HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-10-23Approved at the November 27, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
October 23, 2012
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Noah Demarest;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Tessa Rudan
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: Marriott Hotel (120 S. Aurora St.)
Mathew Jalazo, Urgo Hotels;
Andrés Rubio, Cooper Carry Architecture
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
Stone Quarry Apartments
(INHS Housing Project at 400 Spencer Rd.)
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Joe Bowes, PathStone;
Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS);
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Commons Repair & Upgrade Project
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Susannah Ross, Sasaki Associates;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Rick’s Rental World (800 Cascadilla St.)
Christine Place, Place Architects;
Glenn Rick, Rick’s Rental World
Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project)
Scott Whitham, Scott Whitham & Associates;
David Lubin, Owner/Applicant;
Craig Jensen, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP
South Meadow Square, Additional Retail Space
James Baglioli, Benderson Development
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Chair Acharya indicated the zoning appeal review for the Marriott Hotel project would be
moved up on the agenda. No objections were raised. (This item will, however, appear in
these minutes in its normal order.)
2. Privilege of the Floor
Michael Cannon, Commercial Loan Officer, Tompkins Trust Company, spoke in support of
the Commons Redesign project. He encouraged the City to expedite the approval and
construction of the project as much as possible.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Marriott Hotel (formerly, Hotel Ithaca), 120 S. Aurora St., Hotel Ithaca, LLC,
Applicant & Owner. Public Hearing. The applicant is requesting changes to the site plan,
approved on September 10, 2009. The changes include the following: an increase in
guestrooms from 124 to 160; repositioning the restaurant to the ground level on the
Commons-side of the building; removal of the proposed rooftop program space; and changes
to the exterior of the building, including façade design, building materials, landscaping,
signage, and lighting. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance in accordance with §176-4 (B) [4], (i), (l), & (n) and an Unlisted
Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning Board
completed the environmental review and issued a negative declaration of environmental
significance on July 28, 2009. The project requires renewal of a previously granted area
variance for height and rear yard setback.
Mathew Jalazo, representing Urgo Hotels, and architect Andrés Rubio said the applicant has
attempted to address the comments expressed by the Board at the August 28, 2012 sketch
plan presentation. Jalazo remarked the applicant is working with NYSEG to relocate the
south transformer further back from Green Street. Schroeder observed this is much better
than having it face Green Street, although he would like to ensure there are enough plantings
and/or other forms of screening for it.
2
Rubio remarked that the building’s ground-floor configuration differs from the 2009 Hotel
Ithaca design. Glass is being placed over the north entrance to the Commons, as part of an
effort to engage street-level pedestrians as much as possible. The elevators have also been
moved more towards the internal core of the building.
Jalazo noted the applicant is working closely with TCAT on relocating the Aurora Street bus
stop and building a new one just north of the current bus stop. The applicant is also working
with the Department of Public Works to ensure genuinely 8-foot clear sidewalks on Aurora
Street.
Schroeder remarked he still thinks 8 feet is slightly too tight for a busy urban area; he asked
if the applicant could explore moving the curb somewhat to the east to provide extra
sidewalk space. Jalazo replied, yes. Rubio added that, while the total clearance is 8 feet, the
face of the building has about 13 feet of clearance. Schroeder asked for the submission of
drawings showing these details.
Acharya asked if the applicant was planning signage at the Green Street garage to direct
people to the hotel via the garage decks, which seems as though it might make the whole
arrival process more efficient. Rubio replied that should be possible. It is just a matter of
installing the appropriate directional signage. Jalazo indicated they would explore it.
Blalock remarked it will be important to prevent people from double parking at the Aurora
Street entrance. Jalazo replied the applicant is trying to ensure that will not happen (e.g.,
valet service will be available).
Rubio walked through some of the highlights of the elevation drawings and the modifications
made since the sketch plan presentation (e.g., more waterfall-like appearance tall glass-
sheathed northeast corner, continuously changing color LED lighting there, vertical emphasis
of fenestration, two-tone variation of of metal panels on west façade, etc.).
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by
Schroeder, seconded by Demarest, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Schroeder asked the applicant for a complete, fully labeled, and updated single set of
drawings in time for the next meeting, which the applicant agreed to provide.
3
B. 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. Consideration of Final Approval. The
applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, appr. 18,200 SF building, with a total
building footprint of appr. 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 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 for which the Planning Board completed the
environmental review on September 25, 2012.
Michaels and Chiang walked through the updated drawings, as well as the proposed colors
and materials.
Schroeder remarked that the harmony of the colors is superb. He inquired into the status of
the dumpster enclosure. Michaels responded she was not aware one was required; however,
if that is the case, the applicant can certainly provide a design to staff. Schroeder indicated it
would be added as a condition in the resolution.
