HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-04-28DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.:
Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type;
proposed new language shown in red type.
(Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording
with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.)
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
April 28, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: One.
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Minor Subdivision at 201 Pearl Street
Naama and Gil Menda, Owners
Carey Building Renovations and Addition
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties
Lake Street Park Project (at Fall Creek)
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Engineer
210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
Texas Roadhouse Retail Building/ Restaurant
at 719 S. Meadow Street
Paula Hubert, GreenbergFarrow;
Parker Harrington, Texas Roadhouse
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated
Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Greg Hartz, President & CEO, Tompkins Trust Company
State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site
(Sketch Plan)
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage
Cornell Fine Arts Library Rand Hall Addition
(Sketch Plan)
Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University;
Kent Kleinman, Dean, College of Architecture, Art, &
Planning, Cornell University
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas noted that the Marriott Hotel “Approval of Signage” resolution should be reviewed
under the “Site Plan Review” agenda heading. It was also suggested that a discussion of two
parcels up for auction along Fall Creek below Ithaca Falls be added under the “Old / New
Business” agenda item. There were no objections.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Bob Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street
project, calling it completely out-of-character with the rest of the neighborhood. He remarked
there are very few block-long four-story buildings in Ithaca (and none of the buildings the
applicant cited as design inspirations are in fact four-story buildings). He described it as a
gigantic low-income housing project. Although he appreciates the façade modifications that
were made to create the impression of separate smaller buildings, he said they do not alter the
underlying size of the building. He said the project will also destroy the equity that
surrounding property owners have built up in their homes. Sherman asked if the applicant’s
traffic information has been verified by a third party; he said he cannot imagine that no
impact would be anticipated from a decrease in neighborhood.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the proposed 210
Hancock Street project and urged the Board to move it forward.
Ashley Miller, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) member, spoke regarding the Lake Street
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
Park Project at Ithaca Falls Fall Creek. She noted that directly across the stream from the
park are two parcels, the larger of which is steep and would likely not be developed. She said
the NAC is concerned, however, that the smaller lot (on which sits a dilapidated house) could
be developed under the City’s current plan to auction it to secure back taxes. Miller observed
that the recent sustained surge in development in Ithaca should be more than enough to offset
any possible revenue from this parcel. She declared that this lot’s highest and best use is as
parkland, which she said would itself provide economic benefits to the City.
Joe McMahon, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) Chair, also spoke regarding these two
parcels on the south north side of Fall Creek currently being considered for sale by the City.
He felt there was an incredible opportunity for the City to instead purchase both parcels,
thereby improving the setting of Ithaca Falls. There will likely not be another opportunity for
the City to acquire comparable property at the same cost, he said, and asked for the Planning
Board’s support in communicating to Common Council that the two parcels should be
removed from public auction.
Blalock responded that the Planning Board just received a copy of an e-mail from Cornell
Plantations Director of Natural Areas Todd Bittner regarding these two parcels and will
discuss the subject later in the meeting.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 201 Pearl Street, Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, Gil & Naama Menda.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The
applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 57,
measuring approximately 0.149 0.151 acres (6,500 SF) (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street
frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an
existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring 0.149 0.147 acres (6,500 SF) (6,400
SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned
swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following
minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for
other uses, 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses, 25-foot
front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but
no less than 20 feet. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is
subject to environmental review.
Applicants Naama and Gil Menda presented a brief overview of the proposed
subdivision. Gil Menda noted the site used to be a double lot, when a previous owner
combined it into one large lot to install a swimming pool (which is no longer functional).
Mr. Menda and his wife would now like to build a house on that lot.
Blalock disclosed that he owns a house within a block of the applicants’ property and
also knows the applicants personally.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into
two lots: Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street
frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an
existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring 0.147 acres (6,400 SF) with 50 feet
of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned swimming pool. The
property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following minimum area
requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for other uses; 50 feet
of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 25-foot front yard and 10-
foot side yard setbacks; and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but no less than 20
feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, 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 Subdivision
approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Nicholas remarked that the survey map needs to be updated with revised lot size
information and a revised lot line location, because the first plat did not provide a
sufficient setback to accommodate an existing garage on the southern proposed lot. She
said the applicants submitted a hand-corrected plat earlier today sketching in the revised
lot line.
