HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-11-24DRAFT 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
November 24, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott;
Robert Aaron Lewis; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: McKenzie Jones-Rounds
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block
Mike Barnoski, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative
Site Improvements at 416-418 E. State Street
Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect;
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc.;
Ben Rosenblum, Owner
Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation at 327 Elmira Road
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects;
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Gregory L. Myer, Myer Funeral Services Corp.
Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc.
Simeons on the Commons Rebuilding
Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect
The Chapter House Rebuilding
Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect
Hughes Hall Renovations, Cornell University (Sketch Plan)
James Fruechtl, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University;
Gilbert Delgado, Cornell University
DeWitt House, at Old Library Site (Sketch Plan)
Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Frost Travis, Travis Hyde
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Ann Lewandowski, 417 E. Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed 416-418 E.
State Street project, saying that the applicants have not presented satisfactory solutions to
active late night parking lot use. The sound engineer even conceded it is not possible to
prevent all outside noise, she added.
Benjamin Piekut, 417 E. Seneca Street, voiced opposition to the same project, claiming that
examining the floor space dimensions of Bar Argos represent a larger assembly area than the
number of parking spaces would suggest (1,000 square feet, and not 775). He said the
applicants did not account for the bar’s outdoor expansion in calculating the number of
required parking spaces, and that the food truck has also removed some parking spaces.
Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Place, also objected to the 416-418 E. State Street
project, stating there would be insufficient parking. She also cannot imagine how the shared
parking configuration transitions proposed at 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. would possibly work,
as there are too many unknown variables (e.g., how would anyone know which car belongs
in which space and who would enforce the whole system).
Jonah & Alicia Freedman, 422-424 E. State Street, requested that their comments in
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street project be read into the record:
While the planners of the 416-418 East State Street project seem to have the best
intentions, we are still concerned that having 2 bars on our small block will have negative
effects for the residents and property values of the 400 block of E. State St., Schuyler
Place, and the corresponding block of E. Seneca Street. Our main concerns are the safety
of people who walk on the sidewalk in front of our house and elsewhere, as well as the
increased late-night noise from people parking on Schuyler Place and impact on quality
of life of our tenants. Even if this project is done in a way that minimizes negative impact
on this historic and highly visible part of our city, the bar could eventually be sold to
people with only profit in mind, it could devastate the neighborhood. Please consider this
when making this important decision.
David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, added his opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State
Street project, calling it too noisy. He said inebriated bar patrons are inherently loud, and he
characterized as ineffective any mitigations like signs or policing of parking lots. The
proposed bar would disturb neighbors’ sleep and impose negative health impacts on them, he
said, adding that historic buildings, like his, have ‘leaky’ windows, in terms of noise. He said
the site’s zoning deficiencies were known beforehand by the owner, and that neighbors are in
unified opposition to a late-night bar at this site.
Neil Schill, 108 Schuler Place, objected to the same project, saying it is entirely unclear how
the transition in the shared parking arrangement would work. For example, would people
working in the new offices be asked to leave at 4:00 p.m.?
Neha Khanna, 420 E. State Street, joined those speaking against the 416-418 E. State Street
project, saying that while the applicants have made significant changes to the proposal, the
fundamental underlying problems have not been addressed. She called the business activity
of the bar and the day-to-day lives of the nearby residents completely incompatible with each
other, and she stressed that properties in the neighborhood can be renovated and operated
profitably, without negatively impacting residents.
Virginia Augusta, 419 E. Seneca Street, spoke against the same project, saying her property
abuts the Argos Inn and she hears all the noise pollution associated with it in her bedroom,
virtually every night. She said she and her husband bought their house and invested
substantially in it over the course of 20 years, and that they deserve some kind of protection
for their investment they placed in it. She concluded by stating that the proposed project is
not consistent with the neighborhood, would be very disruptive, and would only compound
problems already being experienced with the Argos Inn.
Rich John, 502 E. Seneca Street, added his opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State
Street project, remarking that while he supports development of the parcel, the proposed new
use would simply be too intrusive for neighbors.
