HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-11-27DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
November 27, 2012
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Noah Demarest;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John
Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning &
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning &
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning &
Development
Applicants Attending: Commons Repair & Upgrade Project
Susannah Ross, Sasaki Associates;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner, Department of Planning &
Development
INHS Housing Project (400 Spencer Rd.)
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS);
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Apartment Complex at 130 Clinton Street ― Sketch Plan
Scott Whitham, Scott Whitham & Associates;
Steven A. VanDeWeert, Jagat P. Sharma Architect
Mixed-Use Project (Purity Site) ― Sketch Plan
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects;
Bruce Lane, Purity Ice Cream
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Chair Acharya indicated that review of the following three projects would need to be
postponed, due to project changes:
• Minor Subdivision, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, 1 Hudson St.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Site Plan Review, Parking Lot & Building Renovations, 308 Elmira Rd. (Maguire Fiat)
• Site Plan Review, Vehicle Storage Lot, 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Margaret Sutherland, 410 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the INHS Housing Project at
400 Spencer Road. She remarked the project is moving too quickly, the neighbors were
informed too late, and the City does not have enough time to satisfactorily address all the
issues associated with the project (e.g., vehicular traffic, sidewalks, safety concerns
associated with bus stops, etc.).
Jeanie M. Dockstader, 341 Spencer Rd., also spoke in opposition to the INHS Housing
Project at 400 Spencer Road.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Commons Repair & Upgrade Project, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner.
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 and the B-5
Zoning Districts. The project will require approval from the Board of Public Works and
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 the changes that were made to the proposed project since the Board last
reviewed it.
Demarest observed there appear to have been some issues involving the spacing between the
trees. Ross responded that the current design calls for 30 feet between trees. Cornish
remarked that the original 60-foot spacing standard was ultimately determined to be too
large. She added that the Fire Chief has indicated that the Fire Department should be able to
work with 30 feet.
Marcham asked if the catenary lighting has been used in other places. Ross responded that
the design team looked at precedents for it (e.g., Kansas City Light and Power) and it has
been used in numerous other countries. Marcham remarked she is concerned the proposed
catenary lighting system is too untested for use on the Commons..
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Rudan remarked that at the last Project Review Committee meeting she suggested
incorporating renewable energy elements into the project, at least in one or more of the
gateway installations. Ross responded she could certainly explore that.
Schroeder remarked that the project narrative refers to an electrical panel to be installed. He
is concerned with how visible such a panel would be. Ross replied it is a large 4’x7’
enclosed stainless steel box that would be tucked in the most discreet place possible. She
stressed that the panel would definitely be needed for performances and other events.
Schroeder remarked he would like to see the drawings for the panel. He added that he would
also like to see a green screen of some kind next to the Pavilion, which had been mentioned
before. Ross replied that that could be done.
Schroeder remarked that the glass on the Pavilion could be patterned in some fashion, as
well. Ross responded that they had not determined what pattern would be employed.
Schroeder remarked that he would like to have a piece of the original Egner Commons
retained (e.g., chess tables). Cornish remarked she and Historic Ithaca would look into that.
Marcham reiterated her concern with the catenary lighting. Cornish, Acharya, and Schroeder
all responded that they believe the proposed lighting should work well. Cornish added that
the catenary lights are not the only source of lighting. Ross noted that the design team’s
lighting consultants spent considerable effort in evaluating and selecting the lighting.
