HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-12-22DRAFT 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
December 22, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis;
C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott
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: Three Duplexes at 804 E. State Street
Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture;
Ike Nestopoulous, Owner
Site Improvements at 416-418 E. State Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Avi Smith, Argos Inn, Owner
Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building
at 118 E. Seneca Street
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Greg Hartz, President & CEO, Tompkins Trust Company
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas announced that the Ithaca Marriott Hotel project representative was unable to
attend, as originally anticipated, so review of that agenda item will be deferred until a future
meeting.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of developing
the Inlet Island and waterfront area.
Graham Kerslick, 115 Orchard Place, Fourth Ward Alderperson, spoke regarding the 804 E.
State Street project, stating it would be a mistake to convert the sidewalk along the access
drive to striped asphalt, rather than concrete; this would not be a safe pedestrian environment,
he maintained. Kerslick also spoke in opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street
project, saying that the project would only extend the problems associated with the Argos Inn
to the rest of the neighborhood. He is also concerned with the presence of the food truck on
the Argos Inn property, and its impact on the neighborhood and parking.
Eric Rosario, 420 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to the same project, reporting that he
and other neighbors had lodged a formal complaint with the Planning Division regarding the
shared parking arrangement, which they believe was based on inaccurate measurements; they
are requesting independent measurements by City staff. He said the complaint was filed after
communicating with City Director of Zoning Administration Phyllis Radke, regarding how
the required number of parking spaces was calculated. He said Radke informed the neighbors
that she routinely employs numbers provided by project developers / applicants, but that if
there were any question about them the neighbors should file a complaint with the City. The
neighbors believe there are at most 27 parking spaces in the parking lot, said Rosario, and
they doubt the shared parking arrangement is a feasible solution, as it does not appear to meet
the standard of substantially different operating times, nor is it clear it would serve as a long-
term solution.
David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, added his voice against the same project, stating that the
applicants did not include a portion of Bar Argos in the figures used to calculate the parking
requirements. Had they done so, he said, an additional 3-4 parking spaces would have been
required. Furthermore, he added, the length of the parking lot is less than the 136 feet on both
sides suggested by the applicants. Halpert also reported that the neighbors invited the project
acoustic engineer to take sound measurements on their properties; he declined to do so,
saying it was not in his scope of work.
Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Place, was another speaker opposed to the 416-418 E. State Street
project. He reported that on December 8, 2015 the neighbors requested an informal
measurement of the parking lot, and added he cannot envision why there would be only
enough space for 14 cars on one side of the parking lot, but space for 16 cars on the other
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
side. Even if there were enough space to accommodate all the required cars, he said, the
egresses from the building to the parking lot would be blocked. He said every plan the
applicants have submitted appears to be different in terms of the number of cars they claim
could fit into the parking lot. All the neighbors are requesting, he concluded, is a clear and
unambiguous measurement of this lot.
Neha Khanna, 420 E. State Street, opposed the same project, claiming an inconsistency in
the size of the parking lot versus the number of cars the applicant says it can accommodate.
She said the assembly space behind the Bar Argos staircase was never included in the
parking space requirement calculations, and that the neighbors are unclear about how the
exterior assembly space was measured.
Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca Street, also objected to the 416-418 E. State Street project,
identifying the noise issue as his principal concern. Over the past two summers, he said he
and his wife have been through a horrific experience of having to listen to clearly audible
conversations from the Argos Inn. His bedroom, he explained, is only 140 feet from the
Argos Inn patio. Enforcement of the Noise Ordinance by relying on complaints to the Police
Department is not a solution, he added. He also believes the fact that no Site Plan Review
had been performed for the Argos Inn patio is outrageous. He stressed there is absolutely no
neighborhood support for proposed new project.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Two Duplexes, 804 E. State Street / M.L.K., Jr. Boulevard, John Puglia & Ike
Nestopoulos. Request for Project Change. Applicants are requesting a change to the
approved site plan. They ask that the sidewalk along the site access drive be stripped
asphalt, rather than concrete.