Barbara Lantz, 411 E. Seneca Street, also objected to the same project, asserting that she
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
does not see how it can realistically contain the noise generated by patrons congregating
outside.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, spoke regarding the DeWitt House (Old Tompkins County
Library Site) project, stating she believes parking will be a problem with the project as
proposed, since Lifelong clients tend to have mobility problems. She is also concerned that
the sheer mass of the building could overwhelm the neighborhood.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS). Satisfaction of Conditions of Site Plan Approval. This project received Site
Plan Approval on August 25, 2015. 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 12 two-story
townhomes and a four-story approximately 65,000-SF mixed-use building with
approximately 53 apartments and three 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 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 a greenspace 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 Subdivision Approval from the Planning and
Development Board (Lead Agency); a Flood Plain Development Permit; variances from
the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from Board of Public Works (BPW) for
improvements to property in the public way; funding approval from Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA), and Common Council approval. The project is in the B-2a
Zoning District and received the required variances on 8/11/15. 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), for which the Lead
Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 26,
2015. The Board of Public Works is currently considering discontinuance of portions of
Lake Avenue and Adams Street.
Applicants Scott Reynolds of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Peter
Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and Mike
Barnoski of HOLT Architects, updated the Board on the proposed project.
Reynolds reported that some minor changes have been made to the project since the last
time it was reviewed by the Board. Also, the applicants have sought to satisfy most of the
Planning Board’s conditions.
Trowbridge noted the playground on Adams Street has been moved slightly to the east,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
towards the creek, to accommodate the City’s need for snow storage space. Some minor
modifications have also been made to the multi-family building and some minor
architectural changes have been made to the rental townhouses. On the creek side, there
is a better architectural expression of traditional woodframe entries / porches than before.
Trowbridge walked through the building details. Schroeder remarked that the appearance
of the multi-family building would be improved if the respective mortars used with the
red and brown brick colors were colored to harmonize with those colors, rather than
using standard mortar. Barnoski replied that could be done.
Trowbridge noted the applicants have provided more species diversity in the landscape
plan. Regarding the rooftop mechanicals, they He said equipment at ground level will be
screened with greenscreen adorned with vines, the same screening as that concealing
ground-floor parking lot on Hancock Street ground-level parking areas.
Barnoski explained that the roof plan shows the location of all the residential condensing
units, which will not be visible from the ground.
Trowbridge said the applicants have spoken with City Forester Jeanne Grace about
obtaining a City Tree Permit for removal of any City trees. She has reviewed the updated
plans. Removal of City trees will be minimized. Regarding the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the applicants have not yet received a letter from City
Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson, but expect to hear from him shortly.
Schroeder noted that one drawing depicts wooden fencing around the townhouse yard
areas extending up to five and six feet high, which does not seem very residential.
Trowbridge explained the intent was to create some variation in the fence line, but that
the applicants could certainly would reconsider that height and provide alternatives.
B. Four Multi-Family Dwellings ― “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street,
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for PPM Homes. Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to build a new multi-
family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between W. Spencer Street and S.
Cayuga Street. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall
and contain 3 units (12 units overall). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off
S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and
terraces that connect through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls,
and landscaping. The project is in the R-3b Zoning District and received a variance for
the parking area on November 3, 2015. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance on October 27, 2015.
Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative reported that the project has
received its Zoning Variance. He said there was nothing else to report.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
Schroeder asked if the trellises facing S. Cayuga Street would have plants on them.
Demarest replied, yes, probably with planter boxes. Schroeder noted these are not
illustrated anywhere, and asked if the drawings could be revised accordingly. Demarest
replied, yes.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for four multi-family dwellings to be located at 215-
221 Spencer St., by Noah Demarest for PPM Homes (Ed Cope), and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a new multi-family “pocket neighborhood”
on a hillside site between W. Spencer St. and S. Cayuga St. The project will include four
buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units overall). A 12-
car parking area is proposed with access off S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be
organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces that connect through the site.