Adopted Final Approval Resolution
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for the Commons Repair and Upgrade project, by the City of
Ithaca, applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the Commons Repair and Upgrade Project was initiated as a Department of Public
Works Capital Project request in 2007, to address concerns regarding aging underground utilities,
the fire prevention and response infrastructure, emergency access issues, deteriorating structures,
and extensive surface decomposition, and
WHEREAS: the initial design phase was approved as part of the 2008 City Capital Budget, and
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: in 2009, the City hired Sasaki Associates and established a client committee made up
of 16 members of the public, and
WHEREAS: from 2009 through 2011, Sasaki worked with City staff and the client committee to
conduct an extensive public outreach effort, including: public meetings and workshops;
information tables; surveys; on-street interviews; and focus group meetings. They then to used that
feedback to develop a schematic design that could address many of the concerns expressed by both
the public and professional City staff, and
WHEREAS: the City authorized the funding for the final design and preparation of construction
drawings as a part of the 2011 Capital Budget, and
WHEREAS: Sasaki presented the final design, developed through 2012 with continuing input
from the client committee, to Common Council in September 2012, and
WHEREAS: the project consists of removal and replacement of all above- and below-ground
utilities, all surfaces, furnishing, lighting, structures, landscaping (except two yellowwood trees),
site features, and signage. The project is in the CBD-60, CBD-85, and CBD-100 Zoning Districts,
and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-5 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, Type II
Actions, it has been determined the Commons Repair and Upgrade Project is a Type II Action
under §176-5 C. (4.), “Street openings and right-of-way openings for the purpose of repair
or replacement or maintenance of existing utilities,” and does not require environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6
(B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on October
23, 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 all comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on November 27, 2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate:
drawings entitled: “Layout Plan (LP101, LP102, & LP103),” “Materials Plan (MP101, MP102, &
MP103),” “Grading Plan (GP101, GP102, & GP103),” “Planting Plan (PP101, PP102, & PP103),”
“Site Details (DT501, DT502, & DT503),” “Bernie Milton Pavilion (A101),” and “West Gateway
(A102),” prepared by Sasaki Associates and dated 8/15/12; a detailed project overview prepared
by Sasaki Associates and presented to the Planning Board on October 23, 2012; and an updated
East State St./Martin Luther King, Jr. St. tree planting plan attached to a November 15, 2012
memo from Sasaki Associates to the Planning Board; and other application materials, now,
therefore, be it
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Commons Repair and Upgrade Project, subject to the
following conditions:
i. Approval by the Planning Board of:
1. Final designs for the play structure and scavenger hunt features, and
2. Final designs for the bump-outs at the Commons entrances, and
3. Final designs for the Trolley Circle, and
4. Final designs for the Bank Alley fountain, and
5. Details of electric distribution panel in Bank Alley, sculptural green screen east of new
Bernie Milton Pavilion, gateway structure lighting, and patterning of glass panels on the
roofs of the Milton Pavilion and the gateway structures, and
6. Final locations and quantity of bike racks, and
ii. Applicant shall explore incorporating wind/water/solar features into the gateway architecture,
and
iii. The appropriate drawing(s) shall indicate that the existing Commons chess tables and stools
are to be salvaged for potential reuse in another city public space, and
iv. The Planning Board recommends to the Board of Public Works that the existing Commons
decorative light poles be salvaged for potential temporary or permanent reuse elsewhere in the
City, and
v. Any change to the number, spacing and/or species of the East State St./Martin Luther King, Jr.
St. trees, as shown in the tree planting plan attached to the aforementioned November 15, 2012
Sasaki memo, shall require Planning Board approval, and
vi. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30
p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless the Superintendent of Public Works deems it
necessary to permit work outside these hours.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
B. 35-Unit Rental Housing Development, Stone Quarry Apts., 400 Spencer Rd.,
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) & PathStone Development, Applicants.
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 37-space parking area, pedestrian walkways throughout, a
recreation area with a playground, basketball court, a lawn, and landscaping. The applicants
are also proposing to install a sidewalk, tree lawn, and street trees along the property on
Spencer Rd.
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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.
Trowbridge walked through the changes made to the project since the last Board meeting (as
documented in the applicant’s 11/13/12 letter to the Board).
Jones-Rounds asked if the connections between the different portions of the property would
be demarcated in some way, as a safety and traffic-calming measure. Trowbridge replied,
yes, they would be striped.
Schroeder asked if the applicant contacted all the surrounding property owners. Mazzarella
replied, yes. He noted that many property owners have opposed the project; however, the
applicant believes the great majority of concerns will ultimately prove negotiable.
Schroeder remarked that at the recent Project Review Committee meeting he suggested
incorporating accent windows on the peripheries of some of the buildings. Hugo confirmed
that this would be done, in the stairwell portions of those buildings.