Jones-Rounds observed that the neighbor’s concerns about ground water run-off would
be addressed if / when any construction actually takes place proposed house on the new
lot is submitted for review.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
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 a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into
two lots: •••:••• Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of
street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an
existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring approximately 0.147 acres (6,400
SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned
swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following
minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for
other uses; 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 25-foot
front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks; and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but
no less than 20 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 28, 2015
declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins
County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April
28, 2015 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat
entitled “Survey Map, Lands of Gil & Naama Menda, City of Ithaca, County of
Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 66.-4-5,” and hand corrected to include a 5’
setback for the existing garage, dated 10/22/14 and prepared by Regan Land Surveying;
and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed Subdivision 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: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
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 a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into
two lots: •••:••• Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of
street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an
existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring approximately 0.147 acres (6,400
SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned
swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following
minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for
other uses; 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 25-foot
front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks; and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but
no less than 20 feet, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 28, 2015
declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca
Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
April 28, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins
County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April
28, 2015 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a
hand-annotated plat entitled “Survey Map, Lands of Gil & Naama Menda, City of Ithaca,
County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 66.-4-5,” and hand corrected to
include a 5’ setback for the existing garage, dated 10/22/14 and submitted on 4/28/15,
and prepared by Regan Land Surveying; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of
environmental Significance for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the R-1b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Minor Subdivision of City
of Ithaca Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners, Gil and Naama Menda, subject to the
submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal
and signature of a registered licensed surveyor.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
4. Site Plan Review
A. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State State / M.L.K., Jr.
Boulevard, Carey Building Associates. Consideration of Project Changes,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
Conditions, and Recommendation to the BZA. Due to unforeseen code compliance
issues, the floor-to-floor height between the third and fourth floors must be increased ―
resulting in building height of 82’ instead of originally approved 77’10”. The applicant
must return to the BZA to request new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning
District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition. Although the
applicant intends the final height not to exceed 82’, he requests an additional 1 foot of
building height (83’) to accommodate any potential unforeseen future adjustments.
Applicant Frost Travis briefly described the status of the proposed project and the recent
changes that were made, as well as the status of the conditions set forth in the Board’s
August 2015 25, 2014 approval of the project. The two issues discussed at the recent
Project Review Committee meeting (i.e., the railing detail for the third floor balcony and
the appearance of the west façade) have also been addressed.
Regarding the west façade, Travis said gray stucco on the back portion of the building
addition there has been replaced with tan stucco, better harmonizing with the color of the
siding on the front portion of the building addition there.
Travis explained that the height variance was requested as the result of an unanticipated
complication in the construction process. Efforts to minimize the building height
compressed the plenum, which would have resulted in not being able to comply with Fire
Code. So the applicants created an interstitial space between the third and fourth floors,
which (along with façade material changes) necessitated the height variance request.
Travis noted the new façade material is superior to the original material ― a 10-inch terra
cotta board that will be more sympathetic with the brick and also create strong horizontal
lines.
Schroeder said that, to prevent it from visually conflicting with the top articulation of the
historic Carey Building, the third floor balcony railing should visually recede by being
painted dark gray or black; he asked if that is labeled somewhere. Travis replied the
rendering probably makes the railing look lighter than it actually would be. Schroeder
responded he would like a dark color for this railing documented somewhere on the
drawings. Travis agreed to do so.
Travis said the applicant is cooperating with NYSEG on a utility easement. The electrical
transformer will be below grade, and the intent is to create a loop around the proposed
Hilton Canopy hotel to provide a redundant path in the event of a power outage (as well
as to serve any future Aurora Street projects).
Travis said the intent is to create a harmonious site plan including the Hilton Canopy
hotel. Although no materials have yet been specified, both project developers would like
to create an appealing entrance along the eastern portion of the site, extending into the
north alley. Travis indicated there is one potential complication associated with that plan:
If the Hilton Canopy hotel project does not move forward, the Carey Building would
need to provide trash handling and storage on its own property.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
Travis said he we will also be cleaning the existing Carey Building’s exterior, and
replastering its west and north façades the same color.
Regarding the sidewalk during construction, a pedestrian walkway will be extended out
into State Street to maintain a safety zone around the safety-netted scaffolds.
Schroeder asked if the grey stucco color — now changed to tan stucco on the west façade
— would be changing elsewhere on the building. Travis replied that all stucco blocks
would be the same color. Schroeder responded that the applicant should submit revised
drawings showing these changes from gray to tan stucco on the elevations (an e-mail to
the Board would suffice). Travis agreed to do so.
Elliott observed that while the east elevation displays a pleasing aesthetic logic, with its
clear delineation between the old and new structures using a c. two-foot band, that clear
delineation is absent on the west elevation, which still essentially looks “naked.” He
suggested it would take little effort to bring the west elevation into concert with the
articulation on the east façade. Travis replied he believes that could probably be done
(through coloration).
Adopted Resolution Approving Project Modifications
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting building height and façade changes for
the project, which was approved by the Planning Board on August 25, 2014, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the
Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the
changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but are not significant
enough to require a new Site Plan Review application, and
WHEREAS: the changes consist of the following: increase in building height from
77’10” to 82’; changes in cladding materials, arrangement, and colors; change in balcony
railing from glass panels to a metal railing system; removal of exterior stairway between
the 6th and 7th floors; removal of small balconies on northern façade; potential removal
of balcony on southern facade at the 7th floor, if needed, and
WHEREAS: the change in height requires an Area Variance. The applicant must return
to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60
Zoning District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition.