The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the
R-3b Zoning District and has received the required Area Variance for parking, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 23, 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
July 28, 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
October 27, 2015 review and accepted 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 the following drawings: “Survey Map, No. 215-221 W Spencer
Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 2/15/12, and prepared by
T.G. Miller P.C.; “Site Demo Plan and Layout Plan (L101),” “Grading Plan and Planting
Plan Plans (L102),” •••‘••• •••“•••Site Section (L501),” and “Site Utility Plan (C102),” all
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
dated 9/17/15; and “Perspectives (L001),” dated 8/6/15; and “Area Plans Buildings A &
B (A100),” “Building A Elevations (A201A),” “Building A Elevations (A202A),”
“Building B Elevations (A201B),” “Building B Elevations (A202B),” “Area Plans
Buildings C & D (A100C),” “Building C&D Elevations (A201C),” and “Building C&D
Elevations (A202C),” dated 7/8/15 and an undated color drawing titled “Materials,” all
prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on October 27, 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 November
3, 2015, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
preliminary Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the
following conditions:
i. Written approval from the City Stormwater Officer, and
ii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit•••.•••
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
C. Site Improvements, 416-418 E. State Street, Scott Whitham. Determination of
Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. Discussion. The applicant
proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and
renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior
renovations include construction of two new building entrances, one of which will have a
stair connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, realignment of the
curbing to provide better maneuverability in the 2-car parking area, walkways,
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 32
off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing shared parking with the adjacent
Argos Inn. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic
District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and has received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC). This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11).
Applicants Jason Demarest of Jason Demarest Architect, Scott Whitham of Whitham
Planning & Design, LLC, and owner Ben Rosenblum updated the Board on the proposed
project and introduced acoustic consultant Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
Whitham noted the following project changes:
• Applicants have moved the bar away from the north end of the building, toward the
center, and moved the entry route southwest of the building.
• In response to neighbor comments, the applicants have established the
aforementioned new entry pathway and will chain off the main building entrance
from the driveway to prevent the latter from becoming the main route to the bar.
• The smoking area has been located in a highly-protected area, with heavy
landscaping, and with signage exhorting patrons to respect the neighbors.
Schroeder responded that he understood from the Project Review Committee meeting
that there would be a more permanent closure of the driveway means of closing off the
bar entrance from the driveway. He said the proposed chain would depend entirely on
someone managing it, and therefore asked the applicants to investigate creating a more
permanent and effective blocking mechanism. Cornish suggested movable planters.
Elliott recommended extending the back of bench to form a gate; this idea was then
refined into a gate that could be pulled out from the back of the bench.
Rosenblum noted the applicants had provided the Board with a clearer diagram of the
shared parking scheme. He remarked that the lot was historically shared by the two
properties, when they were all one parcel.
Whitham noted the Planning Board has received the final report from the sound engineer.
He said the applicants are prepared to answer any questions the Board may have about it.
Schroeder asked if the windows would be operable. Waltz replied, one pane in the middle
of each window grouping is operable; but he has recommended they be permanently
closed, through the installation of Plexiglass.
Randall asked Waltz to describe the testing procedure in more detail. Waltz replied he
used a very large sound system to simulate 102 decibels of salsa music. He then walked
around the building and determined the only place the music could be heard was the
parking lot side of the building, next to the windows. All the noise fell within City of
Ithaca Noise Ordinance limits. He stressed that with the changes made to the windows,
no noise would be heard outside the building.
Randall observed that the map of test sites does not include any sites on Seneca Street,
adjacent to abutting neighbors’ yards. Waltz replied that due to the land elevations the
building would buffer any sound emanating toward those locations; therefore, he
explained, no additional sound tests at those locations were justified. In addition, as a
matter of practice, he does not usually perform testing in neighboring yards. He
emphasized that additional testing in those locations would have made little to no
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
difference, since the parking lot side of the building was the source noise. He said he did
test the area above the building roof, which was one of the primary concerns. His greatest
concern was sound bouncing off the parking lot, but no sound was heard above the roof
at all. The rest of the building is surprisingly effective at sound insulation, he concluded.
Elliott asked if the garage door was opened during the sound simulation. Waltz replied,
no. Elliott asked if that door was not intended to be operable, to allow people to go in and
out. Rosenblum responded that the zones between the garage door and the lounge would
be cut off from each other, so the former would not connect with the latter. Elliott asked
if the applicants are stating that there is no potential scenario in which the music could
escape from the building through the garage door. Rosenblum replied, that is correct.