Hugo noted that the relationship between the external fence and the low walls next to the
buildings had also been modified in response to prior Board comments. Windows have also
been added, where possible. As for the mechanical equipment for the townhouses, vents will
most likely be installed from the kitchen/bathroom areas, but no mechanicals would be
visible on the buildings themselves. The mechanical equipment on the multi-family
buildings would be situated within a pocket on the roof, so it should be minimally visible
from the street.
Blalock asked if a mechanism exists that might help reduce the tax bills of any properties on
which easements should be established. Cornish replied she does not know of any, but the
City would certainly like be interested in identifying that kind of financial incentive.
Rudan asked if the project is intended to be permanently affordable. Mazzarella replied, yes.
Marcham indicated she would vote against the project ― it upsets too many people and
brings too many cars into a small space. In addition, it does not conform to the R-2 zoning
requirements and requires too many use/area variances. It simply seems out of place within
the larger context of the neighborhood.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
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 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
permanently 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 has received the required use and area variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), 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 Planning 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, and revised by the
Planning Board; 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),”and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 10/9/12, and “Concept Plan
(L100),” dated 10/22/12 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT
Architects; and “Typical Townhouse Exterior Elevations (A201)”and “Multifamily Building
Exterior Elevations (A202),” prepared by HOLT Architects and respectively dated 11/16/12 and
10/31/12; and “Grading Plan (L301),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT
Architects, and dated 9/19/12; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: 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
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on 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 all comments received have been considered, 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 grants Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project at 400 Spencer Road,
subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to building
materials samples and colors, windows, tree protection, lighting, signage, pavements, curbs,
fences, patio fences, seats and retaining walls, dumpster enclosure, bike racks, and play
structure, and
ii. Submission of drawing and/or a narrative indicating planned route for construction traffic,
and
iii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
iv. Applicant shall consider adding windows to the 3-story multi-family apartment building at
the upper portion of its Spencer Road façade and at its southwest corner, and
v. Submission of a rooftop plan demonstrating that no substantial rooftop mechanicals are
visible from the public right-of-way, and
vi. Applicant shall paint any exterior vents to match adjacent building materials, and
vii. Applicant shall work with NYSEG to ensure transformers are located for minimal visibility
or in such a way as to allow for screening. Any such screening shall be approved by
Planning Department staff, and
viii. Soil for street trees and trees surrounding parking areas to be remediated, as recommended
by the City Forestry Technician, and
ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30
p.m., Monday through Saturday, and
x. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: Marcham
Absent: None
8
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Adopted Resolution to the Board of Public Works (BPW) Urging BPW to Undertake
Transportation Improvements on Spencer Road
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: on November 27, 2012, the Planning and Development Board granted final site plan
approval to the Stone Quarry Apartments Project, which will create 35 units of permanently
affordable rental housing at 400 Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS: the proposed project is proximate to shopping on Elmira Road and Meadow Street,
both of which have, or will soon have, sidewalks and designated pedestrian crossings, and
WHEREAS: the applicant expects some of the residents will not have cars and is proposing to
install a sidewalk and tree lawn along the project site fronting Spencer Road, which currently has
no sidewalk. The installation of such sidewalk does not address the issue of making a safe
pedestrian connection to Elmira Road and/or Meadow Street, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board is concerned about safety and traffic violations at the intersection
of Spencer and Quarry Roads. The applicant submitted a turning movements diagram at the
request of the City Transportation Engineer. The diagram demonstrated 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 Board understands that the City is interested in redesigning the intersection and
making a pedestrian connection from the new sidewalk to Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS: several neighbors spoke at the public hearing for the project, raising concerns about
traffic congestion and pedestrian safety, particularly the need for sidewalks on Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS: the project received the necessary variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals,
subject to the condition that “the applicant address with the city the problem of foot and vehicular
traffic,” and
WHEREAS: establishing a cost-sharing project for the installation of sidewalks on Spencer Road
is potentially an eligible expense for use of the City’s Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, administered by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the BPW, as expeditiously as possible, 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, and be it
further
9
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board suggests that the BPW, with Common Council consent,
investigate applying to the IURA for CDBG funds to develop a cost-sharing project for the
installation of sidewalks on Spencer Road.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
C. Apartment Complex at 130 Clinton Street ― Sketch Plan
Whitham and VanDeWeert walked through a general overview of the proposed project:
• Three residential structures
• Existing walkway would be converted into a maintained gravel maintenance drive
• Primary issue is the extent of the slope; the applicant is working with T.G. Miller, P.C.
on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• Buildings will have same basic floor plan and will be composed of concrete
foundations, wood construction, and Hardie board siding
• No internal building parking planned
Schroeder asked if it would be possible to reconstruct the pedestrian walkway. Whitham
replied that is not part of the proposal, but it would not be blocked off in any manner.