Owner Ike Nestopoulos and architect Tom Schickel described the details of the request.
Nestopoulos noted that after construction began, as work progressed, it became apparent
that the project would appear far more uniform if they there were no concrete sidewalk
running down from Blair Street. They propose making the entire sidewalk and driveway
surface striped asphalt, with a painted stripe between the two. He said this would make it
significantly easier to plough. Schickel added that the amount of vehicular traffic
employing the driveway is minuscule.
Jones-Rounds asked if, when the project was approved with the concrete, it was going to
be a raised sidewalk. Schickel replied, no. Fire Chief Tom Parsons specifically preferred
it to be flush for fire truck access purposes. Nicholas said she has examined the approved
site plan; and while the driveway is flush with the sidewalk, there is a tooled joint
between the two in that plan.
Jones-Rounds remarked there would definitely be occasions when pedestrians walk after
dark, at which point a lack of differentiation between the sidewalk and driveway would
be a serious safety concern.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Schickel responded that the applicants could apply any configuration of striping to make
it mimic a sidewalk as much as possible. They are proposing a single six-inch white line
to demarcate the driveway.
Schroeder responded the ideal situation would have been a raised curb, but since that was
not possible, it has become even more crucial to have some form of permanent visual
differentiation between the sidewalk and the driveway. He said any striping would be
sure to fade over time, making the entire space look simply like one single large
driveway. He said he is not aware of the Board approving any project set back from the
street without a dedicated sidewalk extending into the site. Furthermore, he noted, the
City’s Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that pedestrians should be prioritized over
vehicles. He said he could not possibly support the applicants’ proposal.
Randall, Darling, and Lewis all agreed. The Board consensus was to retain the concrete
sidewalk, as shown in the approved site plan.
B. Site Improvements, 416-418 E. State Street, Scott Whitham. Determination of
Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant proposes to
convert a portion of existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate 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 adjacent parking area, realignment of curbing to provide better
maneuverability in the 2-car 1-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and
signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 31 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 East Hill Historic District. The project requires
variances for existing area deficiencies and loading and has received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). 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 Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and Avi Smith, Argos
Inn, owner, updated the Board on the proposed project.
Blalock recapitulated the history and timeline of the project.
Whitham noted that last month there had been some question about Director of Zoning
Administration Phyllis Radke’s determination (regarding parking spaces required by the
Argos Inn), which has now been clarified. There was also a request for further
clarification of the Memorandum of Understanding, which has been provided. And in
response to previous Board concerns, the applicants have further developed the site plan
(e.g., chained-off area has now been delineated with a rolling partition).
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
Schroeder observed that in one drawing, dated December 16, the food truck is shown
behind the Argos Inn; however, in another drawing, dated December 10, it is designated
at northeast parking space #1. Whitham explained that the latter was meant to identify
that spot as a potential location; however the food truck has now been designed
designated for the area above the patio. Smith confirmed that will be the case.
Whitham clarified that the December 10 drawing to which Schroeder referred should be
considered obsolete; the Board should assume the updated December 16 drawing to be
the correct one.
Schroeder asked how the food truck would reach its parking space behind the patio, if the
handicapped parking spaces leading up to it were occupied. Smith replied that the food
truck virtually always arrives when the parking lot is largely empty. Whitham added that
it could drive through the drive aisle ADA unloading zone, if the handicapped parking
spaces were to be occupied.
Schroeder observed that the December 10 drawing that has just been declared obsolete
serves as Appendix A of the proposed shared parking Memorandum of Understanding.
He added that the December 16 drawing cannot serve as a substitute, because it lacks the
colors showing parking use by time of day. Whitham replied that the applicants could
certainly provide a revised Appendix A reflecting the new food truck location shown in
the December 16 drawing.
Smith remarked that if it were ultimately concluded that the shared parking arrangement
could not function with the food truck, then the food truck service would be discontinued.
Schroeder noted the site plan depicts an entryway from the shared parking lot leading up
to the bar entrance (in addition to a sidewalk entrance from State Street); however, he
does not see how people could access the former if there is a car in the adjacent parking
space. Whitham replied they could access it between the two cars.