Although the applicant intends the final height not to exceed 82’, he is requesting an
additional 1 foot of building height (83’) to accommodate any potential unforeseen future
adjustments, and
WHEREAS: the Board has on April 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate revised
drawings entitled: “Final Building Sections Section,” dated 3/19/15; “Final Building
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
Elevations (showing north and south facades),” “Final Building Elevations (showing east
and west façades),” “Final East Façade Rendering Lit-Up,” “Final East Façade
Rendering,” “Final State St. Façade Rendering,” “Final West Façade Rendering,” all
dated 4/13/15 and prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other application materials,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the
height and other changes subject to granting of an area variance by the BZA, and subject
to the following unsatisfied conditions from the August 25, 2014 Final Site Plan
Approval:
i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevation showing further
refinement of the lower level of the west elevation, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not
limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and
iii. Submission of color copy of the materials board, and submission of building elevations
showing revised tan stucco color, and
iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a final section showing the
relationship between the parapet of the existing building and the proposed railing on the
third floor balcony, and a detail illustrating the materials and construction of the railing,
and
v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing: (1) some
attractive form of separation (e.g., a low wall or low planters) between the east edge of
the proposed east walkway and the adjacent parcel; and (2) some means of enhancing
the appearance of the walkway and residential entrance area proposed on the north edge
of the site (perhaps involving cooperation with adjacent property owner), and
vi. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The following are required mitigations stated in the adopted FEAF, Part 3. (Note: The other
required mitigations therein have already been fulfilled.)
vii. The exterior walls of the original Carey Building are to be cleaned and repaired as
needed, including removal of old electrical conduit on the front facade, and
viii. The sidewalk on the north side of E. State Street (in front of the project site) shall
remain open to pedestrians during construction, except for any brief periods when
closure is temporarily essential; protective scaffolding with overhead protection over
this sidewalk is acceptable, provided that pedestrians continue to have free passage
under any such protective scaffolding, and
ix. The applicant shall work with the City to secure the provision of bicycle parking on the
north side of this block of E. State Street; said bicycle parking to be located in such a
manner that it serves the entire block and does not constrict existing pedestrian
movements.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
B. Lake Street Park Enhancements, Lake Street at Fall Creek, City of Ithaca.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The
applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the accessibility and
functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete walkway and falls
overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone retaining wall, installing a
movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, replacing the existing
bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the landscaping, and other site
improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and requires approvals from the
Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council. This is a Type I Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2]
and [3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (11), and is
subject to environmental review.
Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and Addisu Gebre, City Bridge
Systems Engineer described the current status of the proposed project. Trowbridge noted
the applicants have been coordinating their efforts with Cornell Plantations Director of
Natural Areas Todd Bittner, who does not foresee the project conflicting with Cornell
Plantations.
Trowbridge noted the applicants have now chosen bluestone where granite columns were
originally proposed; these columns stand where the stainless steel fence changes
directions.
Trowbridge explained that the Lake Street Bridge project approved last month by the
Planning Board had an approach railing at the northwest bridge corner separated from the
bridge itself, to improve the design coherence of the bridge as architecture. This
provision was subject to State Department of Transportation (DOT) approval of this
separation. However, the DOT has now indicated it will not approve this separation, and
furthermore will require an approach railing at the southeast bridge corner, as well. After
much discussion with the DOT, it was agreed to move this new southeast approach
railing further back and parallel to the existing stone retaining wall along the creek, with
first a hedge and then this park project’s decorative railing in front of it. The guardrail
design would remain the same.
Trowbridge reported that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also had
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
concerns of its own. As a result, no excavated materials will be removed off-site in case
anything of archeological value is discovered.
Schroeder remarked he believes the altered bridge design — which now includes
continuous interstate-style box beams extending continuously from the bridge itself into
two approach areas, including at least one box beam bent diagonally into the ground —
should be re-submitted to the Project Review Committee. He added that the park’s
approval resolution should make it clear the Board is not approving the modified bridge
design.
Blalock observed the project is a great opportunity for approaching the Tompkins County
Tourism Program to emphasize the iconic nature of the new park as a tourist destination,
and request funding for on-site signage.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Darling, 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 a Lead Agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the
accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete
walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone
retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural
Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the
landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and
requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the
City of Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW), and Common Council, all potentially
involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being
Lead Agency for this project, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
WHEREAS: the IURA and Common Council both concured concurred by resolution to
the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project,
and the BPW did not respond within 30 days to the Planning Board’s request for
concurrence, 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 Lake Street Park
Enhancement project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Public Hearing
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
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 enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the
accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete
walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone
retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural
Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the
landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and
requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 28, 2015
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
April 28, 2015 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 the following drawings: “Layout Plan (L201)” and “Guardrail and Planning
Buffer Section (A4),” both on the same sheet, and dated 4/21/15; “Demo Plan (L101),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 12/13/14; and “Site Details
(L501),” dated 4/1/15; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and other
application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the
accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete
walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone
retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural
Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the
landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and
requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA•••”•••), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 28, 2015
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
April 28, 2015 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 the following drawings: “Layout Plan (L201)” and “Guardrail and Planning
Buffer Section (A4),” both on the same sheet, and dated 4/21/15; “Demo Plan (L101),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 12/13/14; and “Site Details
(L501),” dated 4/1/15; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on April 28, 2015
determine the proposed project would result in no significant impact on the environment
and issued 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. This approval does not apply to
proposed changes, subsequent to Site Plan Approval, pertaining to the Lake Street Bridge
project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
C. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Declaration of Lead Agency and Review of
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes to
redevelop the entire 2.01-acre parcel currently containing the vacant former grocery
store, a smaller commercial building, and a 110-space parking lot. The applicant proposes
to construct thirteen 2-story townhomes and a 4-story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-
use building with approximately 50 apartments and three ground-floor commercial
spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. 70 63 parking spaces will be provided ―
approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building.
