HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-08-25DRAFT 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
August 25, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott;
Robert Aaron Lewis; McKenzie Jones-Rounds;
C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Board Vacancies: None
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 106 & 108 Madison Street
Sharon Corbitt, Owner
Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project)
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Jow Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
DiBella’s Restaurant at 222 Elmira Road
David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E
State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage;
Scott Duckett, Campus Advantage
Cornell University Johnson School of Management
Executive Education Program at 209-215 Dryden Road
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 Architects;
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
John Novarr, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC;
Phil Proujansky, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Blalock noted the “F. Old Tompkins Co. Library Site — Development Proposal: Sketch
Plan” item has been removed from the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
John Semmler, 311 E. Green Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed State Street
Triangle project, stating residents will be impacted by noise, dust and overall chaos. An 11-
story building does not belong in Ithaca’s urban center, he said, describing it as too out of
proportion with surrounding properties. This project would also eliminate parking, he said,
without providing any new parking. Semmler also characterized the applicant’s traffic study
as misleading, since it only includes data from a single day when there was little traffic.
Therefore, he stated, it is not credible for the applicants to claim that the proposed project
would have no significant impact on existing traffic.
Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the proposed State Street
Triangle project, saying it would create considerable light-related, visibility and contextual
problems because of its sheer size. She said it would also have significant negative aesthetic
impacts on a highly visible downtown street block that serves as an important gateway for
the city and that sits adjacent to the Ithaca Downtown Historic District. Likewise, serious
traffic-related consequences would be associated with an 11-story building, she maintained,
especially since two new hotels are under construction in very close proximity to this site.
Robin Troepper-Hoebbel, 330 E. State Street, Community School of Music and Arts, spoke
in opposition to the proposed State Street Triangle project, noting she is very concerned with
the overall massing and the canyon-like presence she said the building would impose on the
immediate area. She said other merchants on her block are also concerned the project would
have no on-site parking for residents, based on the applicant’s assumption that City garages
are not currently used to full capacity. She urged the Board to investigate precisely when City
garages would reach their tipping point.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
G.P. Zurenda, 5 Lodge Way, also opposed the same project, calling it inappropriate and
even unethical for a city like Ithaca to give tax abatements to a profitable high-end developer,
like the applicant. Unlike hotels, he said, student apartments would not bring new people into
the city, but would simply take people from one part of the City to another. He said current
property owners would be essentially subsidizing the project.
David Kossack, 140 E. Spencer Street, added his voice against the same project. He said it
would have a huge negative impact on downtown life.
Barbara Smith, 821 N. Aurora Street, spoke regarding large development projects in
general, including State Street Triangle. She said the City should consistently ask itself who
the “client” is for the projects it reviews.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of State Street
Triangle.
Blalock emphasized that the Transportation Demand Management Plan for the State Street
Triangle project has not been finalized and the Planning Board has not formally reviewed it.
4. 3. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 106 & 108 Madison Street, Tax Parcel 34.-1-10, Sharon Corbitt.
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide the 7,991-SF lot into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 4,944 SF with 54 feet of
frontage on Madison St., and containing an existing duplex; and Parcel B, measuring
3,047 SF with 38 feet of frontage on Madison St. The project is in the R-2b Zoning
District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000-SF lot size for single-
family homes, and 4,000 SF for other uses; 35 feet of street width for single-of single- or
two-family homes and 40 feet of street width for other uses; 10-foot front yard, 10/5-foot
side yards, and a rear yard of 25% or 50 feet, but no less than 20 feet. The project
requires has received required Area Variances. 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.
Owner Sharon Corbitt updated the Board on the proposed Subdivision.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder:
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 #34.-1-10, by owner, Sharon Corbitt, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,991-SF lot into two lots: Parcel
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
A, measuring 4,944 SF with 54 feet of frontage on Madison St., and containing an
existing duplex; and Parcel B, measuring 3,047 SF with 38 feet of frontage on Madison
St. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District which has the following minimum
requirements: 3,000-SF lot size for single-family homes, and 4,000 SF for other uses; 35
feet of street width for single- or two-family homes and 40 feet of street width for other
uses; 10-foot front yard, 10/5-foot side yards, and a rear yard of 25% or 50 feet, but no
less than 20 feet. The project has received the required Area Variances, 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 City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself 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
July 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 July 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, No. 106-108 Madison Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York,” dated 6/2/15 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on July 28, 2015 make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed Subdivision, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the applicant received the required Area
Variance Variances for relief from the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties
located in the R-2b 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
of Ithaca Tax Parcel #34.-1-10, by owner, Sharon Corbitt, 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, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
4. Site Plan Review
A. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Building, 123-129 E. State Street (The Commons), L
Enterprises, LLC. Extension of Site Plan Approval. In accordance with §276-10, Site
Plan Review Ordinance, if the construction of a development has not commenced within
two years of the date of Site Plan Approval, such approval shall expire, unless an
extension has been granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. The
project received Site Plan Approval on August 27, 2013 and the applicant is requesting
an extension of the approval.
Consultant Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, explained that the
applicant is requesting an extension of the original August 27, 2013 Site Plan Approval.
Jones-Rounds asked the applicant to address the status of the project. Whitham replied it
has been a difficult project to finance, and this has delayed its development. He said
financing is now in place, however, and so the project is ready to move forward.
Schroeder asked whether the applicant, at this time, is seeking an extension per the exact
same set of drawings and documents referenced in the 2013 approval. Whitham replied,
yes. But Whitham explained that, in the future, the applicant will be returning to the
Planning Board with some fairly minor revisions (most of which will be internal to the
building).
Adopted Resolution for Extension of Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: on August 27, 2013, the Planning Board granted final Site Plan Approval to
the proposed Harold’s Square Project to be located at 123-139 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr.
Blvd. (The Commons), and
WHEREAS: the approved project to is a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed-use building of
approximately 151,410 GSF, plus an additional 11,340 GSF in the renovated Sage Block.
