and 13 cars if free bus passes and/or car
share credits were offered. (16% of the 113 bedroom equals 19 cars, and 19 minus 30% of 19
equals 13 cars.) The Board is not relying on the theoretical additional percentage reductions in
expected cars that are described on Page 17 of the survey and that are based on attributes of
Collegetown that are already in existence.
The following mitigations are intended to address the potentially negative impacts as listed above.
Most include the anticipated implementation and enforcement mechanisms and any potential cost
of enforcement to the City in money and staff time. If the BZA considers relief from parking
requirements for this project, the BZA should independently evaluate the applicant’s proposed
mitigation system.
IMPACT: Altering present movement patterns of people and goods.
The Board is concerned that commercial loading and deliveries will conflict with current patterns
of movement on the street and will affect adjacent property owners, including the Ithaca Fire
Station, directly adjacent to the project site. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
grocery store is a highly desired use by Collegetown residents and would, therefore, be expected
to generate a significant volume of business potentially needing frequent deliveries.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Lease Provisions for Commercial Tenant Loading Procedures.
Description: Long-term leases for commercial space will delineate loading requirements,
including times at which loading is allowed and locations from which loading may occur.
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Implementation Mechanism: The lease provision will be a requirement of the variance.
• Enforcement Mechanism: The applicant shall submit an updated lease for each leasing cycle
to the Building Department. Leases will be kept in the property file, and be reviewed as
needed or when a Certificate of Occupancy is renewed.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
IMPACT: Potential stress on existing on-street parking as a result of residents of the
proposed development who bring cars to Ithaca and are not incentivized to park in the
Dryden garage.
Relieving the parking requirement for a mixed-use building that includes 103 rooms (plus 10
additional rooms in the house on Linden Avenue) will potentially increase stress on unmanaged
or poorly enforced curbside parking. The lack of an adequate curb pricing policy for the city has
incentivized drivers to seek parking in neighborhoods abutting Cornell University. Cars without
a Residential Parking Permit have also been known to park in Residential Parking Permit zones,
despite it being illegal to do so. The parking study only observed public parking facilities
downtown and in Collegetown. No survey was done on the availability (as opposed to the cost)
of private off-street parking.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Providing Orientation Materials to Tenants.
Description: Packet of materials that delineates and emphasizes all available alternative mobility
options, including Carshare and TCAT, and also shows where one Collegetown and two
downtown public parking garages options are located, what their pricing is, and whom to contact
to secure a space, if the resident still feels a car is absolutely necessary. This packet will include
an explanation of the lease provision (see below), City parking regulations, penalties for not
complying, and any other information necessary for proper management of a car in Ithaca.
• Implementation Mechanism: Condition of Site Plan Approval and Variance.
• Enforcement Mechanism: The applicant shall submit a copy of the orientation materials to the
Building Department. The materials will be kept in the property file, and be reviewed as
needed or when a Certificate of Occupancy is renewed.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Lease Provisions.
The applicant will include an Addendum to the tenant’s standard residential lease in which the
tenant certifies whether or not he/she is keeping a car in Ithaca, and if so, requires them to
document where the car is parked. Violation of the provision results in eviction. This works in
tandem with providing the orientation materials which inform tenants of choices with regard to
parking options. The lease provision makes tenants aware of their responsibilities as car owners
and acts as an instrument to hold them more accountable.
• Implementation Mechanism: The lease provision will be a requirement of the variance.
• Enforcement Mechanism: For each leasing cycle, the applicant shall submit to the Building
Department, documentation of where approximately 19 tenants who own vehicles have their
cars parked. These lists will be kept in the property file, and be reviewed as needed or when
a Certificate of Occupancy is renewed.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: Subsidy of TCAT Bus Passes and $50 in Carshare Usage
Credits as described below:
Description: Applicant will pay twenty-five percent of the cost of a TCAT Omni-pass for all
Cornell- affiliated renters and twenty-five percent of the cost of a full-price TCAT pass for all
non-Cornell affiliated renters who – in each case—don’t have a car and request such a pass. A
deed restriction will require that the apartment leases state that the above subsidy is included with
the rent.