Schroeder asked if Radke is investigating the exact dimensions of the parking lot.
Cornish replied that Radke confirmed that the dimensions are correct, based on the
dimensions provided on a drawing from a licensed professional engineer / architect.
Cornish noted that Radke also explained that the City does not field check the data
contained in every project application.
Jones-Rounds remarked that she would like to address some of the neighborhood
concerns that have been expressed, especially since the Board would likely already have
approved the project in the absence of those community concerns. She believes
considering the project in light of what is permitted by zoning on the property may help
to place the proposed project in better context (i.e., it could be a gas station, a welding
shop, or several other kinds of less desirable projects). She said she definitely wants to be
as sensitive as possible to the neighborhood’s concerns, while remaining realistic about
the neighborhood’s location in a transition zone at the edge of downtown. She said it is
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
not the Planning Board’s role to approve one use of the site over another; the Board is
merely responsible for approving alterations to the site.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
The Planning Board reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3.
Nicholas reported that the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the Memorandum of
Understanding and recommended that the document should explicitly state that, should
the shared parking agreement ever cease to exist, 416-418 E. State Street would
automatically be considered out-of-compliance with the terms of Site Plan Approval and
would need to either obtain a Zoning Variance or submit a satisfactory alternative shared
parking agreement.
Jones-Rounds asked how the Planning Board and / or the City would ever know if the
shared parking agreement ceases to exist. Schroeder responded that the applicants should
be required to inform the City. Nicholas added that the property is also required to be re-
inspected on a regular basis by the Building Division; so the property owners could be
required to verify the shared parking agreement at that time, in order to obtain a
Certificate of Compliance.
Schroeder suggested some revisions and corrections to the FEAF, Part 3, to which the
Board agreed.
The Planning Board reviewed the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU).
Schroeder said this document should limit the hours of operation of the businesses
themselves, not simply the hours of operation of the parking spaces. He also suggested
other needed MOU changes.
Jones-Rounds asked what the applicants propose for parking signage. Whitham replied
that the details regarding parking signage could be required by the Planning Board as a
Site Plan Approval condition. Jones-Rounds suggested a description of the parking
signage details should also be included in the MOU.
Blalock asked the Board if there is any other information it would like to receive from the
applicants. Jones-Rounds noted she would like to see the updated version of the MOU.
Schroeder again expressed concern that the entryway from the shared parking lot leading
up to the bar entrance is blocked by a parking space. Schroeder asked if an aisle between
parking spaces could be striped to provide an access route to this entryway. Whitham
replied there is a five-foot entry width off the State Street sidewalk. Schroeder responded
that he would have no objection to a walkable aisle, if that would in fact work. Any
pedestrian walkway should be functional at all times; and should be at least five-feet
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
wide. Whitham replied it would not be five-feet wide.
Schroeder indicated he is prepared to vote for approval of the CEQR resolution at this
time. He believes the Planning Board has done everything it can via the environmental
review process to mitigate identified concerns.