The project will include one story (17,835 GSF) of ground-floor retail, three stories
(51,185 GSF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential (up to 46 units). The
residential portion of the project is in a tower, set back 62’ from the building’s four-story
Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
one facing Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is on the
CDB-60 and CDB 140 Zoning Districts and received an area variance for rear yard
setback, as well as Design Review. As proposed, the project may require a State building
Code Variance, and
WHEREAS: §276-10 of the City Code states that if construction of a project has not
commenced within two years of the date of the Site Plan Approval, such approval shall
expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Board following a written request by
the applicant, and
WHEREAS: in a letter dated July 29, 2015 to Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas from Scott
Whitham, the Project Sponsor’s Agent, an extension of the Site Plan Approval was
requested, and
WHEREAS: the project received an Area Variance on August 6, 2013, and
WHEREAS: §325-40 of the City Code states that a variance shall be void if the applicant
has not obtained a Building Permit to construct the building or part thereof for which the
variance has been granted and initiated the construction work within two years from the
date of the granting of the variance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017, subject to all the
conditions stated, and all drawings cited, in the final Site Plan Review Approval
resolution, dated August 27, 2013, and subject to the applicant obtaining all necessary
variances.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
B. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Consideration of Preliminary & Final
Approval.
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 twelve 2-story townhomes
and a 4-story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-use building with approximately 50 53
apartments and three approximately two ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling
approximately 10,000 SF. 70 Approximately 64 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 0.77 acres of contiguous City-owned right-of-way
(ROW) that include portions of Adams St. and Lake Ave. (both of which are public
streets); the former would become a playground area with associated walks, and the latter
would become a 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Subdivision in the future. The project requires the following approvals: Site Plan and
future Subdivision approval from the Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency); 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 (August 24);
funding approval from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); and approval from
Common Council (September 2). The project received the required variances from the
Board of Zoning Appeals on August 11, 2015. 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.
Applicants Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Steve Hugo
and Nathan Brown of HOLT Architects, and Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels, LLP described the current status of the proposed project.
Bowes reported that the project has received all three variances from the Board of Zoning
Appeals for parking, loading and height. The applicants also determined a different pile-
driving method could in fact be used to construct the foundations (using a vibratory
method, as opposed to the more disruptive conventional pile-driving method), in response
to public concerns. Bowes added that the project’s ownership structure will be slightly
different: whereas all 12 townhouses were originally going to be for-sale, only 7
townhouses now will be, with the remaining 5 townhouses leased as rental units (all in
one building). This will allow the applicants to implement the project in a single phase.
As a result of this change, the rental units will be required to be ADA-accessible (with
one fully-adapted / accessible unit in the grouping of five).
Trowbridge said the Subdivision associated with the project is now limited to the seven
for-sale townhouses enclosed within the red dashed line on the revised site plan.
Trowbridge remarked that one recent issue that emerged from the Project Review
Committee meeting involved City Forester Jeanne Grace’s May 14, 2015 memorandum
about the soils and pavements, and her concern that the project should align with the
City’s Forestry Master Plan. Trowbridge assured the Board the proposed planting plan
already complies with the Forestry Master Plan. The memorandum also included a
comment about maximizing species diversity, which the applicants fully appreciate;
however, the intention is to make the street genuinely more ‘street-like,’ with greater
uniformity, which conflicts with the goal of maximizing species diversity.
Hugo described the re-design of the townhouses that will now be rental units. He noted
there was a concern at the Project Review Committee that the redesigned townhouses
now appeared too uniform, rather than reflecting the stylistic diversity of traditional
Northside houses, so that has been changed in the new design.
Schroeder responded that the only detail that does not look right is one upper horizontal
window. He suggested using an eyebrow window (with a curved top) instead, or using a
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
series of smaller vertical windows, to provide an appearance more typical of the rest of
the neighborhood. Hugo replied the applicants would explore that.
Jones-Rounds recalled that someone at the BZA meeting had asked about pile driving
and whether the applicants could conduct an assessment of the foundations in the
neighborhood to identify any damage done to them. Bowes replied that the applicants
will monitor the foundations of the properties surrounding the site, including pre- and
post-pile-driving surveys.
Nicholas disclosed that she serves on the INHS Board of Directors; however, she said she
does not have any financial interest in the organization, or any voting authority.
Nicholas asked the applicants for a construction-staging plan. Bowes agreed to provide
one.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a mixed-use housing project 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 project sponsor proposes to construct twelve 2-story townhomes
and a 4-story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-use building with approximately 53
apartments and approximately two ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling
approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 64 parking spaces will be provided ―
approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building.