Randall asked if the applicants could describe the testing times. Waltz replied that the
audio recordings log the testing times from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He explained that the
sound analyzing software generates a running average of the sound level. If that average
does not see exceed a certain threshold, then testing is typically stopped. All the sound
recordings are available to the Board for review.
Blalock indicated his primary concern is the noise generated outside the building.
Darling noted he still has concerns with the parking arrangement.
Blalock noted the parking proposal either complies with zoning or it does not, and he
would defer to the Director of Zoning Administration to make that determination.
Schroeder said there must be a legal mechanism to ensure that the shared parking
arrangement would be followed, say, five years from now. Cornish responded the City
has asked for more a more binding shared parking agreement from the applicants.
Nicholas added that the shared parking arrangement must be incorporated somehow into
the deed for the property, and that this would be a condition of Site Plan Approval and for
issuance of the Building Permit.
Elliott remarked that some of the neighbors argue that the number of required parking
spaces for the Argos Inn has been based on a low estimate, from before the Bar Argos
expansion. Cornish replied that the number of required parking spaces would be re-
analyzed when the Building Permit is issued.
Nicholas added that the Director of Zoning Administration did examine the number of
required parking spaces, which are calculated in a very specific way. Elliott indicated it
would be helpful for the Board to know how those calculations were made. Nicholas
replied she could provide that information. Cornish added that the Director of Zoning
Administration is confident in her calculations.
Schroeder remarked that two potential sources of outdoor noise have still not been
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
evaluated in the FEAF, Part 3: (1) the issue of the food truck potentially being on site at
the Argos Inn until 1:00 a.m., and (2) the issue of when the Argos Inn patio would be
closed. He said both of these issues involved potential negative noise impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Cornish asked the applicants if there is in fact a food truck in the Argos Inn parking lot.
Whitham replied, yes, a food truck currently operates near the Argos Inn, but it would be
required to close at 9:00 p.m. under the current proposal. He stressed that all public
facilities at Bar Argos, including the outdoor patio, would close at 9:00 p.m., as well.
Schroeder responded that the food truck and patio closing times are newly-voiced
commitments that have not yet been written into the project documents. Rosenblum
indicated that these closing times would be included in the shared parking agreement.
Schroeder remarked that the FEAF, Part 3, needs to be substantially revised to reflect the
aforementioned new information, and the Board will need more time to do that. (He
added that he did not even know about the food truck until this evening.) Darling agreed.
Lewis indicated he would be willing to move forward with the environmental review, but
would have no objections to deferring action. Randall and Elliott both agreed it would be
better to postpone the environmental review.
It was the consensus of the Board, for the reasons stated above, to postpone the original
“Determination of Environmental Significance” and “Recommendation to BZA” agenda
items until the next Board meeting.
Randall remarked that more information (e.g., test dates) should be included in the sound
engineer’s report. She also finds it peculiar the test sites do not include any sites near / on
neighbors’ properties. She said the complete record for the environmental review should
demonstrate that all the neighbors’ concerns have been addressed.
Waltz replied that would require conducting the entire battery of tests again, a significant
expense for the owners. He stressed that noise concerns above the site are non-existent,
since noise levels simply continue to drop off, the further away they are from the
building. The focus was therefore on the noise level near the building and in front of the
site.
Blalock remarked that the crucial concern is the exterior noise of people going to their
vehicles and congregating outside.
Randall asked if the remainder of the Board believes that independent testing should be
conducted, given the risk of bias whenever a project owner hires a consultant. Blalock
replied he does not recall there being as much concern from the neighbors about interior
noise. Their major concern, he said, related to noise from patrons outside.
Randall noted she was concerned to see a reference to Article 78 of the New York Civil
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
Practice Laws and Rules in one of the neighbors’ letters. She asked if Board members
would be indemnified, if an Article 78 suit were filed. Cornish replied, yes, as long as the
Board follows the City Attorney’s counsel. Blalock agreed with Randall that given the
uniformity of the opposition to the project, the Board should make every effort to address
all of the neighbors’ concerns.
D. Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation, 327 Elmira Road, Gregory L. Myer,
Myer Funeral Services Corp. Determination of Environmental Significance &
Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home
business to this location. The L-shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing
buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the existing buildings, add a 46-space
parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop-off area,
install internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and
add landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the
portion of the site contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the
SW-2 District, while the larger portion of the site containing the smaller building and
proposed parking lot is in the R-2a District. The rear portion of the site is currently used
for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use
Variance for the proposed parking area in the R-2a District. This is an Unlisted Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental
review.
Applicants Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP,
Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, and Greg Myer of Myer Funeral Services Corp.
updated the Board on the proposed project.
Gillespie noted the building materials would be consistent with nearby residential
buildings.
Elliott asked about the building elevations. Cornish responded the project requires a
Zoning Variance and would most likely not move forward without one, so the applicants
limited the amount of architectural design until the variance request has been determined.
She said the Planning Board has enough information to conduct the environmental
review, even if it does not have as much detail as it would ordinarily expect.
Elliott noted the applicants are proposing a residential architectural style for both
buildings; however, Route 13 is more of a commercial street. He asked if the Route 13
front building could be designed to appear more urban. Gillespie replied that the
applicants could certainly explore that.
Nicholas indicated she has revised the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF),
Part 3, with a few minor changes. These changes expand upon, and clarify, the “Impact
on Public Health” section.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for the relocation of Herson Wagner Funeral Home to
327 Elmira Road•••.•••, by Greg Myer of Myer Funeral Services Corp., and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this
location. The L-shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The
proposed project is to renovate the existing buildings, add a 46-space parking area, a
portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop-off area, install internal
pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion
of the site contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW-2
District, while the larger portion of the site containing the smaller building and proposed
parking lot is in the R-2a District. The rear portion of the site is currently used for
outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use
Variance for the proposed parking area in the R-2a District and an Area Variance, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on
October 27, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the
project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council•••,••• has 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, has on
October 27, 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: “Boundary and Topographic Map Showing Lands of
JJJ Holdings, Inc. Located on Elmira Road – NYS Route 13, City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County NY,” dated 9/10/15, and “Site Utility Plan (C101),” dated 10/2/15, both prepared
by T.G. Miller P.C.; and “Illustrated Site Plan (L001),” “Demolition Plan (L101),”
“Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details
(L501 & L502),” all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels and dated 8/2/15; and
“Building Elevations (AP101),” prepared by HOLT Architects and dated 10/2/15; 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
E. Simeon’s on the Commons Rebuilding. Presentation & Design Review Committee
Meeting.
Architect Jason Demarest updated the Board on the proposed project, which will rebuild
the destroyed front section of the Simeon’s Building, known historically as the Griffin
Block.
Nicholas explained that the project does not require environmental review, since it is a
replacement in kind, and it qualifies for Limited Site Plan Review. Since the site is on the
Ithaca Commons, however, it requires Design Review. While the Design Review
Committee does not ordinarily generate formal resolutions, Schroeder has asked that it do
so in this particular case, since the Griffin Building Block is such an important
community resource.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING BEGINS
Schroeder reported that the applicant had provided a detailed description of the project at
last week’s Project Review Committee meeting. In Schroeder’s view, this is a beautifully
designed and appropriate reconstruction of a treasured Ithaca landmark, with only minor
changes from the original design.
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
Adopted Resolution for Design Review Committee Approval:
WHEREAS: the Planning Division has one Limited Site Plan Review application
submitted by Jason Demarest, for owners Lang & Yong Shen, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the front portion of the building in
the same size, materials, and style as previously existed. The most significant change to
the storefront is the relocation of the entry door to the left side of the three-bay, south side
of the storefront. The project is in the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires Design
Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to
environmental review, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
WHEREAS: the Design Review Committee has on November 24, 2015 reviewed
drawings entitled “Griffin Building Perspectives” and “Griffin Building Façade
Reconstruction Materials,” both dated 11/19/15 and prepared by Jason Demarest,
Architect; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Design Review Committee approves this building project as
submitted.
In Favor: Elliott, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CONCLUDES
F. The Chapter House Rebuilding. Opportunity for Comment.
(This is a Limited Site Plan Review project, but an opportunity for Planning Board
comment is being provided, due to the importance of this project to the community.)