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 building and site improvements to be located at
416 E. State St. / M.L.K., Jr. Blvd., and
WHEREAS: 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 1-car parking area,
walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment
require 29 31 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 loading
and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: 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), 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, 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, has on
December 22, 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: “Proposed Signage + Bench Detail,” dated
11/19/15 and prepared by Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; and “Existing-Proposed
Elevations,” dated 11/12/15; and “Argos Inn + Printing Press: Use Types + Shared
Parking + Food Truck Location” and “Proposed Landscape Plan,” dated 12/10/15, with
no attribution; and other application materials, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more
clearly explained in Part 3, that the applicant has mitigated any negative impacts of the
project to the maximum extent practicable, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency received comments questioning the adequacy of the
existing parking at 408 E. State St. to serve both properties, and
WHEREAS: in response to these concerns, the applicant has submitted the following
drawings: “Argos Parking Analysis,” dated 12/11/15 and showing measurements of the
current bar assembly space and associated parking calculations, showing 796 SF of space
and 16 spaces needed; and “Site Analysis Plan (R1.01),” dated 12/16/15, showing the
number, location, and dimensions of parking spaces at 408 E. State Street, both prepared
by Jason Demarest Architect, and
WHEREAS: the Director of Zoning Administration has reviewed the above information
prepared by a licensed professional architect and accepted it to support the parking
calculations, and
WHEREAS: in light of the information described above, as well as other information
described in the FEAF, Part 3, the Lead Agency finds that the shared parking
arrangement is acceptable, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has received comments regarding the potential impact to
the adjacent rear neighbors of noise generated from activities related to the proposed use
of the building, particularly noises from exterior activities, informal gatherings, and
congregation in the parking lot, and
WHEREAS: in response to the Lead Agency’s concerns about noise having a negative
impact on neighbors, the applicant redesigned the project in the following ways:
• Relocated the bar to the center of the building
• Removed the rear entrance (to the bar) and deck
• Removed the operable garage doors
• Created pedestrian connections to the main entrance of the bar at the southwest corner of
the property, thus keeping entering and exiting as far as possible from residential neighbors
• Provided a designated outdoor smoking area at the southwest corner of the building that is
enclosed on two sides by the building
• Provided landscape plantings that create both physical barriers to outdoor gatherings and
movements, as well as a visual screen, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency is requiring, and the applicant has agreed to, the
implementation of the recommendations of the acoustical study (attached), dated
11/16/15 and prepared by Seth E. Waltz, President of AVL Design Incorporated,
including:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
1. Full compliance with the “Base Recommendations” found on page four,
2. Full compliance with the “Live Music” recommendations found on page five,
including installation of sealed window interior glazing with trapped air space to
the interior of the windows, which must be inoperable,
3. Full compliance with the “Monitoring” recommendations found on page five,
4. Full compliance with the “Smoking Area” recommendations found on page five,
and
WHEREAS: Board members and residents expressed concerns about the choice of
testing locations. In response, the applicant submitted a letter, dated 11/25/15 and
prepared by Seth E. Waltz, President of AVL Design Incorporated, describing the
methodology for the study, and
WHEREAS: in addition, under the terms of the MOU between the owners of 416 and
408 E. State Street, the owner of 408 E. State Street will be obligated to close the outdoor
patio and food truck at 9:00 p.m. Although these elements are not part of the proposed
project (except for their inclusion in the MOU), they are a primary source of many noise
concerns expressed by the neighbors, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency finds that the applicant has made revisions to the project
that mitigate the potential impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Any future
changes to the site plan will potentially require further environmental review, 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, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
C. Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building, 118 E. Seneca Street, Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Consideration of Final Approval. The
applicant proposes to construct a seven-story, 110,000-SF office building as a new
corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca Street, and to relocate the existing drive-through
teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new building will
have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will include
retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building. There will be
20-25 parking spaces accommodated on-site to the north of the ground-floor footprint and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor will be 16,300 SF.
Originally, the front of the building was to be set back several feet from the street line to
align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new 985-
SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified to
create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a
through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a
new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District. The
seven-story building has received Design Review. This is a Type I Action under the City
of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4]
and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv),
for which environmental review is complete. Phase I of the project (Drive-Through at
119 E. Seneca Street) received Final Site Plan Approval on 7/28/15.
Applicants Steve Hugo and Nathan Brown of HOLT Architects, Kim Michaels of
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and Greg Hartz of Tompkins
Trust Company, updated the Board on the proposed project.
Michaels reported that the applicants explored the possibility of widening the sidewalk,
per the Planning Board’s request. They redesigned the project with a bump-out and
submitted it to the NYS Department of Transportation. They also submitted it to Parking
Director Frank Nagy and City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue — however, neither
Nagy nor Logue supported the proposal. Nagy and Logue asked that the proposal be
submitted to the Board of Public Works (BPW), and they indicated they would oppose it.