Adopted Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for 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 GSF
building with a total building footprint of appr. 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
4
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, did on September 25,
2012 review and accept 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, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on September 23, 2012 grant
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
5
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, and
WHEREAS: the Board has on October 23, 2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate additional and
revised drawings plans entitled: “Existing Conditions (C100),” “Details (C201),” “Demolition
Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “First Floor
Plan (A101),” “Second Floor Plan (A102),” and “Exterior Elevations (A201),” all dated 10/9/12,
and “Details (L501 & L502),” dated 9/17/12, and prepared by Chiang O’Brien Architects, and
other application materials; and “Construction Route Diagram,” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels, LLP; and “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101)” and “Utility Plan (C102),”
prepared by Chiang O’Brien Architects and all dated 10/16/12; and other application materials,
and
WHEREAS: the Board finds that the applicant has fully satisfied conditions ii.-iv., and partially
satisfied condition i., listed above, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final
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 detail of proposed dumpster enclosure, and
ii. Submission of revised planting plan showing added canopy tree in lawn area next to
turnaround on north side of project site, and
iii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
iv. Bike racks to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy will be granted.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
C. 35-Unit Rental Housing Development, Stone Quarry Apartments, 400 Spencer
Rd., Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) & PathStone Development,
Applicants. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, & Determination of
Environmental Significance. 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 3-story building and two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include a
36-space parking area with two ADA-compliant spaces, 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
6
Approved at the November 27, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Zoning Districts, currently all containing commercial uses. Project development will require
lot subdivision, and potential consolidation. The project requires a use variance for a 3-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.
Trowbridge recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and walked through the
major points of the applicant’s October 9, 2012 letter to the Board, which presents
applicant’s responses to specific Planning Board member requests and concerns. The
applicant is proposing to reduce the number of proposed spaces from 37 to 36, one more than
is required by zoning (1 space/unit). The applicant would prefer not to appeal to the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance.
Acharya indicated he was confused with the minimum parking issue. Demarest observed
that in the parking ordinance revision passed by Common Council earlier this year there is a
maximum parking requirement, but the minimum parking requirement remains ― there
seems to be an inherent conflict in the ordinance.
Demarest observed there is a maximum parking requirement, but the minimum parking
requirement remains ― there seems to be an inherent conflict in the ordinance.
Trowbridge stressed that, since there is no other parking convenient to the project, all the
parking does need to be on-site.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicant explored using speed bumps in the parking area.
Trowbridge responded the applicant is still investigating the issue. A rumble strip of some
kind, at least, could be installed.
Trowbridge remarked that sidewalks were added to the project entrances on the Spencer
Road side. The project will also have covered bike racks for the multi-family buildings, as
well as some near the playground. Bike hooks may also be employed under the overhang of
each unit.
Trowbridge reported that the applicant explored moving the playground location, as
suggested by a Planning Board member; however, given that the vast majority of families
would be living in the townhouses, it simply did not seem logical to do so. A four-foot high
fence around the playground would be installed, however, for safety.
At this point, Hugo described some of the other architectural changes to the project.
Marcham observed that the City’s definition of townhouses describes them as a maximum of
six 1-family dwelling units. Hugo responded that the New York State code and the City code
differ slightly in their definitions of townhouse. He would discuss the issue with the
Building Department.
Schroeder remarked he is pleased with the evolution of the project; however, the ends of the
townhouses seem anomalous (e.g., there are no windows at all on two of those façades). On
the multi-family buildings, he added, the top third of the front façade seems rather plain.
They just need some more detailing of some kind. Hugo agreed to explore the issue.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Demarest, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing.
James Elrod, 111 Stone Quarry Road, spoke in opposition to the project. He remarked that
he had met with other neighbors and had heard a number of concerns expressed. The number
of parking spaces seems inadequate, especially given that the surrounding area is already
overburdened with traffic. The existing infrastructure on the site is inadequate (e.g., homes
are very close to the road). The neighbors would prefer to see significant changes in traffic
patterns, before any development is considered for the site. Elrod remarked, also, that the
scale of the project is not appropriate. It is too large and intrusive; and the design is not
compatible with that of the rest of the neighborhood.
Margaret Sutherland, 410 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She remarked
that the road is already non-conforming and there are no shoulders or sidewalks. Her
primary concern is that the project envisions children living in it, and they would be walking
every morning to the bus stop, which is a serious safety concern, given the traffic density.
The traffic situation would go from bad to intolerable. Furthermore, there is no consistent
parking availability on Spencer Road, nor are there any sidewalks on Elmira Road. She
observed that most of Spencer Road actually looks quite rural, in comparison to the proposed
project.
Mary Yelko, 409 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She noted that traffic is
deplorable on Spencer Road and adding 36 more cars is unrealistic. There is no street
parking at all and no sidewalks. The walk to the bus stop is already dangerous; it would be a
dangerous situation made worse. Also, she complained that no one in the neighborhood was
informed of the project.
Claudia Garjic, 411 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She remarked that
the traffic in the vicinity is unbelievable (and a child once almost got run over getting off the
school bus). Furthermore, the Stone Quarry Road intersection is terrible and there is no
parking available on the street. She is also concerned the project would attract criminal
activity to the area. She is upset that she was not informed of the project.