The applicant also proposes to convert portions of Adams Street and Lake Avenue (both
of which are public streets); the former would become a playground area with associated
walks, and the latter would become green space with a central non-vehicular bike and
pedestrian path into “living streets”, by making them narrower, providing green areas,
and installing bike and pedestrian amenities. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District
and will likely require Subdivision in the future. The project will require the following
approvals: a Parking Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); approval from
the Board of Public Works (BPW) for improvements to property in the public way;
approval for funding from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); and approval from
Common Council. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2),(k), and (n), and the State Environmental
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
Quality Review Act, §617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review.
Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Steve Hugo of HOLT
Architects, and Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, described the
current status of the proposed project.
Bowes announced the applicants have made virtually all the changes the Board
recommended (e.g., reducing the size of transforming Lake Avenue into a non-vehicular
bicycle and pedestrian path with expanded green space, eliminating a portion of Adams
Street to accommodate the playground area, and narrowing the center drive aisle while
adding treelawn there).
Trowbridge said the applicants carefully examined the neighborhood context to the north
of the project, which contains a number of eclectic buildings (e.g., daycare center, City
water facility, Sciencenter). The applicants are also trying to be as contextually sensitive
as possible with the existing residential neighborhood along Willow and Hancock streets.
Hugo remarked that the townhomes will feature a variety of colors and materials,
reflecting the architectural vernacular of the surrounding residential homes (e.g., porches,
pitched roofs). Schroeder stressed there needs to be as much variety and individuality as
possible in the design of the townhomes. Hugo replied that is definitely the intent.
Hugo mentioned that the large multi-family building will be broken up into four different
masses; therefore, the impression for passers-by should be of four separate buildings.
These buildings would be clad in different brick colors, he said, adding that the applicants
are exploring installing an inset panelized system around the windows to create a sense of
verticality. Metal panels would also be used for the entrance areas. He said materials
colors have not yet been finalized.
Hugo noted the commercial level and storefront portions of the project would incorporate
more window space than the rest of the building, and added that there would also be as
much screening as possible for the parking area. He pointed out that pedestrians will be
able to walk through the large multi-family building and penetrate the entire project all
the way to Lake Avenue.
Schroeder observed that the internal parking area depicted in one rendering is more
visible from the street than it need be. He suggested constructing a low garden wall
adorned with a rich assortment of plantings to better screen it. He also suggested that the
large building feature more fanciful and expressive elements along its top.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants would consider pitched roofs for some portions of
the large building, or perhaps a green roof. Bowes responded the applicants are
considering installing solar panels on the roof, which is one reason it has remained flat;
however, they would certainly be happy to explore the green roof suggestion.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Elliott asked if any mechanicals would be on the roof. Bowes replied there would be
small residential-sized air conditioning units, but the parapet wall would conceal them
from the street.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review
the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a mixed-use housing development to be
located at 210 Hancock Street, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to redevelop the entire 2.01-acre parcel currently
containing the vacant former grocery store, a smaller commercial building, and a 110-
space parking lot. The applicant proposes to construct twelve 2-story townhomes and a 4-
story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-use building with approximately 50 apartments
and three ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. 63 parking
spaces will be provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor
of the apartment building. The applicant also proposes to convert portions of Adams St.
and Lake Ave. (both of which are public streets) into a non-vehicular shared use path, by
making them narrower, providing green areas, and installing bike and pedestrian
amenities. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District and will likely require subdivision in
the future. The project will require the following approvals: a Parking Variance from the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW) for
improvements to property in the public way, approval for funding from the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA), and approval from Common Council, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2), (k), and (n) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, §617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the
City of Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW), and Common Council, all potentially
involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being
Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the IURA and Common Council, both concur by resolution to the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and the
BPW did not respond within 30 days to the Planning Board’s request for concurrence,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
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 mixed-use housing
project at 210 Hancock Street.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
Schroeder said the issue of the large surface-level parking lot being visible from the
sidewalk should be listed as a visual impact. Also, he said, under “Impact on Growth and
Character of Community or Neighborhood,” the fact that the project will be providing a
playground next to Conley Park should be listed as a major community benefit.