The project sponsor also proposes to convert 0.77 acres of contiguous City-owned right-
of-way (ROW) that include portions of Adams St. and Lake Ave. (both of which are
public streets); the former would become a playground area with associated walks, and
the later would become a green space with a central non-vehicular bike and pedestrian
path. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District. The project requires the following
approvals: Site Plan and future Subdivision approval from the Planning and Development
Board (Lead Agency); approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW) for
improvements to property in the public way (August 24); funding approval from the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); and approval from Common Council (September
2). The project received the required variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals on
August 11, 2015, 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
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: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapter 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
May 26, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on
May 26, 2015 review and accept 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; and the following drawings: “Boundary and
Topographic Map,” dated 10/28/14 and “Preliminary Subdivision Map,” dated 3/25/15,
both prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and “Utility Plan (C101),” “ Esc ESC Plan-
Demolition and Construction (C102),” “Esc ESC Plan - Stabilization (C103),” “Details
(C201),” prepared by HOLT Architects and T.G. Miller P.C.; and “Demolition Plan
(L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site
Details (L501 & L502),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects
and all dated 4/1/15; and “Site Plan,” dated 5/19/15; and “Elevations (2 sheets),” dated
5/4/15; and “Aerial View and Precedent,” “Perspective Views (2 sheets),” all dated
4/16/15; and “Site Sections,” “Context Diagram,” “Partial Elevation at Mid Block Walk
Through,” and “Shade Studies,” dated 4/1/15 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects and HOLT Architects; and “Revised Hancock Street
Planting,” “Cornice at Red Brick Building,” “Cornice at Brown Brick Building,”
“Cornice at White Brick Building,” dated 5/18/15 and prepared by HOLT Architects; and
other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on May 26, 2015 determine that the proposed
project would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variances on August 11,
2015, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on August 25•••,••• 2015 reviewed and accepted as
adequate the following new and revised drawings: “Site Plan,” dated August 18, 2015
and having a red dashed line outlining a potential future Subdivision of the parcel based
on the for-sale portion of the project; and “Utility Plan (C101),” “ESC Plan – Demo and
Construction (C102),” “ESC Plan – Stabilization (C103),” “Details (C201),” “Draft
Photometric Plan (10F1),” prepared by HOLT Architects and T.G. Miller, P.C.; and
“Plans,” “Elevations (2 sheets),” “Context,” “Shadow Study,” “Context Diagram,”
“Aerial View and Precedent,” “Perspective Views (three sheets),” “Cornice Details,”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
“Townhouse Elevations (two sheets),” and “Foundation Plan (S100),” prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects and HOLT Architects; and
“Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan
(L401),” “Site Details (L501),” “Site Details (L502),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects and all dated 8/11/15; and other project materials, and
WHEREAS: in response to concerns about noise and vibration from pile driving that will
be required to construct the foundations, the applicant has investigated the use of the
vibratory method of pile driving. As documented in a letter dated July 24, 2015 to Joe
Bowes of INHS from David L. Elwyn, P.E. of Elwyn and Palmer Consulting Engineers,
PLLC, the soils on site are suitable for the vibratory method, which produces less noise
and vibration that than the impact method. The applicant has stated its commitment to
employ the vibratory method, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following
conditions:
i. A fully executed Development Agreement between the City and INHS, as well as Street
Discontinuance by Common Council, for portions of the project on Lake Ave. and
Adams St., and
ii. Any additional work in the City Right of Way, not subject to the previously mentioned
Development Agreement, will require a Street Permit, and
iii. The sidewalks on Hancock and First Streets will remain open during construction,
except for short-term temporary closures necessary for public safety during certain
limited aspects of construction, and
iv. The applicant will prohibit its contractors from parking on Willow Ave., due to its
narrow width and potential conflict with existing Cornell Cooperative Extension
overflow parking and resident parking during construction, and will provide contractor
parking in a nearby surface lot, and
v. Submission of colored elevations of all building façades with keyed building materials,
and
vi. Submission to Planning Board of all project details, including but not limited to
building materials, site furnishings, lighting, signage, paving, fencing, and railings, and
vii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised landscape plan showing a greater variety
of trees in the ‘park-like’ areas (around the playground and in the green space where
Lake Avenue will be discontinued•••)•••, and
viii. Submission to the Planning Board of revised drawings and elevations of the proposed
townhomes that demonstrate the applicant’s stated design approach that the homes will
reference various late 19th / early 20th century residential architectural styles and will
“utilize a mix of materials and colors to provide architectural diversity,” and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
ix. Submission to Planning Board of drawing showing screening of any above-ground
NYSEG transformers, and
x. Submission to Planning Board of a construction Staging Plan, and
xi. All rooftop mechanicals shall either be screened from public view or architecturally
integrated into the building, and
xii. Except for pile installation, noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and
xiii. Vibratory pile installation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and
xiv. In relation to vibratory pile installation, submission to the Planning Board of the bid
specification requirements for building condition surveys prior to construction and
vibration monitoring during construction, as well as documentation that these tasks will
be done by a third-party engineering firm specializing in these services, and following
NYS DOT guidelines, and
xv. Removal of any City trees will require a City Tree Permit, and
xvi. Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by City of
Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer, and
xvii. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
C. Retail / Restaurant Building (Revised), 222 Elmira Road (Ithaca Plaza), Marx
Realty & Improvement Co., Inc. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story 3,400-SF retail building with 49 with 35
new parking spaces and associated landscaping, walkways, and other site improvements.
The 6.1-acre site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces. The project
includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds Memorial
Parkway. The site is predominantly paved; however, development requires removal of
0.3 acres of existing vegetation along the north property line, contiguous to the drainage
area. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum building
setback of 34 feet from the curbline. The project requires has received Area Variances for
the proposed 40’ 70’ setback, as well as deficiencies in building frontage on the street.
The applicant has proposed a 4’-tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage.
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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
environmental review for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance on July 28, 2015.
Engineer David Herrick updated the Board on the proposed project and submitted a
drawing illustrating the building materials.
Jones-Rounds asked the applicant for his response to the following two Tompkins County
Planning Department concerns:
We
recommend
that
the
site
plan
include
a
50-‐foot
pervious,
vegetated
buffer
to
the
south
of
the
intermittent
stream
to
help
reduce
flood
risk
and
improve
water
quality.
If
the
relocated
entrance
drive
is
allowed
(see
comment
below),
thus
prohibiting
the
recommended
buffer,
we
recommend
as
an
alternative
that
green
infrastructure
components
such
as
rain
gardens,
permeable
pavement
or
vegetated
swales
be
required
to
filter
and
reduce
stormwater
flows
to
the
stream
from
the
site.
Impermeable
paved
areas
should
direct
storm
drainage
runoff
away
from
the
stream
and
through
green
infrastructure
filters.
Moving
the
intersection
and
decreasing
the
north-‐south
signal
green
time
by
8
seconds
to
accommodate
the
split
phase
operation
for
east-‐west
traffic,
as
indicated
in
the
letter
from
SRF
dated
December
16,
2014,
could
have
long-‐term
consequences
for
the
function
of
NYS
Route
13
through
this
part
of
the
City
of
Ithaca.