8
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Marcham, seconded by Jones-
Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
In light of some of the public comments, Cornish asked the applicant if the property had been
posted with notification signs. Trowbridge replied, yes. Cornish asked if the required legal
ad had been published. Nicholas replied, yes. Reynolds added that he believed the neighbor
notification letters had also been sent out, as required.
Schroeder observed that INHS Executive Director Paul Mazzarella himself indicated at an
earlier meeting that the applicant would be communicating with neighbors.
Adopted FEAF, Part 2
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 – Project Impacts
Project Name: Housing Development, 400 Spencer Road
Date Created: October 4, 2012
Revised by Planning and Development Board: October 23, 2012
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or
involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
9
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
10
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Project will require a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan.
Yes No
11
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts Only – See
Part 3
Yes No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
12
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or
natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
13
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
14
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: Project site is in a area with traffic issues
that could worsen, both during and post-construction.
Project will be reviewed by City Transportation
Engineer.
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
15
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any) Construction Impacts Only- see Part 3
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
16
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional
community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.). Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
17
Approved at the November 27, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
Schroeder suggested the Board send a letter to the Board of Public Works, regarding the need
for transportation improvements on Spencer Road. Acharya agreed that would be a good
idea. Nicholas indicated she would prepare a draft.
Adopted FEAF, Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM — Part III
Housing Development, 400 Spencer Road
Date Created: October 4, 2012
Revised: October 18, 2012
Revised by Planning and Development Board: October 23, 2012
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 3‐story building and two rows of 2‐
story townhouses. Site improvements will include a 36‐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 potential consolidation. The project requires a use variance for a 3‐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.
IMPACT ON LAND
Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 18 months. Project development
requires removal of all buildings, accessory structures, walls, paving, and vegetation, potentially
leaving exposed soils for periods of time. The applicant has proposed an erosion and
sedimentation plan and will be required to provide a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan.
In its current condition, the project site is a nearly 100% impervious surface. The proposed
project will decrease the percentage of impervious surface, by providing landscaped areas and
some porous paving.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Construction and site preparation activities will create the potential for increased airborne dust
and dirt particles. The amount of construction‐generated dust depends on several factors,
including soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and
sun, weather‐related factors, and construction practices.
The following dust‐control measures should be required, as needed, during construction:
• Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
• Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.
• Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
• Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
• Requiring trucks to be covered.
• Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
19
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Safety and traffic violations are a concern at the intersection of Spencer and Quarry Roads. Of
particular concern are right‐hand turning movements from Spencer road onto Stone Quarry and
left‐hand turns from Stone Quarry onto Spencer. The applicant submitted a turning movements
diagram at the request of the City Transportation Engineer. The diagram demonstrates that
current turning movements are not affected by the proposed project. The City Transportation
Engineer has determined that any transportation issues at the intersection are not the
responsibility of the applicant. The City is interested in redesigning the intersection and making a
pedestrian connection from the new sidewalk to Elmira Road.
Several neighbors spoke at the public hearing, raising concerns about traffic congestion and
pedestrian safety, particularly the need for sidewalks on Spencer Road. The Lead Agency strongly
encourages the City to consider installing sidewalks on Spencer Road.
The project is proximate to shopping on Elmira Road and Meadow Street, both of which have, or
will soon have, sidewalks and designated pedestrian crossings. The applicant expects some of the
residents will not have cars. Making a safe pedestrian connection to these areas is important.
The applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk and tree lawn along the entire front of the
property facing Spencer Road, which currently has no sidewalks. The Lead Agency encourages
the applicant to investigate establishing a pedestrian route from the project site directly to Elmira
Road.
The Lead Agency intends, by separate resolution, to urge the Board of Public Works to: (1)
develop and implement a plan for providing pedestrian connections between the project site
area on Spencer Road and nearby transit stops and shopping areas; and (2) develop and
implement a plan for improving the operation of the Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road
intersection.
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
Project construction is expected to last approximately 18 months. Site demolition, exterior
construction activities, site work, and construction activities will be temporary disturbances to
adjacent residential uses. In accordance with City regulations: all noise‐producing construction
activity will be limited to Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
No significant impacts anticipated.
20
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No significant impacts anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project will introduce a relatively high‐density residential development (23 dwelling
units/acre) to an area of lower density residential and commercial land use. The current
commercial use (Ithaca Dispatch) is allowed in the R‐2a Residential Zoning District by a previously
granted variance.
Changing this site back to residential land use will help strengthen the residential character of this
fragile neighborhood. The project requires a use variance because multi‐family residential
development (the proposed 3‐story apartment building) is not allowed in the R‐2a Zoning District.
The applicant has the option to locate the 3‐story building in the rear of the project site, in the B‐
5 Zoning District and locate the parking and play areas in the front of the site along Spencer Road
in the R‐2a Zoning District, which would not require a variance. The Lead Agency strongly prefers
the proposed design, however, because it restores residential use to Spencer Road and creates a
more welcoming streetscape that is in keeping with more traditional neighborhood character.