As a result, the current proposal retains the sidewalk at the curbline. The applicants have
also provided the Planning Board with the building materials and the Transportation
Demand Management Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan still needs to be
approved, although there are only rudimentary requirements.
Hugo pointed out the more three-dimensional nature of the principal façade, done in
response to feedback from an earlier Planning Board meeting.
The architects presented building material samples to the Board, and explained that the
vertical recessed areas within the stone veneer portion of the front façade would feature
the same stone, but with a rougher texture to add apparent depth.
Schroeder asked if mortar colors for the brick had been determined. Hugo replied that it
would be gray. Schroeder suggested the building’s appearance would be enhanced if the
respective mortars used with each of the two respective brick colors was, in each case,
complementary in hue — and, in particular, if the mortar used with the black brick would
be a similar dark hue.
Darling reported that he broached the subject of this portion of Seneca Street’s blocks
being wider than rest of the street, at the last BPW meeting, along with what would be
required to align those curbs (including readjusting the one in front of the Hilton Garden
Inn). He said he would bring the subject up again at a future BPW meeting.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
Cornish stated the Planning Division absolutely supports making the sidewalk wider and
narrowing the street.
Schroeder explained that the curb-to-curb width of E. Seneca Street from Cayuga Street
to the Tuning Fork was about six feet wider than the curb-to-curb width of W. Seneca
Street. He said the idea of narrowing the wider portion to match the W. Seneca Street
width was discussed at the Project Review Committee meeting as a way to provide both
adequate sidewalk width and canopy street trees along the entire stretch of E. Seneca
Street within the Central Business District. (As it is now, street trees have had to be
removed from the Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building project, because otherwise
adequate sidewalk width in front of the new building would be impossible.)
Schroeder suggested that the Board approve a formal resolution to the BPW advocating
the aforementioned transformation of E. Seneca Street. Cornish said she would draft the
resolution for review at next month’s Planning Board meeting.
Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a seven-story office building and drive-
through teller building, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a seven-story, 110,000-SF office
building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing
drive-through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new
building will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and
will include retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building.
There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on-site to the north of the ground-
floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor
will be 16,300 SF. Originally, the front of the building was to be set back several feet
from the street line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street
will include a new 985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles
will be modified to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up
teller station, and a through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with
the teller stations, a new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in the CBD-100
Zoning District. The seven-story building 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) (h)[4] and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the project, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on June 23, 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
June 23, 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 of No. 109 No. 111 and No. 113-119 & 121 East Seneca Street, City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” and “Boundary and Topographic Map Showing
Lands of Tompkins Trust Company, Located at 118 East Seneca Street, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County New York,” both prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and dated 2/25/15;
“Utility Demolition Plan (C101 & C102),” “Utility Plan (C103 & C104),” “South Side
Rendering (L001),” “North Side Rendering (L001),” “Demo Plan (L101 & L102),”
“Layout Plan (L201 & L202),” “Grading Plan L301 & L302),” “Planting Plan (L401 &
L402),” “Site Details (L501),” “Ground Floor Plan (A101),” “2nd-7th Floors (A102),”
“Ground Floor Plan (A103),” “Headquarters Elevation South (A201),” “Headquarters
Elevation East (A202),” “Headquarters Elevation North (A203),” “Headquarters
Elevation West (A204),” “Drive Thru Elevation North (A205),” “Drive Thru Elevation
East (A206),” “Drive Thru Elevation South (A207),” and “Drive Thru Elevation West
(A208),” all dated May 12, 2015; and “Street Corner Perspectives,” “Street Elevations,”
“Headquarters Perspective,” and “Drive Thru Perspective,” dated June 9, 2015 and all
prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP and HOLT
Architects; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 23, 2015 determine the