Herrick replied it is simply not possible to serve the site without modifying the
intersection and redesigning the traffic signals.
Blalock suggested the Planning Board discuss any lingering concerns it may have about
not following the County’s recommendations.
Schroeder responded that the “intermittent stream” mentioned in the County’s letter is
nothing more than an artificial water channel, so he is not sure how concerned he is with
the issue. Furthermore, he said, the project will add substantial plantings along that
channel, so the issue is being addressed, albeit in a different way than the County
recommended.
Randall asked if City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson reviewed the project. Herrick
replied, yes, and added that the project only requires a basic Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). He suggested adding some more trees along the channel. He
also stressed that the project site does not have the necessary drainage capacity to
accommodate the rain gardens, permeable pavement or vegetated swales the County
recommends.
Elliott suggested establishing a vegetative understory for some of the channel planting
area to address the concern. Herrick replied he could commit to that.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
Schroeder indicated he would be delighted to see more trees added to the project. He
asked what lies behind the dumpster enclosure. Herrick replied, some brush and a few
substantial trees. Schroeder noted that water-loving trees could be added anywhere along
there to address deficiencies in the vegetative cover. Herrick replied he could do that.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a retail building to be located at 222 Elmira
Road (Ithaca Shopping Plaza) in the City of Ithaca, by Marx Realty & Improvement Co.,
Inc., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 3,400-SF retail building
with 35 new parking spaces and associated landscaping, walkways, and other site
improvements. The 6.1-acre site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces.
The project includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds
Memorial Parkway. The site is predominantly paved; however, development requires
removal of 0.3 acres of existing vegetation along the north property line, contiguous to
the drainage area. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum
building setback of 34 feet from the curbline. The project has received Area Variances
for the proposed 70’ setback, as well as deficiencies in building frontage on the street,
and
WHEREAS: this an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapter 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
July 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 July 28,
2015 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF),
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings
entitled “Topographic Map,” dated 10/24/14, “Existing Site Plan (C101),” “Layout Plan
(C102),” “Utility Plan (C103),” “Grading and Drainage Plan (C104),” dated 6/30/15 and
prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and “Patio Plan (C1.01),” and “Concept Views (PR1.1),”
dated 7/2/15 and “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 7/6/15; and “Landscape Plan
(L1.00)” dated 7/28/15 and all prepared by Jason Demarest, architect•••, and•••; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on July 28, 2015 determine the proposed project
would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variances on August 11,
2015, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has, on August 25•••,••• 2015, reviewed and accepted as
adequate the following new and revised drawings: “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),”
“Concept Views (PR1.1),” “Existing Site Plan (C101),” “Layout Plan (C102),” “Utility
Plan (C103),” “Grading and Drainage Plan (C104),” “Site Lighting Plan (C105),”
“Details(C201),” “Landscape Plan (L1.00),” and “Site Details (L2.00);” all dated 8-14-15
and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and Jason Demarest, Architect; and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: in a memo dated 8-20-15 to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner from Ed Marx,
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, it was recommended that either the site
plan include a 50-foot pervious, vegetated buffer to the south of the intermittent
stream•••,••• •••–••• or — if the relocated entrance drive is allowed — that green
infrastructure components such as rain gardens, permeable pavement or vegetated swales
be required to filter and reduce stormwater flows to the stream from the site; and that the
proposal be modified to utilize the main access to the plaza via the traffic light to the
south, due to concerns that moving the intersection and decreasing the north-south signal
green time by 8 seconds to accommodate the split phase operation for east-west traffic,
indicated in the letter from SRF dated December 16, 2014, could have long-term
consequences for the function of NYS Route 13 through this part of the City of Ithaca,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that as the applicant worked with NYS DOT to
redesign the intersection, the City transportation Engineer expressed no concerns and that
the Board feels that the relocation of the entrance is rational and an improvement, and
WHEREAS: in regards to the proposed incorporation of green infrastructure, the Board
finds that the applicant is proposing significant improvements including substantial
landscaping and planting along the drainage ditch that improve the overall function and
appeal of the site. In response to the County’s comments, the Board is requiring
additional plantings, including trees and understory species to be added to the portion of
the property frontage along the north drainage channel, now, therefore, be it
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following
conditions:
i. Submission of building materials and samples, and
ii. Any work in the City Right of Way requires a Street Permit, and
iii. Removal of any City trees will require a City Tree Permit, and
iv. Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by City of
Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer, and
v. Before issuance of a Building Permit, submission of revised Planting Plan and planting
schedule showing soil volumes and amendments as per the Ithaca’s Trees: Master Plan
document, and the addition of plantings, including trees and understory species, to be
added to the portion of the property frontage along the north drainage channel, and
vi. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
D. State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing & Retail), 301 E. State Street / E.
M.L.K., Jr. Blvd. Street, Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage. No Action ―
CEQR Discussion. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 11-
story, 116’-tall, 288,845-GSF mixed-use building, with approximately 12,341 SF of new
ground-floor retail space, 2,029 SF of which is anticipated to be a restaurant. Upper
floors will have a mix of unit types (1-bedroom/1-bath to 5-bedroom/4-bath) for a total of
240 units with approximately 620 bedrooms. The targeted market is primarily college
students. The ground level includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access
provided from N. Aurora Street. 35 parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited
on-site parking proposed. The project is in the CDB-120 Zoning District. This is a Type I
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)
(h)[4], (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (6.)(iv) and
(11), and is subject to environmental review.
Applicants Scott Whitham and Cathy De Almeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC,
Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative, and Ronnie L. Macejewski and Scott
Duckett of Campus Advantage updated the Board on the proposed project.
Whitham said the applicants have revised the drawings since the last Board meeting and
would also like to present new traffic, parking and construction staging information. The
applicants have been meeting regularly with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
and have also been drafting a memorandum to the Board of Public Works. He stressed
that it remains a very conceptual / preliminary site plan, especially in terms of the bump-
out of the area along State Street. The applicants propose eliminating two of the parking
spaces and retaining three. Whitham remarked that in response to earlier Planning Board
comments, the applicants pivoted the building somewhat further to the south, but not too
close to Green Street due to Department of Transportation requirements. The project now
also includes a new trash-loading area configuration off Green Street, in response to
concerns about locating that area too close to the Aurora Street service corridor.