Jones-Rounds suggested that mention should also be made that the applicant hosted four
public meetings.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
Elliott suggested the applicant consider on-site water harvesting (e.g., water collected on
flat roof for various uses). Bowes replied they would explore that. Jones-Rounds
suggested the applicant consider a bioswale along Lake Avenue for drainage and water
filtration. Trowbridge replied the applicants will be submitting a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), so those kinds of issues could be discussed at that time.
Elliott noted the applicants have already designed for the LEED for Homes standard, but
he urged them to consider the LEED for Neighborhood Development standard. Bowes
replied that is something they are already considering.
Blalock observed the applicants submitted a traffic study, which was the subject of one or
two earlier public comments. Pyott explained to the members of the public that the traffic
study (along with all other Site Plan Review application documents) is electronically
accessible via the “Document Center” on the City website, under “Planning &
Development,” “Site Plan Review Project Applications,” and in the relevant year / month
folder.
Schroeder suggested adding language to the Part 3 reflecting the Board’s desire to see a
more lively and expressive main building design.
Nicholas indicated she needs technical information from the applicant about details like
the foundation type, pile-driving, etc. Bowes agreed to provide this.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
Elliott remarked that parking lots are considered brownfield sites, so the applicant will
need to address those kinds of mitigations. Trowbridge agreed to do so, noting that most
of the mitigation process simply involves the appropriate disposal of asphalt. There is a
protocol for that process, he said, which the applicants will document.
D. Texas Roadhouse Retail Building / Restaurant, 719-25 S. Meadow Street, Douglas
Druen for Texas Roadhouse. Declaration of Lead Agency and Public Hearing, and
Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to construct a
7,163-SF retail building / restaurant on portion of the 3-acre site, which contains three
two existing retail buildings (one of which will be removed). Site development includes a
concrete ramp to the main entrance, an outdoor waiting area, a rear loading and trash
area, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The applicant is proposing to build a 43’-long,
3’-high architectural wall as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area
Design Guidelines that a minimum of 60% of a lot’s street frontage should be occupied
by
building mass. In accordance with the guidelines, the Planning Board may allow a
portion, not to exceed a third of the required 60% building frontage, to be occupied by an
integrated architectural wall. 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.
Paula Hubert of GreenbergFarrow and Parker Harrington of Texas Roadhouse
recapitulated the salient details of the introduced the Board to the proposed project.
Hubert walked through an overhead presentation.
Elliott observed the four spotlights projecting onto the flags on the roof will generate too
much light pollution. Randall agreed, noting the applicants should ensure all lighting is
“dark sky” compliant.
Jones-Rounds asked the applicants to explain the rationale for the absence of a public
entryway (as opposed to the proposed emergency exit) on Meadow Street. Hubert replied
that the building is constrained by a tight footprint, setback requirements, and the need to
use the existing parking. Jones-Rounds said she thought the current main entry
unnecessarily prioritizes people traveling by car ― whereas Ithaca’s urban planning
goals prioritize pedestrian access in that part of the city. She would definitely prefer to
see a pedestrian-friendly public entry on Meadow Street.
Hubert replied that the applicants could not operationally place the entry in the middle of
the dining room. Elliott suggested installing it on the corner. Jones-Rounds suggested the
applicants create a larger vestibule that extends further out onto the corner towards
Meadow Street.
Schroeder noted the ramp could be made to lead directly from the door to the street.
Hubert replied that would eliminate the perimeter landscaping. Schroeder noted the
landscaping could be situated on the other side of the ramp: the ramp would function the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
same, but it would go right to the door and not be separated from the street sidewalk by
the bushes. The bushes would simply be planted a little further from the building.
Jones-Rounds observed that if the building had a longer vestibule, it would be more
welcoming ― and the ramp could be made interior to the building.
Schroeder stated another issue discussed by the Project Review Committee was that
portions of the building’s east and south façades lack articulation (e.g., piers, arched
windows) required by the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. Also, the ramp that
currently extends all the way along the Meadow Street façade could be shortened, thereby
allowing more room for plantings. Hubert replied the applicants are examining some of
these options.
Elliott asked if the applicants could install the emergency exit door at the bump-out on
the west side of the building, so it would not be visible from street. Hubert replied she
does not believe that would be operationally feasible. Schroeder countered that the
restaurant would lose one dining table in one place, but then also gain a dining table
elsewhere.
Jones-Rounds suggested the applicants add an exterior bench, perhaps as part of an
elaboration of the architectural wall.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a 7,163-SF retail / restaurant building to be located
at 719-25 S. Meadow St., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 7,163-SF retail building/restaurant on
the 3-acre site, which contains two existing retail buildings. Site development includes a
concrete ramp to the main entrance, an outdoor waiting area, a rear loading and trash
area, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project is on the SW-2 Zoning District. The
applicant is proposing to build a 43’-long, 3’-high architectural wall as an alternative to
the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 60% of a
lot’s street frontage should be occupied by building mass. In accordance with the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
guidelines, the Planning Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the required
60% building frontage, to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall, 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, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, to be
located at 719-25 S. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the proposed project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Schroeder observed that the City Transportation Engineer had asked for traffic counts,
and entrance location and design is also potentially an environmental issue, so it may
make sense to defer consideration of the CEQR resolution until the next meeting. Jones-
Rounds agreed.