proposed project would result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a
Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 23, 2015 grant
Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the entire project (both the Headquarters Building and
the Drive-Through), 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 for approval by the Planning Board of revised building elevations,
site plan, and other materials, showing applicant’s response to the
aforementioned June 8, 2015 recommendations of the Design Review
Committee, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored elevations keyed to
materials samples board, and building materials, and
v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but
not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and
vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan, that, at a minimum, provides an inventory of existing
employee commuting patterns and modes, location and capacity of current
parking facilities, future anticipated needs, as well as strategies to provide
incentives for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commuting, and
vii. Applicant shall seek permission from adjacent property owner for planting of
tall trees to help screen northwest corner of proposed headquarters building
from DeWitt Park, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on July 28, 2015 review and accept as adequate the
following revised and updated drawings pertaining to the Drive-Through portion of the
project: “Site Utility Plan (C101),” “Site Utility Details (C201),” “South Side Rendering
(L001),” “Demo Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting
Plan (L401),” “First Floor Plan (A100),” “Elevation - West (A201),” “Elevation - East
(A202),” “Elevation - North (A203),” “Elevation - South (A204),” “Perspective
Northeast (A301),” “Perspective North (A302),” “Perspective Northwest (A303),” and
“Site Details (L501),” all dated July 14, 2015 and prepared by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects and HOLT Architects; and other application materials,
and
WHEREAS: the Board found that the applicant had satisfied condition “i.,” “iii.,” and
partially satisfied condition “iv.,” pertaining to the Drive-Through portion of the project,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on July 28, 2015 grant Final Site
Plan Approval to the Drive-Through portion of the project at 119 E. Seneca St., subject to
the following conditions:
i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored elevations keyed to
materials samples board, and building materials, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but
not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and
WHEREAS: the applicant now seeks approval for the Headquarters Building, located at
118 E. Seneca St., and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board had requested the width of the sidewalk in front of the
building be a minimum of 12 feet from curb to building face with an unobstructed
pedestrian zone of at least 9 feet. Due to site constraints, the applicant had agreed to
provide a sidewalk varying from 10.5 to 11.5 feet in width and, further, to seek approval
from the NYS DOT and the Board of Public Works (BPW) to install a curb bump-out
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
(rather than 4 parallel parking spaces) in front of the headquarters to provide more ample
pedestrian space, plus room for large street trees, and
WHEREAS: City Public Works staff reviewed the bump-out proposal and determined
they would not recommend the proposal to the BPW, primarily because the benefits of
the proposal would not outweigh the opportunity for new on-street parking in the
downtown core, and
WHEREAS: the applicant also added pilasters to the façade of the building to create
more architectural interest. This addition improves the building, but removes the
previously proposed building setback from the property line that provided additional
sidewalk width, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has determined that due to the removal of the building
setback and the fact there will not be a curb bump-out, the sidewalk cannot accommodate
a generous pedestrian zone, as well as street trees, and has therefore reluctantly directed
the applicant to remove them from the Site Plan, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board intends to request that the Board of Public Works
consider developing a long-term plan for the streetscape of East Seneca Street, providing
a modified street width sufficient to accommodate a wide sidewalk, street trees, and on-
street parking, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on December 22, 2015 reviewed and accepted as
adequate the following revised and updated drawings pertaining to the Headquarters
portion of the project: “Utility Demolition Plan (C101),” “Site Utility Plan (C102),”
“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C103),” dated December 8, 2015, and “Site Utility
Details (C201),” prepared by HOLT Architects and T.G. Miller, P.C., “Demo Plan
(L101),” and “Layout Plan (L201),” dated December 15, 2015, and “Rendering (L001),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501 & L502),” all
dated December 8, 2015, and “First Floor Plan (AP101),” “Typical 3rd-7th Floors
(A102),” “Second Floor Plan (AP112),” “Roof Plan (AP113),” “Street Elevation