Architect Jason Demarest introduced the project to the Board, stating he would like as
much feedback as possible. He said the intention is to recreate the original building that
burned down last April, but with a mansard roof. Having received comments from
several parties, and in consultation with the client, he has adopted brown, rather than
white, brick for the façades, which is more in keeping with the appearance of the building
when it became the Chapter House. At the Project Review Committee meeting, it was
suggested that the slate awning roof atop the first story continue around the southeast
corner, thereby capping all the new Chapter House windows.
Schroeder said he thinks it is crucial for the mansard roof to extend all the way around
the north end of the building. Elliott agreed.
Schroeder remarked he very much likes the idea of bringing the slate awning roof not
only around the southeast corner, but all the way around the south and west sides of the
building, as well. He also suggested using textured brown brick, and agreed there should
be more detailing on the north wall facing the adjacent house (e.g., a recessed panel).
G. Hughes Hall Renovations – Sketch Plan
Gilbert Delgado and Ramnath Venkat of Cornell University and James Fruechtl of
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP introduced the project to the
Board.
Delgado explained the project would improve overall circulation within the Cornell
University Law School. The design, he added, would show deference to both dominant
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
architectural palettes of the school’s buildings: Collegiate Gothic and the more
contemporary appearance of the recent lecture hall addition. Delgado said it was the
University’s intent to use only these two palettes in future Law School projects.
He said this project would include enclosing the Hughes Hall loggia, adding west stairs,
and repairing the dining terrace, all serving to more effectively connect Hughes Hall to
the rest of the school.
Elliott observed that the view west down the new hallway loggia appears a little too
compressed at the end. Schroeder agreed, remarking it would be good to have a more
unobstructed western view through the new stair tower glazing. He suggested
reconsidering the configuration of the stairs to open up this view.
Blalock disclosed he is a Cornell University employee and a personal friend of the dean
of the Law School.
H. DeWitt House (Old Library Site) – Sketch Plan
Applicants Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and Frost Travis of Travis Hyde introduced the
project to the Board.
Gillespie reported that the applicants have met with different community groups about
the design, and that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) will also be
reviewing the project.
He described the project as follows: the existing building would be demolished, down to
its foundation, and the new building would extend into the adjacent Lifelong site. The
design would include a considerable amount of new green space, as part of a more
accessible public-private space. The existing house at 121 West Court Street would not
be demolished, as originally planned, due to community concerns. The new building
would house a range of rental housing units, targeted to a mixture of ages and income
levels. Some covered parking is now planned for the ground floor, in response to
community concerns, but this will reduce the amount of Lifelong programming and
community space.
Elliott remarked that introducing a new small park across the street from DeWitt Park
will detract from what he believes should be the principal urban street edge. Trowbridge
responded there was considerable concern about not disrupting the street trees on that
side of the site, so it made sense to situate the new park there.
Schroeder said a fundamental problem with the proposed design is that the DeWitt Park
Historic District consists primarily of buildings separated from the sidewalk by at least
some green space, and this project does not reflect that typology. He said he does not
understand the rationale for the new park. He would much prefer to see the gardens and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
green space running consistently between the building and the sidewalks, thereby helping
to mitigate the building’s visual impact to the residents across the street.
Schroeder suggested the Planning Board hold a joint meeting with the ILPC to ensure
both bodies can arrive at some kind of agreement regarding the desired design.
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #3000 — 327 Elmira Road: Use & Area Variances
Appeal of Barton Myer, LLC, as authorized representative for the owner JJJ Holdings, LLC
for a variance from Section 325-‐8 Column 2, permitted uses, and Section 325-‐8, column 7
and 11, lot width and front yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
proposes to purchase the property at 327 Elmira Road and relocate the business, Herson
Wagner Funeral home, to this location. This business is an allowed use in the SW-‐2 zoning
district, but only the western portion of the property at 327 Elmira Road is located in this
zone, the eastern portion of the property consisting of two contiguous parcel’s is in an R-‐2a
residential zoning district where commercial and business uses are prohibited. The property at
327 Elmira Road consists of two adjoining parcels, Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐2 and 124.-‐1-‐18 and
has an “L” shaped configuration. Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐2 has 90 lineal feet of frontage on Elmira
Road and is approximately 320 feet in length. A portion of this parcel closest to Elmira Road
is in the SW-‐2 zone, however the R-‐2a zoning transition line bisects the parcel at
approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road. There are two commercial buildings on this tax
parcel. The first building is approximately 94 feet from the Elmira Road’s street curb and
entirely in the SW-‐2 Zone. The second building is approximately 270 feet from the Elmira
Road street curb and is entirely in the R-‐2a residential district. The abutting Tax Parcel
124.-‐1-‐18 is a land locked parcel that begins approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road and
lies completely in the R-‐2a use district.