Cornish remarked it may be helpful to have a conversation with the Police Department about
the project. Cornish also noted she would prefer if the applicant would consider an
alternative to the gravel driveway. Demarest observed that gravel driveways can work out
reasonably well, assuming they have the appropriate edging, aprons, etc.
Schroeder asked if there would be any plantings. Whitham replied there could conceivably
be plantings.
Schroeder suggested creating the impression of stonework (perhaps accompanied by vines),
for the retaining wall.
Cornish asked if the gravel pathway would be ADA-compatible. Whitham replied the
pathway is not being proposed to be ADA-compatible; but it is not required to be, to the best
of his knowledge.
10
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
D. Mixed-Use Project (Purity Ice Cream Site) ― Sketch Plan
Snyder and Lane walked through a general overview of the proposed project:
• Proposal is to redevelop the central Purity Ice Cream site, while retaining much of the
existing building, and adding parking to peripheries
• No parking requirements in zone, but parking would be needed for retail and residents
• Central lobby would be accessed via Cascadilla Street
• Discussions have taken place with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue regarding
the curbcut
• Building extremity would be cantilevered
• First floor would be 16’ high
• Walk-up apartment units and outdoor garden spaces (13-26 units on the third through
fifth floors), with offices on first and second floors
• Brick, glass, and steel-frame construction
Demarest remarked that the building proposed to be constructed on top of the original building
does not appear to be in harmony with the original building. He added he is not sure if the upper
floors of the proposed new building genuinely need to be stepped back from the street, either.
Jones-Rounds asked if any existing parking would be eliminated. Lane replied there would 1-2
fewer spaces.
5. Zoning Appeals
#2882, Special Permit & Area Variance, 308 N. Cayuga St.
Appeal of Nancy Medsker and Tom Seaney for a Special Permit for a Bed and Breakfast Inn as
required under Section 325-9 C (1) (q.) of the Zoning Ordinance. Aside from this proposed Bed and
Breakfast Inn needing a special permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the proposed Bed
and Breakfast Inn at 308 North Cayuga Street also needs an area variance because of a deficient side
yard. Therefore, the applicants are also seeking an area variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Section
325-8, Column 12, required side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to operate a 5-bedroom, Bed
and Breakfast Inn at 308 North Cayuga Street. A Bed and Breakfast Inn must be owner-managed and
-operated and each manager must own at least ½ of the building where the inn is located and own half
of the business. The inn will be managed by both Nancy Medsker and her son Tom Seaney, but Mr.
Seaney will also be living in the one-bedroom owners’ apartment located at 308 North Cayuga Street.
Special permits for Bed and Breakfast Inns also require that the manager be physically present at the
inn 80% of the days that the inn is being operated. By providing living accommodations for one of
the managers in an apartment at 308 North Cayuga Street, the owners will be able to meet the
requirements for managers to be on the premise 80% of the time the inn is open. The property at 308
North Cayuga Street also has a side yard deficiency.
11
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
308 North Cayuga Street is located in a B-1a Zoning District. Side yards must be 10 feet on one side
and 5 feet on the other side. The yard that must be 5 feet deep is only 1.8 feet deep. The property has
8 parking spaces. There is a space available for each room to be rented, a space for the apartment,
plus two additional spaces. The property is in a B-1a commercial use district where Bed and
Breakfast Inns are allowed; however, Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-38, requires that variances be
granted before a building permit can be issued.
Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal.
#2895, Area Variance, 101-107 E. State St. / 101-109 S. Cayuga St.