No objections were made to deferring the CEQR resolution until the next meeting.
E. Tompkins Financial Downtown Headquarters, 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street,
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Declaration of
Lead Agency and CEQR Discussion. The applicant proposes to construct a seven (7)
story, 110,000-SF office building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St.,
and to relocate the existing drive-through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E.
Seneca Street. The new building will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately
6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will include retail services, building core, and other amenities
related to the building. There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on site to the
north of the ground-floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate
above the ground floor will be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back
several feet from the street line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E.
Seneca Street will include a new 985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
and drive aisles will be modified to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-
actuated drive-up teller station, and a through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane
associated with the teller stations, a new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in
the CBD-100 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n), and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and is subject
to environmental review. The project requires Design Review.
Applicants Kim Michaels of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, Steve Hugo of HOLT
Architects, and Greg Schwartz of Tompkins Financial Corporation recapitulated the
salient details updated the Board on the proposed project.
Hugo noted the Project Review Committee asked for the building to be set back further
from the front property line (to provide the minimum urban-area sidewalk width
recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers), which the applicants believe
they should probably be able to do. The overall design, he said, is of a street-friendly
urban building, with a large public lobby that would serve as the thoroughfare through
the building and provide a high degree of transparency from the street.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review
the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a seven-story office building and drive-
through teller building, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) story, 110,000-SF office
building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing
drive-through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new
building will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and
will include retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building.
There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on-site to the north of the ground-
floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor
will be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street
line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new
985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified
to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a
new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District. The
seven-story building requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the NYS DOT and the Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency (IDA), both potentially involved agencies, consent to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: both agencies have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the seven-story office
building and drive-through teller building to be located at 118 and 119 East Seneca St.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Discussion
Blalock recommended that the Board defer the discussion until next month, due to time
constraints. No objections were raised.
F. State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site – Sketch Plan
Applicants Scott Whitham and Cathy deAlmeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
and Ronnie L. Macejewski of Campus Advantage presented a preliminary overview of
the proposed project, making the following points:
• Project site is on what has historically been the primary downtown gateway and
intersection.
• Building would occupy most of site.
• Vehicles would enter from Aurora Street, with the possibility of having
subterranean parking from the Green Street side.
• Commercial spaces would be situated at the corner and along the State Street side.
• Building would be 10 stories of primarily residential space.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24
[J.G.S. Note: Building rendering has been deleted here.]
Darling strongly urged the applicants to ensure the building appears as iconic as possible,
given its strategic location.
Schroeder agreed, noting that every façade of the building will function as a front façade.
While he likes much of the design, including the articulation on the sides, he feels the
curving front of the building looks too massive and underdeveloped. He said this feature
is an opportunity for designing something genuinely fantastic, but currently looks too
monolithic. He suggested more delicate detailing, with additional colors, etc.
Jones-Rounds suggested having the building mimic the other buildings in the CBD Zone
(i.e., a mixture of taller and shorter buildings). Blalock recommended adding some
decorative crowning at the building’s top.
Schroeder suggested that Louis Sullivan’s Carson Pirie Scott Building in Chicago would
be a good source of inspiration, with its prominent curving entryway.
Elliott observed the building presents a stark contrast to the north side of the street: it is
essentially double the height. He is not sure this is the most architecturally sensitive
approach. Once the building design is viewed within the context of the neighboring
buildings, it becomes clear it will be a massive wall that will cast a huge shadow over the
street.
Schroeder said stepping back one or more of the top floors along State Street would be a
big improvement, because it would allow substantially more southern sunlight to
penetrate into that corridor.
Elliott observed that the large pillars at the front of the building imply a single grand
entry space, which is not actually proposed. He would love to see a major entry place
there.
Blalock suggested the applicants preserve some flexibility for the project to serve more
than just a student demographic (e.g., senior housing).
G. Cornell Fine Arts Library Rand Hall Addition – Sketch Plan
Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University and Kent Kleinman, Dean,
College of Architecture, Art, & Planning, Cornell University presented a preliminary
overview of the proposed project, as follows:
• Project would improve circulation through and around the buildings.
• Rand Hall currently requires significant maintenance work, so the building would
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25
be entirely renovated.
• Design inspiration came from classic vertical reading rooms.
• 1960s-era external stair tower (at east end) would be removed.
• First floor would remain as it is, with the second floor serving as the main library
reading room.
• Elevations illustrate the interplay between the new addition and the original
building.
• Although the building does not lie in an historic district, it does have significant
standing as a gateway into the central campus.
[J.G.S. Note: Building rendering has been deleted here.]