Additionally, the Lead Agency notes the large number of use variances that allow commercial
uses in the residential zone along the north side of Spencer Road, abutting the B‐5 Zoning District.
The Lead Agency, the BZA, and other interested parties have been concerned that this situation,
in conjunction with potential new use variances for this purpose, could erode the viability of
residential use in this area. Given this proposal for new residential development, the Lead
Agency finds no negative impact in granting a use variance to allow higher density residential use.
The applicant has proposed several design features that enhance the residential character of the
street, such as a sidewalk and treelawn, a low fence with separate entrances for each townhouse,
and massing of the 3‐story building that makes it appear to be two stories from the street. The
visual impact of the multi‐family building is reduced, because it is tucked into a slope that rises
towards Spencer Road, thereby reducing the building’s apparent height from viewpoints along
this road. The Lead Agency will work with the applicant during site plan review to refine building
materials and architectural features of the final design of the building along Spencer Road.
No significant impacts anticipated.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
At the public hearing, several neighbors near the project site have expressed concern that the
project will worsen already serious problems with traffic volume on Spencer Road and with traffic
backing up at the intersection with Stone Quarry Road. Several neighbors also raised concerns
about pedestrian safety, particularly the need for sidewalks on Spencer Road, as well as
neighborhood character.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
21
Absent: Rudan
Adopted CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for Stone Quarry Apartments located at 400 Spencer Road, by Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) and PathStone Development, and
WHEREAS: 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 3-story building and
two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include: a 36-space parking area with
two ADA-compliant spaces; 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 containing all commercial
uses. Project development will require lot subdivision, and potential consolidation. The project
requires a use variance for a 3-story apartment building in the R-2b District, 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: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 23, 2012
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Site
Survey (L001),” dated 9/19/12 and prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and T.G. Miller,
P.C.; “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Concept Sections (L501),” and “Site Details (L601),” prepared
by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and dated 9/19/12; and “Grading Plan (L301),” prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT Architects, and dated 9/19/12; and “Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” and “Details (C201),” prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 9/19/12; and “Layout Plan (L201),”
“Planting Plan (L401),” and “Concept Plan (L100),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
and HOLT Architects and dated 10/9/12; and “Typical Townhouse Exterior Elevations
(A201)”and “Multifamily Building Exterior Elevations (A202),” prepared by HOLT Architects
and dated10/9/12; and “Grading Plan (L301),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and
HOLT Architects, and dated 9/19/12; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project, and all comments received have been considered, now, therefore, be it
22
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the
proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project at 400 Spencer Road 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, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
D. Commons Repair & Upgrade Project, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner. Public
Hearing. The project consists of removal and replacement of all above- and below-ground
utilities, all surfaces, furnishing, lighting, structures, landscaping, site features, and signage.
The project is in the CDB-60, CBD-85, and CBD-100 Zoning Districts. The project will
require approval from the Board of Public Works and the Common Council. This is a Type
II Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and does not requires environmental review.
Ross walked through a detailed presentation of the project, highlighting the following main
points and features:
• Commons Client Committee reviewed/approved entire project.
• Primary project driver was to replace aging utilities underneath Commons; several utility
lines lie directly beneath existing trees, requiring the latter’s removal.
• Trees were one of the most sensitive subjects of concern. A third-party professional
arborist performed a basic, thorough evaluation of the current state of the trees and their
prospects for survival. Saving even the small number of trees it would have been
possible to save (given the need to replace utilities) would be a costly and uncertain task
(with a survival rate only ranging from only 40% to 80%); so the Client Committee voted
to remove some of the trees.
• Major subject of concern revolved around maintenance and durability of materials to be
used.
• Fire Department to perform annual walkthroughs/inspections of Commons.
• Lighting to comprise both overhead catenary cables with light fixtures (along East State /
MLK Street) and lightpoles (along Bank Alley).
• Play zones have been incorporated into design.
• Permanent current art installations will be retained in new locations.
• Variety of different kinds of seating will be employed (e.g., swiveling chairs, side
benches, and movable chairs).
• Bicycle racks would be situated at entries and throughout Commons.
• Bank Alley would be reconfigured to serve as primary gathering space, with Bernie
Milton Pavilion relocated to Seneca Street side.
• Bank Alley will also feature gorge-inspired fountain, designed as a low-key play area.
23
• Each entrance to Commons will feature gateway structure, reflecting many of the same
elements as Bernie Milton Pavilion, on a smaller scale.
• Touch-screen digital directories will replace current bulletin board directories.
Schroeder asked the applicant to consider replacing the Freeman Maples with Scarlet Oaks in
locations adjacent to lower building heights. Ross replied she would look into that.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair
Acharya opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Ferguson, Executive Director, Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA), and Commons
Client Committee member, spoke in support of the project. He remarked it is an amazing
project, which will be a key piece of Ithaca’s civic infrastructure, serving as a catalyst for
further growth and economic development.