Appeal of Jagat Sharma, Architect for Jason Fane, owner of 101-107 East State Street and 101-109
South Cayuga Street also known as “Commons West” from the City of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance
Section 325-8, Column 5, Required Number of Off-Street Loading Spaces, and Section 325-8,
Column 14/15, Depth of Rear Yard. The owner of Commons West wants to divide the back space of
5 existing stores that face 101-109 South Cayuga Street to provide sufficient area for the construction
of 4 new apartments. In order to change the current uses of Commons West by adding new
apartments on the first floor, the owner must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance's district
regulations or be granted variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. District regulations for
Commons West include that the building be in compliance with the required number of off-street
loading spaces and be in compliance with rear yard setback requirements. The Zoning Ordinance
requires Commons West to provide 4 loading spaces because of the large size of the building. Section
325-21 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any business or multiple dwelling having more than 25
units must have 1 loading space for buildings between 3,000 SF and 10,000 SF, plus one additional
loading space for each additional 15,000 SF, up to a maximum of 4 off street loading spaces.
Commons West is 59,064 SF. It was constructed between 1921 and 1940 when the Zoning
Ordinance did not require any off-street loading spaces. However, the 1925 Zoning Ordinance, in
effect at the time the building was constructed, required a 10 foot deep rear yard setback for retail
buildings. Though this setback obviously was not maintained, it is the depth currently required by the
Zoning Ordinance for the Commons West building. Commons West is located in the CBD-60 use
district. Though this zoning district requires that the owner provide 4 loading spaces for the
Commons West building, there is one loading space available that is shared by Commons West
building and the Colonial Building at 109-113 East State Street, a building also owned by Mr. Fane.
An open paved area which encompasses a loading area is located between the north face of City Hall
at 108 East Green Street and the south face of the Colonial Building. This entire open space is
approximately 2,428 SF. There is no other space near the Commons West building where additional
loading spaces can be created. The CBD-60 zone also requires buildings to have a minimum rear
yard of 10 feet deep. The length of the Commons West property is approximately 169 feet long. Of
this 169 feet, approximately 53 feet of the Common West rear yard is 8.33 feet deep; however, about
60 feet of Commons West abuts the Colonial Building at 109-113 East State Street. The remaining
56 feet of the Common West rear yard ranges from 4 to 5 feet deep. The Commons West property is
in a CBD-60 zone where the proposed 4 apartments are a permitted use. However, Section 325-38
requires that variances for the loading spaces and rear yard setback be granted before a building
permit is issued.
12
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Members of the Planning Board are concerned about the conversion of ground-floor space to
residential use. All agree that retail is the most appropriate use of ground-floor space in the
downtown area.
#2896, Area Variance, 205 Wood St.
Appeal of Mathew Happen for Anne Stuart owner of 205 Wood Street for area variances from City
Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15, Area in Square Feet,
Width at Street, Maximum Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard,
respectively. The owner’s proposal to add a front porch at her house at 205 Wood Street will create a
front yard deficiency and further increase the lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The
deficiencies for area in square feet, width at street, side and rear yard deficiencies are the existing
conditions of the property at 205 Wood Street. These deficiencies will not be increased by this
zoning variance request. The owner of 205 Wood Street proposes to add a new porch to the front of
her house. Currently, the front door is accessed by a set of stairs. To provide overhead protection
and enhance the building’s appearance, the owner wants to add a 40 SF porch that would be 10 feet
wide and 4 feet deep. Without this porch, the house has a ten foot deep front yard. The required
depth of front yard in the R-2b use district where this property is located is 10 feet. Adding a front
porch will reduce the front yard from 10 feet to 6 feet deep. The 40 SF addition will also increase the
allowed maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage in the R-2b zone is 35%. Without the
porch, the building on the property covers 38.8 %percent of the lot. The addition of the porch will
increase the lot coverage to 40.8%. Existing deficiencies at 205 Wood Street that will not be
increased by the addition of the porch are: 325-8, Column 6, Area in Square Feet. The property is
1,980 SF. A lot in the R-2b zone for a single-family home is required to be 3000 SF. 325-8, Column
7, Width at Street. The width at street of 205 Wood Street is 30 feet wide. The width is required to
be 35 feet wide. 325-8, Columns 12 and 13, Side Yard and Other Side Yard. The side yards of this
property are 3.6 feet wide and 4 feet wide. The R-2b zone requires one side yard to be at least 10 feet
and the other side yard to be at least 5 feet. 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard. The property at 205
Wood Street is 19 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires the rear yard to be a minimum of 20 feet
deep. The property at 205 Wood Street is in an R-2b use district where the proposed use is permitted;
however, Section 325-38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that an area variance be granted before a
building permit can be issued.