Schroeder asked if the applicants considered modifying the building floor plan at the
southwest corner, in order to facilitate moving the building footprint further south.
Whitham replied that they did in fact alter it slightly, making it smaller to fit in with the
property line, but that any further movement of the footprint south would require a rear
yard Zoning Variance. Schroeder responded that the primary limiting factor for
modifying that portion of the building is the floor plan itself.
Demarest noted there is now much greater variety in the floor plan layouts (studios, 1-, 2-
, 3- and 4-bedroom units) and every residential floor’s plan would be identical. A roof
deck would also be available for use by all building tenants.
Demarest noted a new iteration of the façade rendering has been created, largely in
response to the Project Review Committee’s feedback about the massive appearance and
suggestions for breaking it up and making it appear more like four several different
buildings. For example, a portion of the upper floor in the middle of the State Street
façade has now been stepped back 8 feet and will include amenity space (e.g., a glassed-
in terrace, a fitness area). Some of the building materials have also been changed on
various sections of the façade.
Schroeder noted it would be very helpful to see a sectional drawing through the entire
block. Whitham agreed to provide one.
Elliott observed that the building features an interior 10-story courtyard, much of which
will never see daylight, given the building height. He suggested rotating the building 180
degrees, so that the break in the building faces State Street. He said this would allow at
least some sunlight to reach State Street. By and large, he added, the building does not
appear significantly different from when it was first reviewed by the Board.
Schroeder remarked that the State Street façade, in particular, should be broken up and
given three-dimensional modulation (much as City Historic Preservation Planner Bryan
McCracken has suggested in his memorandum). One way or the other, he said, the
building massing needs to be substantially broken up so it doesn’t continue to appear,
from most points of view, essentially like one overwhelmingly large block.
Jones-Rounds agreed. Darling also agreed, noting he would also prefer to see fewer
residents planned for the building.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Randall suggested the project would benefit greatly from some of the same kind of
porosity that characterizes the proposed 210 Hancock Street housing project.
Schroeder stressed that merely because the Zoning Code permits a particular building
design does not necessarily mean that design is appropriate, if there are significant and
large environmental impacts to mitigate. He also urged that the applicants seriously
consider situating the courtyard on the State Street (rather than the Green Street) side of
the building, where it could become an active part of the urban landscape and serve as an
amenity to the City as a whole, while also breaking up that façade and allowing more
daylight to reach the street. That alone, he said, would go a long way toward addressing
many of the expressed concerns.
Whitham remarked that the applicants are also pursuing a marketing agreement with the
operator of the Cayuga Street parking garage. Demarest added that the applicants met
with City Parking Director Frank Nagy and reviewed all available parking spaces in the
area vs. the projected number and types of residents.
Nicholas asked if the applicants would be willing to consider providing some on-site
parking.
Schroeder observed that the drop-down on new trash-handling entrance off Green Street
would provide an opportunity for underground parking on that same level. Duckett
replied that the project is financially constrained as a result of the cost of the land and
construction costs. However, if any of those financial variables were to change, he said,
perhaps something could be done regarding underground parking. One thing the
applicants have explored, he said, is options for satellite parking, since many students do
not use cars during the week.
Nicholas said the applicant must provide a genuinely comprehensive Transportation
Demand Management Plan before the Board can complete its environmental review.
Randall noted she is concerned about the impact of using the Cayuga Street garage on the
eventual cost of parking. She would like to hear from Nagy on how that would be
handled.
E. 209-215 Dryden Road (Cornell University Johnson School of Management
Executive Education Program) Educational Building, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels
for 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC. Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval
with Conditions. The applicant proposes to build a six-story / 80-foot tall education and
office building on the 12,301-SF project site. The building will house the Cornell
Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program, which will be a tenant of
the building; so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property. The
building will include classrooms, meeting rooms, staff and faculty offices, and a large
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
atrium for public assembly and to provide street-level active use. The building is in the
MU-2 Zoning District and requires variances to be in compliance with district
regulations. The project has received Design Review. This project is a Type I Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)(n), and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (6.)(11), and is subject to
environmental review.
Applicants John Novarr and Phil Proujansky of 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC,
Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5
Architects updated the Board on the proposed project.
Chimacoff walked through a presentation of the project and displayed the proposed
building materials.
Elliott asked the applicants to revise the east and south building elevations to reflect the
correct degree of projection for the sunshades. Chimacoff agreed to do so.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Chris Hodges, 215 Cornell Street, observed that since it is an academic building, Cornell
University may want to buy it at some point. She wondered if there were any way of
ensuring the building is retained on the tax rolls. She also expressed concern the building
appears to belong more in a corporate office park, rather than in Collegetown. She is also
concerned with possible light pollution, given all the glass and lighting.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Chimacoff responded to the light pollution concern. On the Linden Avenue and Dryden
Road sides, the upper three floors have fewer windows and those floors would largely
house daytime business operations, he explained. The entire Linden Avenue façade
features architectural ‘fins’ that are angled north, so the building would appear more
opaque and any light would glow from within, he added. The only place that would emit
an appreciable amount of light would be the ground-floor atrium; however, most of that
light is directed from the ceiling down, he concluded.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
The Planning Board reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
The Planning Board reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a six-story educational building to located at 209-
215 Dryden Road by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a six-story / 80-foot tall education and office
building on the 12,301-SF project site. The building will house the Cornell Johnson
School of Management Executive Education Program, which will be a tenant of the
building; so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property. The building
will include classrooms, meeting rooms, staff and faculty offices, and a large atrium for
public assembly and to provide street-level active use. The building is in the MU-2
Zoning District and project requires variances for compliance with district regulations.