Applicant will provide $50 in introductory Carshare usage credits to any resident who does not
have a car in Ithaca, requests such credits and becomes a Carshare member (residents must
qualify with Carshare).
• Implementation Mechanism: The lease provision will be a requirement of the variance.
Submission and approval of proposed language for the deed restriction shall be a condition of
final Site Plan Approval.
• Enforcement Mechanism: For each leasing cycle, the applicant shall submit to the Building
Department, documentation of subsidy provided for each bus pass and receipts for purchase
of Ithaca Carshare (or other car-sharing organization operating in the Ithaca area at the time)
usage credits. This documentation will be kept in the property file, and be reviewed as
needed or when a Certificate of Occupancy is renewed.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
16
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IMPACT: Increased demand on/for sidewalks, bicycle facilities, TCAT services, transit
stops, etc.
The Board notes that the pedestrian, bike, and multimodal infrastructure on College Avenue ― in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed project ― is not adequate to accommodate the increased
use from 103 additional residents, most of whom are expected to not have cars and therefore to
rely on other transportation modes, and the proposed retail component. The applicant has
demonstrated that the proposed grocery store is a highly desired use by Collegetown residents
and would, therefore, be expected to generate a significant volume of (foot and bike) traffic.
Existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the project site on College Avenue consist of a
narrow, worn sidewalk with no provision for a treelawn or other buffer from motorized traffic.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: Wind Protected, Heated and Lighted TCAT Bus Shelter
Set into the Proposed Building at New North-Bound TCAT Bus Stop.
Description: A wind-protected heated and lighted bus shelter, open 24 hours per day, shall be set
into the proposed building on its College Avenue side so that it provides sheltered seating for
TCAT passengers using the proposed new bus stop for north-bound TCAT busses at 307 College
Avenue. Design of the bus stop will be reviewed and approved by the Board during site plan
review.
• Implementation Mechanism: Site Plan Approval
• Enforcement Mechanism: Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, planning staff will
inspect the project to verify compliance with the approved site plan. Any future changes to
the approved site plan are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Board.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: Providing a Wider Sidewalk
The existing sidewalk width on the 300 and 400 blocks of College Avenue ranges from already
deficient to barely adequate for existing central Collegetown pedestrian traffic. The Collegetown
Plan, recently endorsed by Common Council, proposes substantially increasing the sidewalk
width in various central Collegetown areas by eliminating on-street parking lanes and adding this
width to the sidewalks, to provide much greater space for pedestrian movement as well as width
for “great street” amenities such as street trees. However, this approach to widening the sidewalk
will not work at 307 College Avenue due to the intention to use the parking lane as a bus pull off
lane.
17
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Multiple aspects of the proposed project are likely, in combination, to substantially increase the
pedestrian traffic, and the complexity of pedestrian movements, on the sidewalk in front to 307
College Avenue. These include:
(1) the approximately 103 new resident of the proposed new building;
(2) new pedestrian traffic moving to and from the new through passage to Linden Avenue and to
and from the proposed retail stores lining this passage;
(3) new pedestrian traffic generated by the proposed Green Star, which will have its own separate
entrance off College Avenue; and
(4) transit riders boarding and disembarking from buses at the proposed new transit stop, who are
currently boarding and disembarking on the 400 block of College Avenue.
This new pedestrian traffic, in addition to the existing pedestrian traffic, involves – at the same
location in front of 307 College Avenue – both north-south movements, east-west movements and
new turning movements. If the piers of the new building are constructed at the west lot line
facing College Avenue, and the street curb stays in its current location, the functional clear space
on the public sidewalk – especially after subtracting width for the sign poles set in the curb (for
TCAT signs, ‘no parking” signs, etc) – will not be sufficient for existing pedestrian traffic plus
the additional pedestrian traffic and movements described above.
As mitigation for this impact, the applicant, in consultation with the City and TCAT, shall
provide a substantially wider and contiguous public sidewalk width (free or obstructions to the
greatest extent possible) along College Avenue in front of the proposed project. This may
include:
(1) Relocating or reshaping the curvature of the College Avenue curb in front of an near the
project, and/or
(2) Moving the entire proposed building several feet to the east, back from the College Avenue
lot line, so that the area gained can be added to the open contiguous public sidewalk area in
front of the building, and/or
(3) Other streetscape improvements.