Schroeder noted he is concerned with the addition’s cladding material. Delgado replied it
would be a Kynar-finished composite metal panel. Schroeder stressed that it should look
virtually like precious metal; it needs to look pristine for the project to work, so the
choice of materials will crucial.
Jones-Rounds observed that the lantern addition looks almost pixellated in the rendering.
She would like to see it softened, with no sharp corners.
Schroeder remarked it will be important that the top portion of the new structure not
appear too monolithic and uniform. The metal panels have to appear variegated, he said,
so they reflect light in subtly different ways (as the rendering suggests).
(Elliott departed at 9:59 p.m.)
H. Ithaca Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora Street, Urgo Hotels. Review & Approval of
Signage.
Adopted Resolution Approving Signage
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the Marriott Hotel at 120 S. Aurora Street was approved by the Planning
Board on November 13, 2012, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on June 24, 2014 approve façade and materials
changes for the project, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has submitted a sign package and is now requesting a Sign
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26
Variance for relief from the number and size of allowed wall signs in the CDB-140 Zone,
and
WHEREAS: the signs in question consist of two Marriott wall signs at the top of the
building; one sign facing S. Aurora Street, and the other facing E. Green Street, and
WHEREAS: as originally proposed in January 2015, the signs were to be 208.6 SF and
108.8 SF; however, the applicant reduced the size of the signs to 114.75 SF facing S.
Aurora Street and 74.16 SF facing E. Green Street, due to concerns of •••the••• both the
Planning Board and the BZA that the size of the signs would potentially have a negative
impact on downtown character, and
WHEREAS: the Board has reviewed and accepted drawings entitled: “View 1 ― East
State Street,” “View 2 ― East Green Street,” and “Nighttime Rendering,” dated 2/24/15
and prepared by Cooper Carry, wherein the second drawing in each pair shows the
desired smaller sign, and
WHEREAS: the Board also reviewed architectural finishes for the street-level wall signs
and has approved a silver metallic finish for the letters/signage, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
approve the signs as proposed in the above-referenced drawings, subject to the applicant
receiving the required Sign Variance.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
(Elliott returned at 10:01 p.m.)
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2978 ― 120 S. Aurora Street (Ithaca Marriott): Sign Variance
Appeal of Hotel Ithaca, LLC for Ithaca Properties owners of 120 S. Aurora Street from
Section 272-6 B. (2), of the Sign Ordinance which allows only two walls signs per business
on a building in the commercial zoning district and limits each sign to a maximum of 50 SF
apiece.
In November of 2014, Hotel Ithaca, LLC received four variances from the Board of Zoning
Appeals for business signs, which will be placed on the proposed multi-story Marriott Hotel
at 120 South Aurora Street. The applicant now returns, seeking approval for two additional
“Marriott” wall signs. The first proposed “Marriott“ sign will be located on the exterior of
the 10th floor facing Aurora Street and will be approximately 114.75 SF. The second
“Marriott” sign will be located close to the penthouse level and will face Green Street. This
sign will be approximately 74.16 SF.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27
In the commercial zone, where 120 South Aurora Street is located, Sign Ordinance Section
272-6 B. (2) states a business can have only one pole sign, or two wall signs. Furthermore,
the Sign Ordinance states in this Section that each sign cannot be larger than 50 SF. The
applicant believes that because of the building’s massing, these two additional signs are
appropriately sized for advertising the location of the hotel.
The proposed Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street is in the CBD-140 zone where signs
are a permitted use. However, Section 272-18 requires that the applicant receive variances
from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the non-compliant number and size of signs before a
Sign Permit can be issued.
The Planning Board worked with the applicant over several months to come up with wall
signage that would meet Marriott’s needs, while at the same time maintaining the downtown
character. The applicant agreed to the current proposal in which the both east and west wall
signs are reduced in size and the east sign is positioned toward the upper right corner. The
drawings illustrating this change are the second drawings in each pair titled, “View 1― E.
State Street” and “View 2 ― E. State Green Street,” all dated 2/24/15.
Appeal #2979 ― 314-320 E. State Street (Carey Building): Area Variance
Appeal of Jason Henderson for Frost Travis, owner of the Carey Building, located at 314-320
East State Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, Height in Feet,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
On August 19, 2014, the applicant was granted a height variance under Appeal #2949 for the
property at 314-320 East State Street. In order to construct an additional five stories to the
existing two-story building at 314-320 East State Street, the applicant requested a variance to
exceed the CBD-60 Zoning District’s height limitation of 60 feet, to a height of 77’, 10”. The
proposed addition to this building is designed to include an office use on the third floor and
apartments on floors four through seven.
After the variance was granted in August of 2014, a Building Permit was issued and
construction began several months ago at 314-320 East State Street. However, it was recently
discovered that to install mechanical equipment and to address structural issues, the five-story
addition would end up taller than previously anticipated. As a result, the applicant has
returned to the BZA to request an new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning
District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition and request a
variance for the addition to have a maximum height of 83’.