The project has received Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (6.)(11), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Tompkins County Industrial Development
Agency (IDA), a potentially involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the IDA did, by not responding to the request within 30 days, consent to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on
August 25, 2015 review and accept 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; and the following drawings: “Topographic Map No.
209-215 Dryden Road, No. 238-240 Linden Avenue” dated 7-2-15 and “Site Demolition
Plan (C101),” “Site Utility Plan (C102),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C103),”
dated 7-30-15 and all prepared by T.G. Miller PC; “Site Plan Materials and Grading
(L3.01),” “Planting Plan Schedule and Details (L401),” “Site Pavement, Curb and Site
Amenity Details (L5.0),” “Site Planter Details (L5.02),” dated 8-12-15 and prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels; and “Interior: 1st 3rd Floors + lower level,” “ Interior: Upper
3 floors: Offices,” “Untitled Twilight Rendering,” “Elevation: north,” “Elevation: east,”
“Elevation: south,” “Elevation: west,” “Views (four sheets),” and “Interior: Atrium:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
Stairs” (three sheets) dated 8-18-15 and prepared by ikon5 ikon.5 architects; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: The Lead Agency hopes that the burial of underground utilities and
rebuilding of the sidewalk will be an opportunity to implement streetscape improvements
as recommended in the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,
which states both the sidewalks on the 200 block of Dryden Road should be widened
substantially by moving the curbs and removing on-street parking on at least one side of
the street, 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, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Nicholas explained that the project will unexpectedly need Zoning Variances; however, it
was decided that, in this particular case — with all Site Plan Review issues resolved — it
would make sense to grant Site Plan Approval before the BZA meeting.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a six-story educational building to located at 209-
215 Dryden Road by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a six-story / 80-foot tall education and office
building on the 12,301-SF project site. The building will house the Cornell Johnson
School of Management Executive Education Program, which will be a tenant of the
building; so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property. The building
will include classrooms, meeting rooms, staff and faculty offices, and a large atrium for
public assembly and to provide street-level active use. The building is in the MU-2
Zoning District and project requires variances for compliance with district regulations.
The project has received Design Review, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA•••”•••), §617.4 (6.)(11), and is subject to environmental review,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapter 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
August 24, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on
August 25, 2015 review and accept 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; and the following drawings: “Topographic Map No.
209-215 Dryden Road, No. 238-240 Linden Avenue” dated 7-2-15 and “Site Demolition
Plan (C101),” “Site Utility Plan (C102),” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C103),”
dated 7-30-15 and all prepared by T.G. Miller PC; “Site Plan Materials and Grading
(L3.01),” “Planting Plan Schedule and Details (L401),” “Site Pavement, Curb and Site
Amenity Details (L5.0),” “Site Planter Details (L5.02),” dated 8-12-15 and prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels; and “Interior: 1st 3rd Floors + lower level,” “ Interior: Upper
3 floors: Offices,” “Untitled Twilight Rendering,” “Elevation: north,” “Elevation: east,”
“Elevation: south,” “Elevation: west,” “Views (four sheets),” and “Interior: Atrium:
Stairs” (three sheets) dated 8-18-15 and prepared by ikon5 ikon.5 architects; and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: WHEREAS: The Lead Agency hopes that the burial of underground
utilities and rebuilding of the sidewalk will be an opportunity to implement streetscape
improvements as recommended in the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual
Design Guidelines, which states that the sidewalk both sidewalks on the 200 block of
Dryden Road should be widened substantially by moving the curb curbs and removing
on-street parking on at least one side of the street, and
WHEREAS: the Board understands the project requires Variances from the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA), and
WHEREAS: as all Site Plan Review issues have been resolved, and the Board intends to
make a positive recommendation to the BZA regarding the project, the Board feels it is
appropriate in this particular case to consider Final Site Plan Approval contingent upon
the BZA granting the required variances, now, therefore, be it
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Written approval from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief that the project meets all fire access
needs, and
ii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
iii. Submission to the Planning Board of colored elevations, including all four sides of the
penthouse enclosure, keyed to materials samples board, and final building materials,
and
iv. Submission to the Planning Board of project details including signage, lighting, paving,
and final exterior furnishings•••,••• and
v. Applicant to consider faster-growing street trees to replace proposed Ginkgos, and
vi. Before issuance of building permit – the project must obtain any needed variances, and
vii. Before Certificate of Occupancy – bike racks must be installed.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2993 ― 607 Utica Street: Temporary Permit
Appeal of David Mazzarella, owner of 607 Utica Street, for a Special Temporary Permit in
accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-10, “Accessory apartments,” and for Area
Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, and Rear Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
In order to afford the cost-of-living and be able to remain in the City, the owner wants to
build and then inhabit a small accessory apartment, which will be located in the rear yard of
his property at 607 Utica Street. He would then be able to rent the existing two-bedroom
single-family home at this location. The property at 607 Utica Street has several existing area
deficiencies: Lot Width, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard (Section 325-8,
Columns 7, 11, 12, and 13, respectively).
Section 325-10, “Accessory Apartment,” requirements state that the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) may grant a Special Temporary Permit for an accessory apartment in spite of legal
area deficiencies for the main structure ― provided the BZA determines there will be no
negative effect on the surrounding properties. However, this section requires all new
accessory apartment structures meet applicable zoning requirements.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
Because 607 Utica Street is a small lot, even with the removal of the existing garage, the
construction of an accessory apartment is not possible without the Board granting several
variances. Aside from seeking a Special Temporary Permit for an accessory apartment, the
applicant also requests relief from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size,
and Rear Yard, zoning requirements.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 216-SF garage on-site and provide an
accessory structure having a 255-SF footprint. The garage provides space for one car.The
house and the accessory structure would require two parking spaces; no off-street parking is
proposed. The lot area at 607 Utica Street is 3,927 SF. The requirement for the house and a
new accessory apartment is 6,000 SF. Finally, the proposed accessory structure will have a
10-foot rear yard. The rear yard is required to be 28.88 feet.