• Implementation Mechanism: Site Plan Approval
• Enforcement Mechanism: Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, planning staff will
inspect the project to verify compliance with the approved site plan. Any future changes to
the approved site plan are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Board.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
18
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Recessing the Front Façade at Ground Level
Description: The applicant had revised the original site plan to move the front façade of the
building approximately 7 feet back from the property line. This space is constrained, however,
by the thickness of two large columns supporting the building upper stories, as well as bike
parking and a new bench near the entrance of the proposed grocery store. This space will help
reduce pedestrian congestion, but does not eliminate the need for the mitigation listed
immediately above.
• Implementation Mechanism: Site Plan Approval
• Enforcement Mechanism: Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, planning staff will
inspect the project to verify compliance with the approved site plan. Any future changes to
the approved site plan are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Board.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Indoor Bike Parking
Description: A free, secured indoor bike parking area, sized to accommodate one bicycle per
resident, will be provided in the basement of the building, with elevator access. Availability of
this space will be stated in the apartment leases. Tenant will have the right to request a bike space
at any time during the course of the lease.
• Implementation Mechanism: Site Plan Approval
• Enforcement Mechanism: Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, planning staff will
inspect the project to verify compliance with the approved site plan. Any future changes to
the approved site plan are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Board.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Mid-Block Pedestrian Passage.
Description: A design feature of the project is a publicly accessible pedestrian way connecting
College to Linden Avenues. This feature provides a pedestrian and bike amenity that will
accommodate the increased (foot and bike) traffic generated by the residences and commercial
tenants. The applicant has agreed to provide winter maintenance of the space and has provided
language for a deed restriction to ensure public accessibility.
• Implementation Mechanism: Site Plan Approval, deed restriction
19
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Enforcement Mechanism: the Applicant will submit a copy of the deed to the Planning
Department. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, planning staff will inspect the
project to verify compliance with the approved site plan. Any future changes to the approved
site plan are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Board.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
IMPACT: Potential traffic issues on move-in/move-out days for residents, due to lack of
four loading spaces.
The Board is concerned about the potential for disruption when students move in at the beginning
of fall semester and move out at the end of the academic year. With one on-site loading space, it
is anticipated that College or Linden Avenue may be blocked by residents and their cars, while
trying to unload. Although this owner has provided a detailed mitigation expressed below, the
Board is concerned about ensuring that this mitigation is tied to the property and not to the owner.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Furnished Apartments.
Description: Collegetown Crossing will be fully furnished. This will result in shorter loading
times, fewer personal belongings being loaded, and smaller vehicles being used during loading.
The Board notes that furnished apartments are standard for many student rentals.
• Implementation Mechanism: Furnished apartments will be a requirement of the variance.
• Enforcement Mechanism: COC inspection will note presence of furnishings.
• City Staff Requirements: No additional staffing required.
• Cost of measure: $0.
Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: Scheduled Tenant Move-In.
Description: Tenants will be assigned a move-in time slot as stipulated in their lease, and will be
mailed information about how and when to move in. This is a process the developer currently
uses with existing buildings that have no loading spaces.
Mitigation Proposed by the Applicant: Temporary Off-Street Loading Space at 226 Linden
Avenue.
20
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Temporary closure to the public of the Linden Avenue end of the walkway (keeping the College
Avenue end open to maintain access to businesses fronting on the walkway) could make an
additional loading space available off Linden Avenue at the mouth of the pedestrian walkway, if
needed, to accommodate late/early arrivals or other scheduling mishaps. Staff of the proposed
building will manage the occupancy and turnover of the space according to the pre-arranged
move-in schedule. After their allotted move-in time, parents moving their students will be
directed to city parking facilities, those with rented vans will be instructed to return them to the
appropriate vendors, and tenants moving with their own vehicles will be directed to immediately
park them according to their lease provisions.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impact on energy is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE
No significant impact on daily life is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARDS
No significant impact on health and hazards is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
This proposed development is the first major development on the 300 block of College Avenue
since construction, across the street, of 312 College Avenue. For this reason, the Planning Board
feels the design and materials must be of exceptional quality to set the stage for future
development. Board members feel the proposed building is too close (10 feet) to the three-story
wood-frame house on Linden Avenue. Despite being legally allowable, it is not characteristic of
the neighborhood to have a six-story building within 10 feet of a neighboring residential
structure. This creates a 10x39-foot alley that will need to be kept clear of trash, is well lit for
safety, and is easily accessible or completely closed to the public, depending on the desired use of
the space.