The property at 314-20 East State Street is in both the CBD-60 and the CBD-100 Zones, but
the existing building footprint is in the more restrictive zone. Though the proposed mixed-use
is permitted in both zones, Section 325-39 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a Zoning
Variance must be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
The Planning Board recognizes that a code issue, outside of the appellant’s control, is
driving the need for more height. Concern about the height of the building ― and its
relationship to the Downtown Ithaca Historic Register District ― has been expressed both by
the Planning Board and Historic Ithaca. The appellant has also stated that although the final
height is not expected to exceed 82’, he is requesting an additional 1 foot (83’) to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28
accommodate any potential unforeseen future adjustments. The Board supports granting this
appea, appeal, provided that the appellant make all efforts not to exceed 82’.
Appeal #2980 ― 406 W. Court Street: Special Permit
Appeal of Tracy L. Martineau for a Temporary Special Permit for a home occupation, as
required by Section 325-9 C. (1)(i) of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to operate a property management office from a room in the first-
floor apartment of the property located at 406 W. Court Street in a two-family home. Due to
modern technology, the applicants states most of her work can be done off-site and there will
be little need for clients to come to her office. She also states her work will be “low-key” and
create little traffic.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it.
Appeal #2981 ― 312 Elmwood Avenue: Area Variance
Appeal of Kate Morris for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column 6, Percentage of Lot
Coverage, Column 10, Lot Area, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
On December 13, 2010, a Building Permit was issued to Don Morris, one of the owners of
312 Elmwood Avenue. The rear exit stair at 312 Elmwood Avenue had to be replaced
because it had become unsafe. The contractor hired to construct the stairs realized the stairs
would need a new supporting structure to level the stairs, due to the sloping terrain in the
back yard. Subsequently, Don Morris was issued a Building Permit to construct a 217-SF
deck/landing for the rear stairs.
The property at 312 Elmwood Avenue is a non-conforming two-family dwelling in an R-1b
zone, which only allows single-family homes. Though the work is not considered an
“extension” as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, the new permanent landing which now
stabilizes the rear stair increased the permissible lot coverage of 25%. With the addition of
the deck, the lot coverage is now 25.9%. The property at 312 Elmwood Avenue also has three
existing deficiencies. The lot size is 6,915 SF of the required 7,500 SF. The front yard is
11.1’ of the required 25’ and the other side yard is 7’ of the 10 feet required by the ordinance.
A variance for these deficiencies should have been obtained in 2010 ― prior to the issuance
of the Building Permit. The applicant has sold the property at 312 Elmwood Avenue and will
close the sale on June 1, 2015. In order to help finalize the sale the house, the applicant needs
a valid Certificate of Compliance stating that the property at 312 Elmwood Avenue is
compliant with City of Ithaca Housing regulations. A Certificate of Compliance cannot be
issued unless the applicant is first granted variances for the above-listed zoning deficiencies.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it.
6. Old / New Business
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
29
A. Review of State SEQR Forms
Postponed, due to the lateness of the hour.
B. Two Fall Creek Parcels Below Ithaca Falls
Blalock remarked that he distributed an e-mail from Cornell Plantations Director of
Natural Areas Todd Bittner about the land on the south north side of Fall Creek currently
being considered for sale by the City. He agreed with the earlier public speakers about
preserving the land and asked if the Board could draft a statement to Common Council in
favor of the City keeping both parcels. Board members expressed their support, and
Nicholas agreed to draft such a memo.
The final memo later sent to Common Council reads as follows:
To:
Common
Council
From:
Planning
and
Development
Board
Date:
May
8,
2015
Subject:
City
Retention
of
Tax
Parcels
#12.-‐1.1
&
#12.-‐1.2
(401
Lake
St.)
The
Planning
Board
understands
Common
Council
is
considering
a
decision
that
would
allow
the
public
auction
of
Tax
Parcel
#12.-‐1.2
(401
Lake
St.).
The
Board
urges
Common
Council
to
retain
both
adjacent
parcels
under
City
ownership
for
the
purpose
of
expanding
and
protecting
the
Fall
Creek
Gorge
and
Natural
Area.
Members
of
the
Board
feel
that
acquiring
both
parcels
is
a
rare
opportunity
that
would
produce
a
lasting
benefit
to
our
community
―
far
outweighing
any
possible
cost
off-‐set
from
selling
401
Lake
Street.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling noted the following brief items:
• A permanent easement was granted to 327 Eddy Street to allow for bay windows
on the upper floors of the new building.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
30
• A new community garden was licensed on Floral Avenue.
• More city sidewalks will be repaired this year under the Sidewalk Improvement
Districts program than ever before.
• Part of the retaining wall near the South Cayuga Street bridge collapsed, so there
has been some discussion of how to replace it. This presents an opportunity for the
Planning Board to communicate to the BPW its preferred appearance for the
repaired wall.
Schroeder pointed out the beautiful stone-faced retaining wall that had been built at the
southwest corner of the Linn Street Bridge.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock, the revised draft February 24, 2015
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.