The applicant states he intends to meet the home occupation requirement, including Section
325-10 D. (8), which requires filing a deed restriction that states the permitted use for an
accessory apartment or second unit will cease if the property is not owner-occupied.
The property at 607 Utica Street is in an R-2b Residential District where accessory
apartments are permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a Special Temporary Permit
and Area Variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued.
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it. The proposal is in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Appeal #2996 ― Center Ithaca: Sign Variance
Appeal of Center Ithaca TTH Properties of Ithaca, LLC, owner of 171 E. State Street, for
variances from Section 272-5 D., prohibiting flashing signs, 275-5 I., prohibiting billboards,
and 272-6 B. (2), regarding the number of allowed wall signs in a Commercial Zone,
requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to renovate the existing sign on the marquee on the front façade of
171 E. State Street. The existing marquee advertises “Center Ithaca.” This signage will be
relocated onto a black-powdered coated steel grid above the existing marquee, alongside the
pre-existing red exclamation point. The marquee will be fitted with a full-color LED screen
on the north face of the marquee and with two linked bicolor screens on the marquee’s east
and west faces. The proposed LED sign will feature a series of gradually transitioning
imagery and marketing content pertaining to Center Ithaca tenants and, in particular, public
notices from the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, advertising community events.
Sign Ordinance, Section 272-5 D., expressly prohibits any sign displaying flashing or
intermittent lights, or lights changing degrees of intensity. Section 272-5 I. also expressly
prohibits billboards, which are considered signs advertising businesses conducted, services
provided, or products sold on properties other than the property where the sign is located.
Finally, Section 272-6 B. (2) restricts the number of signs in commercial districts to two wall
signs for each business, no larger than 50 SF each. Aside from the relocated 29.3-SF “Center
Ithaca” sign, which is considered a new sign, and the marquee signage, there are three
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24
additional existing signs on the front façade and another four existing signs placed along the
back face of the building (9 signs ― total signage: 191.25 SF).
The property at 171 E. State Street is in a CBD-60 Zoning District where signs are permitted;
however, Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18, requires that variances must be granted before a
Sign Permit can be issued.
The Design Review Committee of the Planning Board reviewed this proposal in February
2015. Comments from Committee member, John Schroeder, were distributed with other
materials for this appeal.
The Board‘s primary concern with this proposal is •••the••• that the interval at which the
image on the signs changes •••is••• not be too short. The Board believes a 2-3 minute interval
would be appropriate.
A secondary concern is the graphic quality of the sign. The Board understands that the
content of the sign cannot be dictated by a governing body; however ― in keeping with the
vibrant and unique quality of the Commons and regardless of what the sign is prompting ―
signs appearing on the marquee should be specifically and thoughtfully designed and should
not be generic commercial graphics.
The Board urges the BZA to require that the City receive a formal, written assurance from
the applicant that the LED programming will address these concerns.
Appeal #2998 ― 201 W. S. Clinton Street: Area Variances
Appeal of Zac Boggs and Isabel Fernández, owners of 201 W. Clinton Street, for Area
Variances from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance. Both the existing house and the proposed dwelling have deficient rear yards.
The applicants propose converting an existing garage to a 2-story carriage house for use as a
dwelling unit. The proposal is compliant with the zoning district regulations ― except the
proposed rear yard setback. The current property only has one primary use. This building has
a rear yard setback of 19 feet. The proposed carriage house will create a second primary use
on the lot and will be closer to the rear yard lot line than the main house. As designed, the
carriage house will have a rear yard setback of 12.25 feet; required is a rear yard of 31.4 feet
for both dwellings.
The property at 201 W. Clinton Street is in an R-2b Use District where the proposed carriage
house is a permitted use. However, Section 325-38 requires an Area Variance be granted
before a Building Permit can be issued.
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it. The proposal transforms a garage that is currently not in character with the
Historic District into a beautiful and historically compatible building.
Appeal #3001 ― Center Ithaca: Area Variance
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25
Appeal of Frost Travis, on behalf of TTH Associates of Ithaca, LLC, owner of 171 E. State
Street (Center Ithaca), for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Columns 10 and 14/15,
Percentage of Lot Coverage and Rear Yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant is installing a Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power (CCHP) system in the
Center Ithaca basement. Operation of this system will require installation of an exterior heat
dump radiator designed to expel the excess heat from the power system. The heat dump
radiator requires lines that connect to the interior system, as well as two exhaust fans. The
applicant proposes to enclose the heat dump radiator equipment in an enclosure measuring
8.5’ x 18.33’ x 8’ in height and locate the enclosed mechanical equipment in the service alley
at the back of 171 E. State Street. The applicant states this is the best practical location for the
equipment, even though the location will be in the property’s required rear yard setback.
The property at 171 E. State Street has an existing 9’4”-deep rear yard, which extends the
length of the property approximately 239 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard that
is no less than 10 feet. The proposed mechanical equipment enclosure will extend 8.5 feet
into the rear yard for a distance of 14.33 feet.
District Regulations allow the property to have 100% lot coverage, except as required for rear
yard. The existing lot coverage is approximately 91%; however, because the rear yard is
deficient, the property at 171 E. State Street is also non-conforming with respect to lot
coverage zoning requirements. Furthermore, the proposed mechanical equipment enclosure
will increase the existing non-conforming lot coverage conditions from 91% to 91.4%.
The property at 171 E. State Street is in the CBD-60 and CBD-140 Zoning Districts where
the Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power system is allowed; however, Section 325-38
requires that variances must be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it.
The Board believes the proposed location of this heat dump radiator minimizes all potential
impacts, and supports granting the appeal.
Appeal #3002 ― 325 W. Buffalo Street: Area Variances
Appeal of Melissa Shames, owner of 325 W. Buffalo Street, for variances from Section 325-
8, Columns 10, 11, 12, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, and
Other Side Yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant wants to build an 80-SF deck at the back of a two-family dwelling at 325 W.