Concerns have also been expressed that the new building’s east elevation (which will be visible
from Linden Avenue) lacks sufficient architectural and volumetric articulation to fit the context
In response to the size of the proposed building is the concern that the building is too close to the
public sidewalk. There is no landscaping at all proposed for this site within the property lines. In
keeping with the sentiment of having a “great street” on College Avenue, and this building being
the first, the applicant should make accommodations for wider public sidewalks and
incorporation of greenery in the building façade.
21
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
The applicant is proposing an enhanced bus stop for a proposed new northbound and southbound
TCAT stop. The applicant is considering an enhanced bus waiting area similar to the Gimme!
Coffee on Green Street. This is a heated, enclosed space, with seating, beverages, and light
snacks, where one can wait in comfort for her or his bus. Retention of this type of space,
regardless of future first-floor tenancy, would be a variance /site plan approval requirement
obligating all future owners of the property.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Concerns have been raised about ensuring that mitigations are adequate given the size of the
variance requested.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: Marcham, Rudan
Absent: None
Adopted CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Collegetown Crossing, a mixed-use housing project by Josh Lower,
applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the proposed project will be constructed on a consolidated parcel that was formerly
307 College Avenue and 226 Linden Avenue. The existing two-story building fronting 307
College Avenue will be demolished, making room for a new six-story mixed-use building. The
proposed building will have 50 upper-story apartments and approximately 5,500 SF of ground-
floor retail space. The applicant is proposing to construct a through-block pedestrian walkway
from College to Linden Avenue and will incorporate a TCAT bus waiting area under the building
arcade. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling unit on Linden Avenue will be
retained; however, the back porch will be removed. This structure contains three units with 10
bedrooms, bringing the total number of units proposed on the parcel to 53, and the total number
of bedrooms to 113. The proposed project will remove the existing 15 parking spaces currently
on the site. The project is in the B-2b and R-3b Zoning Districts and the Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone (CPOZ). The project requires area variances for 57 parking spaces, 3 loading
spaces, and a rear-yard deficiency, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance 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, and
22
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals has consented to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: on February 28, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board declared
itself Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 25,
2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by staff and revised by the Planning Board;
drawings entitled “Location Plan (1.01),” “Site Photos (1.02),” “Existing Survey (1.03),”
“Proposed Site Plan (1.04),” “Arcade – South Elevation (1.05),” “Arcade – North Elevation
(1.06),” “First Floor Plan (2.02),” “2nd Floor Plan (2.03),” “3rd-5th Floor Plan (2.04),” “6th Floor
Plan (2.05),” “Roof Plan (2.06),” “North & West Elevations (3.01),” “South & East Elevations
(3.02),” “Rendering (R.01),” “South View (R.02),” and “North View (R.03), all dated 1/31/12,
and prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board required the applicant to produce a third-party, independent parking study
to provide data for the environmental analysis, and
WHEREAS: the applicant submitted a final draft of the “Collegetown Parking Study,” dated July
18, 2012, and prepared by Upstate Research Group, which addressed comments on an earlier
draft from Board members and other interested parties, and
WHEREAS: based on the study’s findings, combined with the existing parking requirements, the
Board accepted the study’s conclusion that the proposed development, under existing conditions,
could be expected to produce a maximum of 19 cars, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency, has required mitigations, as detailed in Part 3 of
the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) to identified impacts, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the
proposed project will result in no significant impacts on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: Marcham, Rudan
Absent: None
23
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
D. Medical Building & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood, 616-626 W.
Seneca St., Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Planned
Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of
Preliminary Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, approximately
9,000 SF building, install a 27-space parking area (including two accessible spaces), a
pedestrian connection to the sidewalk, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Exterior building
finishes include brick and fiber cement panels. The project site is slightly over ½ acre and
consists of four separate lots, each containing a single-family home or duplex with a curbcut
to Seneca Street. Site development will require removal of all four houses, paving, curbcuts,
landscaping (including 12 trees), and other site elements, relocation of a new curbcut, and
rebuilding of the exiting sidewalk and tree lawn. The applicant will be required to
consolidate the lots. The project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District. 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.