Originally both lots were developed by Nichol Block and Brick Corporation in the 1950’s
despite the fact that much of this development was also in a residential use district. The
business also included the rear yard of two residential homes fronting on Spencer Road. In
the 1990’s, Nichol Block and Brick wanted to sell the business. However, the property could
not be sold unless the residential uses facing Spencer Road were subdivided from the
commercial property between Elmira Road and Spencer Street and further, only if the owner
was granted a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the developed commercial
property located in the residential district.
Nichol Block appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), on August 10, 1995 for a use
variance claiming their business at 327 Elmira Road could not be utilized and sold without a
use variance for a portion of Tax Parcel 124-‐1-‐2 and all of the abutting parcels, now known
as Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐18, which was used for the Business’s parking and storage of vehicles.
The BZA granted the requested variance under Appeal # 2274, based on a preliminary
subdivision map showing Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐18 being consolidated with Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐2.
Furthermore, the BZA stipulated that any new business/commercial use at 327 Elmira Road
be one with a business operation similar to the Nichol Block’s business. Subsequently, 327
Elmira Road was sold to J.C. Smith Construction Equipment, a use that met the Board’s
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
imposed use restriction for the property. Barton Myer, the applicant proposes to renovate the
existing building closest to Elmira Road for use as an assembly space for receptions, services,
and other gatherings. While a permitted use in the SW-‐2 zone, this building does not meet the
zoning district’s required front yard requirements. This building is approximately 94 feet
from the Elmira Road Street curb, the front yard requirement that the 35% of the building’s
frontage be set back from the street curb between 15 and 34 feet. The building at the rear of
the property will be used for customary funeral home services and will include office space.
The applicant will develop Tax Parcel 124.-‐1-‐18 as a landscaped parking area which will
provide 46 parking spaces for both uses located on the property. The portion of the property
at 327 Elmira Road consisting of Parcel 124.-‐1.2 and 124.-‐1-‐18 where the proposed covered
parking area, the funeral home service building, and the associated off-‐street parking for both
buildings will be located is in an R-‐2a use district where such uses are not permitted. Finally,
Section 325-‐38 requires that both the requested use variance and the area variance from the
SW-‐2 Zone’s front yard setback requirements be granted before a Building permit is issued.
The Planning Board supports granting this appeal. It finds that the proposed project greatly
improves the existing interface between the residential and commercial uses. The proposed
use is more compatible with residential than the existing use; and the project provides a
substantial and attractive visual buffer for the adjacent residents.
Appeal #3007 — 314 Park Place: Area Variance
Appeal of Kurt Martin, owner of 314 Park Place, for Area Variances from Section 325-‐8,
Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, Percentage of Lot Coverage,
Front Yard, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively, requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to convert an existing one-‐family dwelling at 314 Park Place to a
two-‐family dwelling, having two bedrooms in each unit. This property has a number of
existing area deficiencies, but only the deficiency for off-‐street parking will increase. The
property does not meet the requirements of Section 325-‐8, Column 4 (Off-‐Street Parking). As
a single-‐family home, the required off-‐street parking for the existing three bedroom house is
one space, but the property has no off-‐street parking spaces. The proposed two-‐family
dwelling needs two parking spaces.
The property at 314 Park Place also has a number of existing deficiencies that will not be
increased by the applicant’s proposal. The property does not meet the requirements of:
• Column 6, Lot Area Lot size is 1,864 SF; required is 3,000 SF.