Bill Reed, Executive Director of Hospitality Services, Pyramid Brokerage Company, spoke
in support of the project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
E. Building Renovations & Site Improvements, Rick’s Rental World, 800 Cascadilla
St., Glenn Rick, Applicant & Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing,
Determination of Environmental Significance, & Consideration of Preliminary
Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a 45x54’ (2,430 SF) metal building to the
south of the existing structure. The new building will house the main entry, showroom, and
offices. Site improvements will include the installation of a new 5-space parking area (with
one ADA-compliant space) and paving on the east side of the new and existing buildings, a
new loading dock, bike rack, landscaping, and signage. Construction will require removal of
the existing brick addition on the south side of the building, and the existing prefabricated
building and loading dock on the east side of the building. The project is in the I-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.
Place recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. She noted that the applicant
made one change to the site plan, since it was last reviewed ― the building will now have
parking on the east, onto a private road facing the Cornell building. The Fire Department
wanted a clear of 20 feet from Cascadilla Street. In response to a Planning Board request for
green screening at the northwest of the site, to buffer the future Cayuga Waterfront Trail, the
applicant now proposes to install a planting screen of fast-growing Holly China Girl
24
(maturing to a height of 8-10’ and a breadth of 6-8’). Cornish asked for a drawing
illustrating its location, and Place handed out drawings already showing this information.
Schroeder asked if the applicant could add shade trees along Cascadilla Street. Place replied,
yes.
Demarest expressed concern with the parking access from the private road, and whether it
would be wide enough. Place replied it should be. She will submit a new drawing with the
private road’s precise measurements.
Adopted Lead Agency Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require 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 building addition and site improvements at Rick’s Rental World on 800
Cascadilla Street by Glenn Rick, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a 45x54’ (2,430 SF) metal building to the
south of the existing structure. The new building will house the main entry, showroom, and
offices. Site improvements will include the installation of a new 5-space parking area (with one
ADA-compliant space) and paving on the east side of the new and existing buildings, a new
loading dock, bike rack, landscaping, and signage. Construction will require removal of the
existing brick addition on the south side of the building, and the existing pre-fabricated building
and loading dock on the east side of the building. The project is in the I-1 Zoning District, 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 building
addition and site improvements at Rick’s Rental World on 800 Cascadilla Street in the City of
Ithaca.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
25
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya
opened the Public Hearing.
Bruce Lane, President, Purity Ice Cream Company, Inc., spoke in support of the project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Marcham,
and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Adopted CEQR Resolution
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Review for a building addition and site improvements at Rick’s Rental World on 800
Cascadilla Street by Glenn Rick, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a 45x54’ (2,430 SF) metal building to the
south of the existing structure. The new building will house the main entry, showroom, and
offices. Site improvements will include the installation of a new 5-space parking area (with one
ADA-compliant space) and paving on the east side of the new and existing buildings, a new
loading dock, bike rack, landscaping, and signage. Construction will require removal of the
existing brick addition on the south side of the building, and the existing prefabricated building
and loading dock on the east side of the building. The project is in the I-1 Zoning District, 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 October 23, 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 the 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 October 23, 2012
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1,
provided by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; drawings entitled “Existing Site Plan and
Demolition (A-1)” and “Exterior Elevations (A-3),” dated 8/15/12, and “Proposed Site Plan (A-
26
2),” dated 9/18/12, all prepared by Place Architects; 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, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
Adopted Preliminary & Final 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 building addition and site improvements at Rick’s Rental World on 800
Cascadilla Street by Glenn Rick, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a 45x54’ (2,430 SF) metal building to the
south of the existing structure. The new building will house the main entry, showroom, and
offices. Site improvements will include the installation of a new 5-space parking area (with one
ADA-compliant space) and paving on the east side of the new and existing buildings, a new
loading dock, bike rack, landscaping, and signage. Construction will require removal of the
existing brick addition on the south side of the building, and the existing prefabricated building
and loading dock on the east side of the building. The project is in the I-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: on October 23, 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 October
23, 2012, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County
Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and
any received comments on the aforementioned have been considered, and
27
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 23, 2012
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1,
provided by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; drawings entitled “Existing Site Plan and
Demolition (A-1)” and “Exterior Elevations (A-3),” dated 8/15/12, and “Proposed Site Plan (A-
2),” dated 9/18/12, all prepared by Place Architects; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, did on October 23, 2012 make a negative determination of environmental
significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
preliminary and final site plan approval to the project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of a revised site plan showing plantings along the northwest property line
to screen the parking and equipment area from the future Cayuga Waterfront Trail,
and
ii. Applicant to work with Planning Department staff to select appropriate species of
canopy trees to be placed in lawn along Cascadilla Street, and
iii. Submission of a revised site plan showing a planting schedule, and
iv. Submission of site details including building materials and colors, lighting, bike racks,
and signage, and
v. Approval in writing from the Fire Department that the project meets all its
requirements for fire access.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
F. Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project), David Lubin ― Sketch Plan
Lubin walked through a general overview of the history of the project. He noted he had
postponed on moving forward with the project for a considerable time, until the plans to
renovate the Commons had been finalized.