Applicant Joe Sammons recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Applicant Kim Michaels highlighted the following updates and modifications to the project,
since it was last presented to the Board:
• additional bike racks (at least some of which will be covered)
• City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue provided positive feedback regarding curbcuts
• State Department of Transportation provided similarly positive response
• Fire Chief Tom Parson provided positive feedback
• existing chain-link fence will be replaced with board privacy fence
Schroeder asked the applicant to add notations to the project drawings identifying which
trees would be saved. Michaels agreed to do so.
Sammons indicated the project has dedicated parking needs, so the applicant would not be
comfortable reducing the parking on the site. He added that the applicant is also exploring
shared parking options.
Schroeder asked what landscaping was planned for the two extremities of the project site.
Michaels responded that none had been planned, primarily for financial reasons. Sammons
indicated the applicant could explore what it may be able to do, to add some landscaping at
those sites.
24
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Applicant Grace Chiang highlighted the following modifications to the project, since it was
last presented to the Board:
• pitched roof
• greater articulation of façade, with different heights in the brick face
• cementitious siding, with different colors and textures
• native bluestone
• entrance canopies extended
• eliminating penthouse to permit space for mechanicals
Sammons noted the project will also be highly energy-efficient (e.g., geothermal system),
although it will not seek LEED certification.
Acharya indicated the Board will need to see the building materials and color samples at the
next Project Review Committee meeting. Chiang agreed to provide them.
Adopted Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Marcham:
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 Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at 616-626 W.
Seneca Street, by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, applicant for owner, Planned Parenthood of
the Southern Finger Lakes, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, approximately 18,200 SF
building with a total building footprint of 8,500 SF, install a 27-space parking area (including two
accessible spaces), a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
Exterior building finishes include brick and fiber cement panels. The project site is slightly over
½ acre and consists of four separate lots, each containing a single-family home or duplex with a
curbcut to Seneca Street. Site development will require removal of all four houses, paving,
curbcuts, landscaping (including 12 trees), and other site elements, relocation of a new curbcut,
and rebuilding of the existing sidewalk and tree lawn. The applicant will be required to
consolidate the lots. The project requires a permit from NYS Department of Transportation. The
project is in the WEDZ-1a 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
25
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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
Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at 616-626 W. Seneca Street.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Rudan, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing.
Nianne VanFleet, Associate Director for Nursing and Clinical Support Services, Cornell
Gannett Health Services, spoke in support of the project.
Joel Harlan, Newfield resident, spoke in support of the project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Adopted CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Demarest:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at 616-626 W.
Seneca Street, by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, applicant for owner, Planned Parenthood of
the Southern Finger Lakes, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, approximately 18,200 SF
building with a total building footprint of 8,500 SF, install a 27-space parking area (including two
accessible spaces), a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
Exterior building finishes include brick and fiber cement panels. The project site is slightly over
½ acre and consists of four separate lots, each containing a single-family home or duplex with a
curbcut to Seneca Street. Site development will require removal of all four houses, paving,
curbcuts, landscaping (including 12 trees), and other site elements, relocation of a new curbcut,
and rebuilding of the existing sidewalk and tree lawn. The applicant will be required to
consolidate the lots. The project requires a permit from NYS Department of Transportation. The
project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District, and
26
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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: on September 25, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being
the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself lead
agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 25,
2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “ Existing
Conditions (C100),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” and
“Details (C201),”all dated 8/22/12, and “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “First Floor Plan (101),” “Second floor Plan
(102),” and “Elevations (103),” all dated 8/20/12, and prepared by Chiang O’Brien Architects;
and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board recognizes that ― although the permanent removal of single-family
homes is normally discouraged ― the existing homes slated for demolition are in a commercial
corridor within a commercial zoning district with commercial uses nearby, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the
proposed Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at 616-626 W. Seneca Street
will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Adopted Preliminary Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at 616-626 W.