Buffalo Street as a means of moving larger furniture pieces into the building. This 12’ x
6.67’ deck will be located in a corner recess towards the back of the house and will not create
or exacerbate existing yard deficiencies. However, the property already exceeds allowable lot
coverage and the deck addition will cause the percentage of lot coverage to increase. The
existing percentage of lot coverage is 44%; the deck will increase the percentage to 46%.
The front, side, and other side yard also have existing deficiencies. The front yard is 6 feet;
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26
required is 10 feet. The side yard is 6.6 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard is 1.8
feet; required is 5 feet.
The property at 325 W. Buffalo Street is in an R-2b Zoning District, where the use is
permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a Zoning Variance be granted before a
Building Permit can be issued.
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it.
6. Old / New Business
A. Design Guidelines for Collegetown
Schroeder explained that he had drafted the some illustrative panels (two of which are
pasted below) regarding two current zoning problem areas in Collegetown:
• The north side of upper Cook Street, the only place in Collegetown where the dense
MU-1 zone directly adjoins the very different CR-3 zone (i.e., without CR-4 as an
intermediary), and where a significant slope exacerbates this disjuncture; and
• The College Avenue stretch of MU-2, where construction of 80-foot-tall buildings
directly facing this narrow street, without façade step backs above c. 65 feet, would
create a constricted canyon-effect, blocking sunlight and views of the sky — and
ironically creating one of the undesirable results the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan
& Conceptual Design Guidelines intended to avoid.
Schroeder recommended the City consider instituting a small working group or
committee to draft some basic Collegetown design guidelines. (The Collegetown plan
itself actually calls for formal, finalized design guidelines.) He would like the Planning
Board to recommend this approach to the Planning and Economic Development
Committee.
The two panels below illustrate what Schroeder regards as a zoning disjuncture at the top
of Cook Street (Page A), and a proposed solution to mitigate this disjuncture (Page B):
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27
640
650
660
670
680
690
(alignment of Blair Street
on other side of Cook)
112 COOK ST.114 COOK ST.116 COOK ST.118 COOK ST.COLLEGE AVE.202-204 COLLEGE AVE.
10
F
T
.
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
PO
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
.
7
4
-
F
O
O
T
-
T
A
L
L
W
A
L
L
5
F
T
.
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
APPROXIMATE GRADE PLANE FOR
COMBINED 202 & 204 PARCELS
70
F
T
.
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
POTENTIAL MECHANICALS (NOT PART OF BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION)
JUNCTURE BETWEEN CR-3 AND MU-1 ZONES ALONG UPPER COOK STREET
WITH HYPOTHETICAL NEW BUILDING
MAXIMIZING MU-1 BUILDING ENVELOPE
ON CONSOLIDATED 202-204 C0LLEGE AVENUE
CR-3 ZONE (maximum 35 feet & 3 stories,with gabled roof containing any 3rd story)MU-1 ZONE (maximum 70 feet & 5 stories)
100 FEET
FROM THE ENDORSED COLLEGETOWN PLAN,
AN EXISTING PROBLEM TO BE AVOIDED AND OVERCOME:PARCEL BOUNDARY
HYPOTHETICAL NEW
FIVE-STORY BUILDING
FILLING ALLOWED
BUILDING ENVELOPE
Photo at left and quoted text are from the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, Part 2 Page 5.7
“”
Page A
SEVEN-DRAWING SET BY JOHN SCHROEDER,REVISED ON AUGUST13,2014
640
650
660
670
680
690
(alignment of Blair Street
on other side of Cook)
112 COOK ST.114 COOK ST.116 COOK ST.118 COOK ST.COLLEGE AVE.202-204 COLLEGE AVE.
10
F
T
.
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
40
-
F
O
O
T
-
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
5
F
T
.
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
30-FEET
70
F
T
.
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
POTENTIAL MECHANICALS
JUNCTURE BETWEEN CR-3 AND MU-1 ZONES ALONG UPPER COOK STREET
WITH HYPOTHETICAL NEW BUILDING
SHOWING PROPOSED REQUIRED STEPDOWN
ADJACENT TO CR-3 ZONE
CR-3 ZONE (maximum 35 feet & 3 stories,with gabled roof containing any 3rd story)MU-1 ZONE (maximum 70 feet & 5 stories)
100 FEET
PARCEL BOUNDARY
NEW FIVE-STORY
BUILDING WITH TWO-STORY
STEPDOWN ADJACENT TO CR-3 ZONE
Page B
1 Accomplish the “graceful transitions” between zones called for repeatedly in the Collegetown plan by requiring a stepdown where MU-1 zones directly adjoin a CR-3 zone (which only happens in one place: at the top of Cook
Street). Specifically, for the first 30 feet in from a lot line where the MU-1 zone directly adjoins a CR-3 zone, the maximum building height would be 3 stories and 40 feet.
MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE CONTEXTUALITY:
Careful consideration has been given to creating a system that will allow graceful transitions from high-
height areas to low-height areas as well as to the manner in which buildings meet the ground plane.
— From the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, Part 2 Page 6.7
FROM THE ENDORSED COLLEGETOWN PLAN, A PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW:
“”
SEVEN-DRAWING SET BY JOHN SCHROEDER,REVISED ON AUGUST13,2014
APPROXIMATE GRADE PLANE FOR
COMBINED 202 & 204 PARCELS
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling reported that the BPW discussed the Lake Street bridge park project and how to
reduce its cost to bring it within budget. He said the BPW approved some changes (e.g.,
replacing concrete pavement with another material, and using galvanized metal instead of
stainless steel rails).
Darling reported that the BPW passed a resolution regarding the 210 Hancock Street
housing project, authorizing an agreement with the developer for future improvements to
Lake Avenue and the eastern portion of Adams Street.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the draft June 23, 2015 meeting minutes as
edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.