Jensen walked through a general overview of the project design, noting the following main
points and features:
• Connections to and from upper levels of project and Green Street garage.
• Retail on ground floor, office space on three floors above (both facing the Commons),
and six stories of apartments in tower located at project’s south end, set back
significantly from the Commons.
28
• Residential units would be pushed to rear of the site.
• Main entrance facing the Commons.
• Large atrium space.
• Façade with varied heights and textures, reflecting nearby buildings, but without being
overly imitative.
• Rear would be much higher than front, but would be set back to minimize visual impact
on Commons.
• Shadow studies indicate no significant shadowing of the Commons.
• Historic Home Dairy Building and Sage Block will be preserved.
Demarest asked if the applicant is coordinating its efforts with Commons consultant, Sasaki
Associates. Lubin replied, no.
Schroeder suggested it would be a good idea to bring design vocabulary inspired by Sasaki
Associates into the interior public spaces. Whitham observed it would also make sense to
coordinate staging and construction with Sasaki Associates.
Jones-Rounds remarked that her initial reaction was not that the project was too tall, but that
the tower seems disproportionately narrow, from a street-level perspective. Jensen noted the
applicant would provide the Board with perspective and viewshed renderings to illustrate
more of those kinds of details.
Schroeder indicated he likes a great deal of what is being proposed; however, he would like
to see a more delicate and appropriate treatment of the façade overlooking the Commons.
Jensen replied that he would explore that.
Blalock suggested the applicant may want to consider visiting scholars from local institutions
of higher learning as a promising target demographic for the project.
G. South Meadow Square, Additional Retail Space ― Sketch Plan
Developer James Baglioli walked through a general overview of the proposed project. He
noted that the Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway was originally supposed to be connected to the
undeveloped western portion of the Southwest Area and the City was supposed to maintain
this road. However, since this ultimately did not take place, Benderson would now like to
develop the portion of the proposed road right-of-way that lies on land Benerson owns. The
project would transform this portion of the Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway into parking and
approximately 30,000 square feet of retail space.
Schroeder remarked that he is not sure that it would be prudent, from an overall planning
standpoint, to block the public proposed right-of-way here.
29
Cornish agreed, from broader planning perspective, it would be best not to block it off;
although the City certainly understands the property owner’s desire to develop it.
4. Zoning Appeals
#2874, Area Variance ― 307 College Ave. (Collegetown Crossing)
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the following recommendation to the
Board of Zoning Appeals was approved.
Appeal of Josh Lower on behalf of the owner J & W House for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 4, off-street parking, Column 5, off-street loading, and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements
of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property located at 307 College
Avenue. The newly consolidated parcel currently contains a two story commercial building known as
307 College Avenue and a residential building known as 226 Linden Avenue. The proposal is to
demolish the existing 2 story commercial building on College Avenue and construct a new 6 story
mixed use building. The new building will contain 5 store fronts on the first floor, one of which is a
proposed grocery store. Floors 2-6 will contain 50 apartments and have an associated laundry room
and exercise room located on the first floor. The 50 apartments will house 103 occupants. The
existing multiple dwelling located at 226 Linden Avenue allows 11 occupants.
In order to construct the new 6 story building the existing 14 parking spaces currently available will
be eliminated requiring the applicant to request a variance for the required parking. The property is
located in the College Overlay Parking Zone which requires 1 space per 2 persons housed for a total
of 52 required spaces for the proposed new building located in a B-2b zone and 5 spaces are required
for the existing multiple dwelling located at 226 Linden Avenue which is located in an R-3b zone
district. The total number of required spaces for this project is 57. The applicant proposes to provide 1
off-street loading space of the 4 loading spaces required by the ordinance. However, the loading
space off of Linden Avenue is only 170 S.F. of the 450 S.F. required by the ordinance.
The property is a through-block lot which places the rear yard on the Linden Avenue side of the lot.
The existing building at 226 Linden Avenue, which is in the rear yard, is 4.5’ from the rear property
line making the rear yard 4.5’of the 10’ required by the zoning ordinance. The Linden Avenue
building has an existing side yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in two zone districts, B-2b and R-3b use districts in which the proposed use is
permitted, however Section 325-38 requires an area variance be granted before a building permit may
be issued.
The Planning Board recommends granting all of the variances for the 307 College Ave project. In
doing so, the Board recognizes that the request from the applicant to be relieved of the 57 parking
space requirements may seem to some to be unusual in its scope. Nonetheless, the Planning Board's
environmental review, including a requirement of the applicant to provide a professional study to
consider mitigations, found that the applicant can sufficiently mitigate any impacts from a variance of
this size.