Seneca Street, by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, applicant for owner, Planned Parenthood of
the Southern Finger Lakes, and
27
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, approximately 18,200 SF
building with a total building footprint of 8,500 SF, install a 27-space parking area (including two
accessible spaces), a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
Exterior building finishes include brick and fiber cement panels. The project site is slightly over
½ acre and consists of four separate lots, each containing a single-family home or duplex with a
curbcut to Seneca Street. Site development will require removal of all four houses, paving,
curbcuts, landscaping (including 12 trees), and other site elements, relocation of a new curbcut,
and rebuilding of the existing sidewalk and tree lawn. The applicant will be required to
consolidate the lots. The project requires a permit from the NYS Department of Transportation.
The project is in the WEDZ-1a 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: on September 25, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being
the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself lead
agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6
(B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on
September 25, 2012, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 25,
2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Existing
Conditions (C100),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” and
“Details (C201),” all dated 8/22/12; and “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “First Floor Plan (101),” “Second Floor Plan
(102),” and “Elevations (103),” all dated 8/20/12, and prepared by Chiang O’Brien Architects;
and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board recognizes that ― although the permanent removal of single-family
homes is normally discouraged ― the existing homes slated for demolition are in a commercial
corridor within a commercial zoning district, with commercial uses nearby, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on September 25, 2012 make a negative determination of
environmental significance, now, therefore, be it
28
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Preliminary Site
Plan Approval for the proposed Medical & Administrative Offices for Planned Parenthood at
616-626 W. Seneca Street, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of project details, including but not limited to building materials samples and
colors, tree protection, lighting, signage, pavements, curbs, fences, seat walls, dumpster
enclosure, and bike racks, and
ii. Submission of drawing and/or a narrative indicating planned route for construction
traffic, and
iii. Approval in writing from the Ithaca Fire Department that the proposed project meets its
requirements for emergency response, and
iv. Submission of revised color elevations keyed to proposed building materials and of an
elevation showing changes to the south façade to create a more welcoming pedestrian-
level streetscape.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
E. 35-Unit Rental Housing Development, 400 Spencer Rd., Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services (INHS) & PathStone Development, Applicants. Presentation Only ―
No Action. The applicants propose to construct 35 units of new rental housing that will be
affordable to low- to moderate-income households. The units will be in one three-story
building and two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include a 37-space
parking area, pedestrian walkways throughout, a recreation area with a playground,
basketball court, a lawn, and landscaping. The applicants are also proposing to install a
sidewalk, tree lawn, and street trees along the property on Spencer Road. The project site
consists of three separate tax parcels in the R-2a and B-5 Zoning Districts, currently all
containing commercial uses. Project development will require lot subdivision and,
potentially, consolidation. The project requires a use variance for a three-story apartment
building in the R-2b District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Applicant Joe Bowes recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Applicant Kathryn Wolf highlighted the following features of the project:
• 8-foot privacy fence
• no need for stormwater treatment
29
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• project will require use variance, but its residential nature is more in keeping with the
intended use than current dispatch center
Schroeder asked if the applicant could reduce the number of parking spaces. Bowes replied
that the applicant had assumed they would need them all, under current zoning requirements.
Cornish remarked that the current zoning actually delimits a maximum number of parking
spaces.
Applicant Scott Reynolds observed that the project is very similar in size to the Cedar Creek
Apartments project ― and the parking for that project is well-used, but not over-full. Given
the similarity of the two projects, Reynolds cautioned against reducing the parking for the
400 Spencer Road project too much.
Applicant Steve Hugo walked through the drawings and elevations. He noted the intent was
to create a neighborhood-like sensibility, using an unconventional approach to conventional
building materials.