• Column 10, Lot Coverage Maximum percentage of lot coverage is 35%; lot coverage is
65.8%.
• Column 11, Front Yard Front yard is 4’2”; required is 10’.
• Column 12, Side Yard Side yard is 3’8”; required is 10’.
• Column 13, Other Side Yard Other side yard is 3’5”; required is 5’.
• Column 14/15, Rear Yard Rear yard is minus 0.3’; required is 20’.
The property at 314 Park Place is in an R-‐2b Zoning District, where the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-‐38 requires that variances be granted before a Building
Permit is issued.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
The Planning Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and
supports granting it. Neighbors have indicated that they support the project and the Board
recognizes the importance of opportunities for more housing within the City.
5. Old / New Business
A. December 2015 Planning Board Training – Update
Nicholas announced that the “Facilitating Effective Participation in the Heated Public
Meeting” training will be on December 10, 2015, satisfying the Board’s mandatory
annual training requirement.
B. Planning Board Memorandum to Board of Public Works (BPW) – Proposal for
Discontinuance of Portions of Lake Avenue & Adams Street
The Board discussed and approved the following text of a memorandum to the BPW:
To:
Board
of
Public
Works
From:
Planning
and
Development
Board
Date:
November
25,
2015
Re:
Planning
Board
Comments
on
Discontinuance
of
Portions
of
Lake
Ave.
and
Adams
St.
The
Planning
Board
conducted
its
review
of
the
proposed
development
at
210
Hancock
Street
between
March
and
August
2015,
and
granted
Final
Site
Plan
Review
on
August
25,
2015.
During
that
time,
the
Board
strongly
advocated
for
the
proposed
conversion
of
portions
of
Lake
Ave.
and
Adams
St.
into
a
bike
and
pedestrian
way,
play
area,
and
green
space
that
would
be
closed
to
public
vehicular
traffic.
The
Board
fully
supports
this
conversion
which
requires
legal
discontinuance.
As
stated
in
Part
3
of
the
Full
Environmental
Assessment
Form
(FEAF),
the
Board
identified
the
following
major
benefit
of
the
conversion:
“The
path
would
provide
a
connection
to
the
existing
path
at
Conley
Park
directly
to
the
north
and
ultimately
to
the
Cayuga
Waterfront
Trail
(CWT)
via
the
improved
NYS
Rte.
13
and
Dey
Street
crossings
currently
under
construction.
The
installation
of
green
space
and
a
playground
extension
on
Adams
functionally
expands
Conley
Park.
The
effect
of
this
conversion
will
be
a
continuous
two-‐block
park
along
Cascadilla
Creek
that
will
protect
water
quality
in
the
creek
and
greatly
enhance
the
beauty,
value,
and
accessibility
of
this
natural
feature
in
the
neighborhood.
The
structured
play
area
will
provide
an
amenity
that
the
neighborhood
currently
lacks.
Thus
it
is
anticipated
that
the
proposed
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
project
will
improve
open
space
and
recreational
opportunities
in
the
vicinity
of
the
project
site.”
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Cornish announced a committee has been formed to review responses to a Request for
Qualifications for a professional consultant to work on the forthcoming Collegetown and
downtown design standards project. Four firms have submitted responses.
Cornish reported that City staff participated in a FEMA community assistance visit, in
anticipation of the City’s becoming part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The
City is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct new mapping for
floodplains and flood zones.
Planning staff members continue to meet with the Chain Works District Redevelopment
Project team to produce the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dGEIS).
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling noted the BPW has received more negative feedback about food trucks in
Collegetown. He said BPW has issued licenses for food trucks in locations that were not
anticipated to generate any conflict; the only area in which there appears to be any such
conflict is Collegetown.
Internet service provider Fiberspark is expanding its high-speed residential broadband
service to the Belle Sherman area, Darling said. It has already launched in Collegetown.
Darling reported that residents of the 500 block of West Clinton Street have submitted a
petition for a new streetlight, and there are other places in the City that could probably
also benefit from new streetlights. He said the City may be able to identify new ways of
addressing this type of problem (e.g., creating lighting districts).
7. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft June 30, 2015 special
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
Absent: Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:10 p.m.