Had the applicant chosen to meet the minimum parking requirements in the area, the negative effects
to the environment and community character would have been potentially more significant.
30
The Board respectfully submits that each appeal must be considered on its own merits. In this
particular case the merits warrant granting the variances. Should other projects request similar
treatment, they must be judged solely on the merits of that applicant's request.
One member of the Planning Board dissented from this recommendation, arguing that the applicant
should be obligated to provide the 57 spaces or at the very least, enough space to serve the 19 car-
owning tenants anticipated by the applicant – perhaps as one possibility, by using land the applicant
owns at 226 Linden Ave. and should provide more substantial justification for granting relief from
the requirement. She further viewed the mitigations as insufficient for the additional traffic problems
that will arise in Collegetown because of this project. Finally, the dissenter viewed the applicant's
appeal as an end run around zoning, undermining City efforts to protect quality of life in Collegetown
and nearby neighborhoods.
The Planning Board, acting as lead agency for the project, conducted an environmental review in
accordance with City and State laws and issued a negative declaration on the project on September
25, 2012. This negative declaration provided a comprehensive set of mitigations which the Planning
Board recommends to the BZA as a condition of granting the variances. The BZA should reference
the Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), adopted by the Planning Board on
September25, 2012, a portion of which appears below, and which supersedes earlier versions of the
mitigations provided by the applicant as part of the zoning appeal and site plan review application
materials.
Every negative declaration must:
• identify the relevant areas of environmental concern;
• thoroughly analyze the relevant concerns; and
• document the determination, in writing, showing the reasons why the environmental concerns
that were identified and analyzed will not be significant.
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 Car Share 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
31
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. (16.7% of the 113 bedrooms 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.
• 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.
32
• 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.
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 any tenants who own vehicles kept in Ithaca 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.
33
• 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.
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 to the public, 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 buses at 307 College
Avenue. Design of the bus stop will be reviewed and approved by the Board during site plan review.
34
• 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.
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 of 307 College
Avenue. These include:
(1) the approximately 103 new residents 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 sign poles set in from 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 (completely free of obstructions to the
greatest extent practicable) 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 and near the
project, and/or
35
(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.
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 ground
level 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
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.
36
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
• 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.
37
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.
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: Marcham
Absent: Rudan
Appeal #2892 — 120 S. Aurora St. (Ithaca Marriott): Area Variance
Appeal of Jeffrey Rimland for Ithaca Properties, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-
8, Column 5, off-street loading, Column 9, building height in feet, and Column 14/15, rear-
yard setback requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant proposes to construct a 10-story hotel in the northeast section of the Ithaca
Commons on a parcel of land designated as 120 South Aurora Street. In order to achieve
sufficient land for the proposed hotel, several land acquisitions and agreements between
Ithaca Properties, LLC and other property owners will have to be achieved. The majority of
land will be created by the combination of two contiguous parcels: one owned by Ithaca
Properties, LLC and the other by Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). The IURA will
sell their parcel to Ithaca Properties, LLC and the two parcels will be consolidated into one,
in order to create a feasible site for the creation of a 10-story hotel. 120 S. Aurora Street is a
polygon-shaped parcel that is bordered on the north by the Commons, on the east by South
Aurora Street, and on the West by the Rothschild’s building and the City parking garage.
Despite great efforts to create a parcel of property sufficiently large enough for a hotel, the
actual site will mean that construction will be a difficult feat. Furthermore, to accommodate
the hotel’s size, encroachments of the hotel onto other adjacent parcels owned by 4250 Vets
Highway, LLC, and the City of Ithaca, will be necessary.
The new parcel of land to be developed is in two zoning districts. The majority of the parcel
lies in the CBD-85 Zone, while the northern 30 feet is in the CBD-60 Zone. The zoning
ordinance, Section 325-19A, allows the requirements of the less restrictive zone to extend 30
feet into the more restrictive zone. In the hotel’s case, this means that the 85-foot height
restriction can extend 30 feet into the CBD-60 Zone, where a building height is limited to 60
feet. However, beyond the 30-foot transition line and at the north face of the proposed hotel,
a roof line canopy encroaches into the public way past the limit of the transition zone by
2’6”. This roof line canopy is at the height of 98 feet, which exceeds the CBD-60 height
restriction by 38 feet.
38
The applicant proposes to construct the 10-story hotel to a maximum height of 106 feet
above average grade. Therefore, the height of the building, excluding the roof-line canopy,
will exceed the CBD-85 height limit by 21 feet. The maximum lot coverage in the CBD-85
Zone is 100% and there are no setback requirements for front and side yards. The footprint
of the hotel covers 100% of the parcel and its canopies, vestibules, overhangs, and planters
encroach into other properties on all 4 sides of the hotel. The 100% lot coverage, however,
means there will be a rear-yard deficiency. The CBD-85 Zone requires a rear-yard setback
of 10 feet, no setback for the rear-yard is proposed. Finally, the zoning ordinance requires
the hotel to provide 4 loading spaces. While there is no room on-site for loading spaces, the
applicant proposes to use an extra space at the south end of the Rothschild’s building. Since
the applicant also owns the Rothschild building, a usage agreement for this loading space can
be established.