Schroeder asked if the applicant could construct the sidewalks all the way to the doors, which
would help more fully integrate the project with the surrounding neighborhood. Wolf
responded that may be possible. Hugo replied, yes, that could be done.
F. Commons Repair & Upgrade Project, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner ―
Intent to Declare Lead Agency.
Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Marcham:
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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a the Commons Repair and Upgrade, by the City of Ithaca,
applicant and owner, and
30
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the project consists of removal and replacement of all above- and below-ground
utilities, all surfaces, furnishing, lighting, structures, landscaping, site features, and signage, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review,
and
WHEREAS: the Board of Public Works and the Ithaca Common Council have been identified as
Involved Agencies, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare its
intent to act as Lead Agency for environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the
Commons Repair and Upgrade Project on State Street in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
G. Building Expansion, Parking, & Site Work, Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd.
(formerly, Green Tree nursery), Thomas M. Schickel, Applicant for Owner, Maguire
Family Enterprises, LLC ― Intent to Declare Lead Agency.
Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental
law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a building expansion and site work for Maguire Fiat by
Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and
31
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand and renovate the existing 1,300 SF building
(formerly, GreenTree nursery). The addition will be 6,750 SF (for a total building footprint of
8,050 SF) and will include a showroom, customer service area, offices, and service bays. The site
work will include the addition of a 5-space customer parking lot in the front of the building and a
5-space staff parking lot in the rear of the building. The existing large parking lot to the south of
the proposed building will be used for display. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and
requires an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare its
intent to act as Lead Agency for environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the
building expansion and site work (Maguire Fiat) at 308 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
H. Seneca Way Apartments ― Conditions & Minor Changes
Applicant David Sisson recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that
some minor modifications were made to the building elevations, resulting from the overall
evolution of the building.
Schroeder asked if the visual impact of the gas meters in the front could be minimized.
Sisson replied, yes, there would be plantings adjacent to them.
Schroeder asked if the retaining wall would be covered in vines. Sisson replied, yes, the
applicant will try to cover most of it in vines.
Schroeder inquired into the nature of the brown rectangular areas on the north elevation
drawing. Sisson responded that the intent is to have those look like windows, although the
precise color may differ slightly from the one depicted.
Acharya asked if all the remaining issues now appear to have been resolved. Schroeder
replied, yes.
32
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4. Zoning Appeals
#2889, Area Variance, 201 Dewitt Pl.
Members of the Board support the granting of this variance.
#2890, Area Variance, 203 Dewitt Pl.
Members of the Board support the granting of this variance.
#2891, Area Variance & Special Use Permit, 661 Spencer Rd.
Although a daycare center is generally compatible with residential use, the Board is concerned
about any encroachments into this particularly fragile residential area.
5. Old Business
• Site Plan Review Ordinance: Additional Comments & Proposed Changes
Nicholas indicated that recent received comments had all been reviewed and integrated into a
revised version of the draft ordinance (including some comments from Cornell University
regarding landscape improvements that do not currently require site plan review). Nicholas
then walked through the revised SPR Ordinance Approval Schedule.
• Letter Re: Cayuga Garage Sidewalk
Nicholas walked through the contents of a draft letter from the Board to Mayor Myrick,
regarding the Board’s request that a portion of any proceeds from the sale of the Cayuga
Place Two (Cayuga Place Residences) property be used to make sidewalk improvements.
No objections or modifications to the draft letter were made.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya noted the Planning Board received a memorandum from Planner Megan
Wilson, describing the current status of the Comprehensive Plan drafting process and
its anticipated timeline. Acharya noted that Planning Board members should review
the memorandum and be prepared to move the related resolution at the Board’s
November meeting.
B. Director of Planning & Development
(None.)
33
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
34
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
At its last meeting, Acharya reported, the BPW approved the City of Ithaca Bicycle
Boulevard Plan. It has also formally asked the Public Art Commission (PAC) to
explore options for developing some creative signage designating the bicycle
boulevards.
7. Approval of Minutes: 7/24/12 & 8/28/12
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft July 24, 2011 meeting
minutes were approved, with no modifications. (Approval of the draft August 28, 2012
meeting minutes was deferred until the next meeting.)
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.