(AP103),” “South Elevation (AP104),” “West Elevation (AP105),” “North Elevation
(AP106),” “East Elevation (AP107),” “Seneca Street Looking East (AP108),” “Seneca
Street Looking West (AP109),” “Buffalo Street Looking West (AP110),” and “Buffalo
Street Looking East (AP111),” all dated December 4, 2015 and prepared by Trowbridge
Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP and HOLT Architects; and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board finds the applicant has satisfied conditions i., ii., iii., vi., vii., and
partially satisfied conditions iv. and v., pertaining to the Headquarters portion of the
project, •••and••• now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the
Headquarters Building to be located at 118 E. Seneca St., subject to the following
conditions:
i. The applicant will make every effort to lower the height of the mechanical
penthouse to the greatest extent possible. This penthouse and the rooftop
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
mechanical screen shall be the same color as the main building’s metal panel
system, and
ii. The applicant shall submit revised drawings showing removal of the three street
trees on E. Seneca St., for the reasons explained in detail above, and
iii. Submission for approval by Planning Board of building materials samples, and
iv. Submission for approval by Planning Board of project details, including
signage and lighting, and
v. Noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and
The following mitigations from the FEAF, Part 3:
vi. Before pile-driving begins, applicant shall document the condition of buildings
in the project’s immediate vicinity, and
vii. Applicant shall use the pile-driving vibration monitoring techniques described
in the FEAF, Part 3, and
viii. Pile-driving will be restricted to the house hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday-Friday, and
ix. All contractor parking shall be directed toward the Cayuga Street Garage.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
4. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2991 — 416-418 E. State Street / M.L.K, Jr. Boulevard: Area Variances
Appeal of Ben Rosenblum, owner of 416-418 East State Street, for Area Variances from
Section 325-8, Columns 5, 10, 12, and 13, Off-Street Loading, Percentage of Lot Coverage,
Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to renovate the existing building at 416-418 East State Street, now
partially occupied. One apartment occupies the second floor; and a portion of the first floor is
used as office space. In the past, the major portion of the first-floor space was used as a
printing plant and is now vacant. The applicant proposes to renovate this space for a new 800-
SF bar and create additional office space. In order to convert the unoccupied space on the first
floor to the new permitted uses, the applicant must obtain variances for the existing
deficiencies as well as a variance for the lack of one loading space. The property at 416-418
East State Street has existing deficiencies pertaining to lot coverage, side yard, and other side
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
yard setbacks. Percentage of lot coverage is 60%; allowed is 50%. The building also is
deficient in side yard and other side yard setbacks. The side yard to the west of the building is
0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard to the east of the building is 0.1 feet;
required is 5 feet.
The bar, apartment, and office uses require 29 off-street parking spaces. There is one space
for handicapped parking in the front yard of 416-418 East State Street. The applicant states a
Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Argos Inn at 408 East State Street, a
contiguous property west of 416-418 East State Street, where the additional 28 spaces needed
for the bar, apartment, and office uses at 416-418 East State Street can be met at the Argos
Inn under a shared parking agreement. There is no space at either 408 East State Street or
416-418 East State Street for an off-street loading space of 450 SF.
The property at 416-418 East State Street is in a B-4 Zoning District, where the proposed bar,
apartment, and office spaces are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances
be granted before a Building Permit is issued.
Please see the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, for a detailed
discussion of the potential impacts of the project and the agreed-upon mitigations.
Appeal #3010 — 116 W. Falls Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Mihal Ronen for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard
Setback, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes renovations to her home at 116 West Falls Street to include adding a
new porch and entry that will extend into the required front yard setback. This property
currently has a front yard setback of 15’1”; required is a 10-foot setback. The approximately
113.6-SF porch will extend approximately 8’9” closer to the front yard property line and
reduce the existing front yard setback to 6’4”. The property at 116 West Falls Street is in a R-
2b Zoning District where the single-family residence is a permitted use; however, Section
325-38 requires that an Area Variance be granted before a Building Permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and
supports granting it.