Members of the Board recommend approval of this appeal.
6. Old Business
A. Planning & Development Board Resolution of Support for the Change In The
Comprehensive Planning Process
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971 and has
since been amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and
13
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: while some objectives of the 1971 plan are still applicable, many are not, and
both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have
changed dramatically since then, resulting in a need to update the comprehensive plan to
address present-day issues and anticipate future ones, and
WHEREAS: the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive
Plan, where Phase I will entail the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals
and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the
preparation of specific neighborhood plans and other distinct thematically-based plans, and
WHEREAS: in February 2008, the Common Council approved a capital project in the amount
of $200,000 to prepare a comprehensive plan, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and
recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board appointed and charged the City of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan Committee to assist with the preparation of the new Comprehensive Plan,
and
WHEREAS: the City issued a Request for Qualifications for firms interested in assisting with
the preparation of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan and, in early 2011, the Comprehensive
Plan Committee interviewed three consultant teams, and
WHEREAS: based on the unanimous recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Committee,
in May 2011, the Planning and Development Board, Common Council, and the Mayor selected
Clarion Associates as the project consultant for Phase I of the new Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS: Clarion Associates began working on the project in September 2011 and
undertook a review of existing plans and studies and an analysis of existing conditions and
trends, and
WHEREAS: an extensive public input process was kicked off by a Clarion-led community
workshop in November 2011, and that workshop was followed up with over 20 neighborhood
meetings and focus groups, as well as individual surveys, and
WHEREAS: using all of this information, the consultant team has completed two reports and
initiated a third report, and these documents will inform the preparation of the new
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS: while the City appreciates the work completed by Clarion Associates, it has
decided to move forward without the Clarion team, and
14
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WHEREAS: the project funding will now be spent locally, as City staff and the
Comprehensive Plan Committee will prepare the new plan with input from the community and
assistance from local consultants, as needed, for recommendation by the Planning and
Development Board to Common Council and Common Council’s adoption, and
WHEREAS: the City remains committed to incorporating community input into the new
Comprehensive Plan and the planning process will continue to include extensive public
outreach, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board appreciates the work
completed by Clarion Associates and fully supports the new direction for the preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
None.
B. Director of Planning & Development
Cornish announced that the County is planning on issuing an RFP for a 70-unit
residential project on property it owns near the hospital.
Cornish also announced that a County Human Services Annex building is being
planned for the former Carpet Bazaar building, which will house the County’s Office
for the Aging.
Cornish indicated staff is working on finalizing the 2013 Planning Department
workplan, which it will aim to submit to the Planning Board for its December meeting.
C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya remarked the BPW has been in the process of recommending disposal of some
additional surplus City properties, including a property on East Seneca Street (the old
East Hill School property). The BPW will also be holding a Public Hearing regarding a
proposed installation of a sidewalk on Elmira Road. The Board also discussed the State
Street traffic light project, which would provide cyclists a head start to head up the hill,
and include other pedestrian amenities.
15
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
7. Approval of Minutes: 10/23/12
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya, the revised draft 10/23/12 meeting minutes
were approved, with no modifications.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Opposed: None
8. New Business
Jones-Rounds recommended the Board identify a standard protocol for reviewing projects
which include features like solar panel installations and rainwater catching systems.
Schroeder remarked that the Planning Board should be actively involved in the City’s work
on parking and off-street parking regulations. In addition, the Board should take the lead in
harmonizing the existing R-1 and R-2 parking regulation discrepancies which were recently
identified. Cornish indicated the Board should draft a concept memorandum on the subject
for circulation.
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.