The proposed hotel at 120 S. Aurora Street is in a CBD-85 and CBD-60 use district, in which
the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted
before a building permit is issued.
The Board reiterates its previous comments for zoning appeals 2761 and 2787 as follows:
The Board recommends approval of this appeal, because the building arguably has three
façades which conflicts with the logic of having a setback. The Board finds that with the
screening of the rooftop mechanicals, there is a clear public benefit to the height. This is a
tremendous project that will be a great boost to downtown Ithaca.
Appeal #2893 ― 400-406 Spencer Rd. (Stone Quarry Apartments): Use Variance
Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services and PathStone Development Corp. for the
property owners Ithaca Dispatch, Inc. and Brian T. Hunt for a use variance from Section 325-
8, Column 2, permitted uses, and Column 14/15, rear yard setback requirements of the
zoning ordinance. The applicants are proposing to construct a 35 unit affordable rental
housing project at the property located at 400-406 Spencer Road. The 35 unit project will
consist of 16 townhomes and a 19 unit apartment building. The proposed site consists of 3
tax parcels that will be consolidate into a single parcel. Two parcels, known as Ithaca
Dispatch, front on Spencer Road and the third parcel will be subdivided from a larger lot
located at 225 Elmira Road. The Elmira Road parcel is located in a B-5 zone district which
allows multiple dwelling and the two Spencer Road parcels are located in an R-2a zone
district where the proposed use as multiple dwellings is not permitted. Section 325-40C (3),
requires that the applicant demonstrate to the Board that the applicable zoning regulations
and restrictions will cause unnecessary hardship. Therefore the applicant is appealing to the
Board for a use variance to move forward with their project. The proposed project will be
deficient in rear yard setback due to the irregular shape of the combined lots. The row of
townhouses located on the Northwest side of the Spencer Street lots will have rear yard of
13.63’ of the overall averaged rear yard of 50’ required by the ordinance.
39
The proposed portion of the project at 400-406 Spencer Road is located in an R-2a use
district in which the proposed use is not permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a
use variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Members of the Planning Board support granting this variance. Changing this site back to
residential land use will help to strengthen the residential character of this fragile
neighborhood. The applicant has the option to locate the 3 story building in the rear of the
project site, in the B-5 zoning district and locate the parking and play areas in the front of
the site along Spencer Road in the R-2a zoning district, which would not require a variance.
The Board strongly prefers the proposed design, however, because it restores residential use
to Spencer Road and creates a more welcoming streetscape that is in keeping with more
traditional neighborhood character.
Additionally, the Board notes the large number of commercial uses in the residential zone
along the north side Spencer Road abutting the B-5 zoning district. The Board, the BZA, and
other interested parties have expressed concern that this situation, in conjunction with any
potential new use variances for this purpose, could erode the viability of residential use in
this area. Given this proposal for new residential development, the Board finds no negative
impact in granting a use variance to allow higher density residential use.
The applicant has proposed several design features that enhance the residential character of
the street, such as a sidewalk and treelawn, and a low fence with separate entrances for each
townhouse as well as the massing of the three story building that makes it appear to be two
stories from the street level. The Lead Agency will work with the applicant during site plan
review to refine building materials and architectural features of the final design of the
building along Spencer Road.
5. New Business
A. December Planning Board Schedule (12/18/12)
Nicholas noted the December Planning Board meeting would need to be moved earlier in the
month to December 18, due to the holidays, as has been customary in the past. There were
no objections.
B. November 7, 2012 Special Meeting*
Nicholas noted a special meeting is suggested to consider the Ithaca Marriott project for final
approval, after the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has had the opportunity to review the
zoning appeal associated with it. Some Board members had conflicts with the proposed date
of November 7, however, and it was suggested that the special meeting occur on November
13 instead. (Subsequent to the meeting, the special meeting date was confirmed for
November 13.)
C. Mayor’s Proposed Planning Department Budget
40
Cornish remarked the proposed 2013 City budget includes a recommendation to merge the
Planning and Development Department with the Building Department. In this scenario,
Cornish would serve as the director of the combined department; and the current Building
Commissioner would move to a Commissioner of Code Enforcement position. This new
arrangement should theoretically be more efficient and include fewer direct reports to the
Mayor.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya noted that over the coming months he would like to begin the process of
addressing some of the Planning and Development Board duties that it does not usually
have the opportunity to address (e.g., “B. Powers and duties,” #7, #8, #10, and #11).
B. Director of Planning & Development
None.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
None.
7. Approval of Minutes: 8/28/12 & 9/25/12
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Demarest, the revised draft of the August 28, 2012
meeting minutes were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft of the September 25,
2012 meeting minutes were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Rudan
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
41