Appeal #3011 — 105 First Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for Jerone Gagliano, owner of 105 First
Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 12 and 13, Side Yard and Other Side
Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is in the process of rebuilding a section of his home that has suffered water and
insect damage over the years. Believing the accuracy of a site survey, the applicant
demolished part of the rear portion of the existing house and roof, including the roof on the
associated rear porch. However, new measurements show this reconstructed section of the
house is actually 3’9” from the side yard lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-foot side
yard setback. In addition, the applicant also proposes to change the roof line on the
reconstructed portion of the house in order to raise the porch’s ceiling height to Building
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Code standard. The existing porch is 8’7” from the other side yard lot line; required is a 10-
foot side yard setback. Though the porch remains, the new roof is considered an extension of
the existing side yard deficiency. The property at 105 First Street is located in an R-2b use
district, where single-family homes are permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a
variance be granted before the Building Permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and
supports granting it.
5. Old / New Business
A. Board Operating Procedures
Blalock remarked that most Planning Board members participated in the recent
“Facilitating Effective Participation in the Heated Public Meeting” training. One of the
suggestions that emerged from that training was for the Board to periodically discuss how
it would like to function from a procedural and logistical perspective. A “Town Board
Proposed Operating Procedures” handout from the training has been distributed to initiate
the discussion.
Nicholas suggested walking through each operating procedure in the handout and
agreeing on whether to adopt each one. Schroeder responded he would prefer to frame
the discussion by focusing on the known problem areas the Planning Board would most
like to address.
Jones-Rounds noted she liked the ideas of (1) coming up with a way for Planning Board
members to support each other when meetings become too heated, and (2) choosing a
system, like Robert’s Rules of Order, to help manage meetings. Darling said the Board
needs to determine how formal it would like to be; it currently operates relatively
informally. He suggested instituting breaks after 2.5 hours of meeting time.
Jones-Rounds suggested having a discussion at the beginning of each agenda item (in
language that is accessible to non-Board members) about the history and status of that
particular project. Randall suggested clearly delineating the scope of what is and is not
within the Planning Board’s official purview.
Darling added that having a consistent handout of some kind, explaining these kinds of
things, available for the public to review at each meeting, may be helpful.
Schroeder indicated he would like to clearly explain to the public that if every
environmental concern has been addressed, the Planning Board has pursued every
possible line of inquiry, and the applicant has provided adequate mitigations for those
concerns, then it would be irresponsible for the Board not to approve the environmental
review.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
Blalock recalled a suggestion about having a greeter at the door to assist members of the
public in familiarizing themselves with the process. He agreed it would be helpful to
create a handout of some kind (e.g., multiple laminated two-page overviews about what
the Planning Board does).
Darling stated it would also be helpful if the public were informed that it is within the
Chair’s purview to limit public speaking to one minute, under certain special
circumstances. Randall remarked the Board could also leave some Public Hearings open
and continue them until the following month. Blalock suggested strongly stressing to the
public that the most effective way to present public comments is in written form (well in
advance of the meeting).
Darling suggested using a louder alarm for the public speaking timer. Pyott replied it may
also be helpful to display a running timer countdown on the overhead projector screen.
Blalock noted that in those rare instances when a member of the public happens to have
information the Planning Board needs to hear, the Board could recognize that person and
invite him / her to the witness table — making it explicitly clear to the rest of the public
in the room that he or she is being called on to present specific information to the
Planning Board, and not merely express a general opinion on a subject.
B. Planning Board / ILPC Joint Meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Re: Old Library
Project
Nicholas reminded Board members that the joint Planning Board / ILPC meeting to
discuss the Old Tompkins County Public Library Project will be held on the ILPC’s
regularly scheduled meeting date, Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Common Council
Chambers. (This meeting was subsequently rescheduled to the Planning Board’s
regularly scheduled meeting date, Tuesday, January 26, 2016.)
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling reported on the Lake Street Bridge Park Project, which the BPW has approved.
He said the recommendation is to have a handicapped-accessible sidewalk installed to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
make the park more accessible; however, there has been some pushback from Common
Council that this would be too much paving. (In Darling’s opinion, it would be
irresponsible not to install some kind of accessible sidewalk.) He suggested it may be
helpful for the Planning Board to send a resolution to the BPW on the subject.
Darling indicated the food truck issue will be returning to the BPW for another review. It
has been suggested that the Planning Board also help review the policy.
7. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft October 27, 2015 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.