HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-01-26DRAFT 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
January 26, 2016
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair (left 10:17 p.m.); Mark Darling;
Jack Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds;
Robert Aaron Lewis; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: C. J. Randall
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: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
at 620 S. Aurora Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.;
David Lubin, Unchained Properties
101-107 Morris Avenue
George Frantz, Tioga Urbanscapes, LLC
Cayuga Place Two Apartments
(no one appeared on behalf of the project)
Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel)
at 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Catherine DeAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Neil Patel, Ithaca Downtown Associates, LLC /
Baywood Hotels
Parking for 5 Cars at 424 Dryden Road
Daniel R. Hirtler, Flatfield Designs;
Angie Chen, Owner
E-Hub College Avenue at 409 College Avenue
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Dan Kathan, Student Agencies, Inc.;
Kyle Karnes, Student Agencies, Inc.;
Madeline Lieber, Student Agencies, Inc.
Elmira Savings Bank Relocation at 409 Meadow Street
Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Thomas M. Carr, President & CEO, Elmira Savings Bank
Cherry Artspace at 102 Cherry Street
Samuel Buggeln, Performance Premises, LLC;
Nick Salvato, Performance Premises, LLC
Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m., following the conclusion of a special joint
meeting with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
(Chair Blalock preferred not to chair because he had just arrived in Ithaca after travel.)
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas announced that the new State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing &
Retail) at the Trebloc Building Site has been removed from the agenda at the applicant’s
request. (This is a different project than the eponymous one considered last year.)
She also wished to add discussion of two proposed City Code amendments regarding
possible revisions to the Telecommunications Fall Zone Ordinance and the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Ordinance under the “Old / New Business” agenda item. There were no
objections.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke briefly regarding
development on and around Inlet Island, declaring this whole area of the City needs
considerable improvement.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
3. Special Order of Business
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street, Scott Whitham
& Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of UnChained Properties, LLC. Presentation of
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) & Schedule. The proposed
Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse
Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the
City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common
Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district,
which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The project is a
mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four
existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site
adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within
remaining areas of the site. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), for which the Lead Agency made a Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 28, 2014, and adopted a Scope for
the GEIS on January 13, 2015.
Nicholas explained that Planning Board members have now received the DGEIS
schedule that lays out the timeline and associated benchmarks for the entire process
(including some special meetings). The Planning Board’s first task is to determine
whether it believes the DGEIS is adequate for public review, which should be done by
March 8, 2016. (The Town of Ithaca will also submit its own comments on the adequacy
of the DGEIS.) After the adequacy determination, there will be at least one Public
Hearing on March 29, 2016 and possibly a second on April 5, 2016, if necessary. Written
statements from members of the public can also be submitted at any point during the
public review period. Nicholas stressed that all substantive public comments need to be
addressed by the applicants, who will be responsible for drafting responses to the public
comments (with Planning Board participation, and ultimate approval). Other involved
agencies (e.g., NYS Department of Environmental Conservation) will also help formulate
responses to public comments.
Nicholas indicated it is the combination of (1) the DGEIS and (2) the responses to the
public comments that will then constitute the FGEIS, from which the Planning Board will
generate its official Findings Statement. The applicants are responsible for producing
drafting the final document FGEIS, under the supervision of the Planning Board, which
will approve a final version of that document. Nicholas said there will also be a similar,
simultaneous timeline associated with reviewing the project’s Planned Unit Development
(PUD) application.
Applicant Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C., recapitulated
summarized the current status of the project, noting that the Scoping Document was
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
adopted last year. Since that time, he said, the applicants have received two New York
Cleaner, Greener Communities Program grants. Gensel then walked through an overhead
presentation of the project, emphasizing that it includes a “Proposed Conceptual Site
Layout Plan” (seen below) that may change as the project evolves.
Cornish noted that an Environmental Impact Statement is required to address the entirety
of any given project; so this project’s environmental review will be based on the
conceptual site plan for the whole project, allowing the Planning Board to evaluate its
overall environmental impact.
Gensel noted the DGEIS identifies a wide variety of different project details (e.g., size,
square footage, anticipated uses, anticipated trip-generation, storm water, etc.). He
explained that part of the process involved exploring the following reasonable alternative
development scenarios for the project: (1) using the site as it exists currently and
employing environmental remediation to allow the site to be used for industrial uses; (2)
exploring development in accordance with existing zoning; and (3) examining the
maximum potential use of the site. He added that the applicants made minor changes to
the original sub-zones described in the Scoping Document.
Cornish noted that subject matter expert and lawyer Adam S. Walters, Phillips Lytle, has
been assisting the City with various aspects of this process.
Gensel remarked that the DGEIS will not be posted to the project website and made
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
available to the public until the Panning Planning Board formally determines it is
adequate.
Lubin indicated the applicants would like to hold joint meetings with the Planning Board
and the Town of Ithaca, whenever possible.
4. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 101-107 Morris Avenue, George Frantz for Habitat for
Humanity. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to the BZA. The applicant is
proposing to consolidate the existing two tax parcels (#44.-5-5 & #44.-5-6). The
applicant proposes to subdivide the resulting 6,154-SF (0.141-acre) parcel into two lots:
Lot 1, measuring approximately 3,076 2,949 SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third
Avenue; and Lot 2, measuring approximately 3,078 3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on
Third Avenue. The resultant parcels will have Third Street addresses. The applicant
intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable owner-occupied for-sale homes. The
project is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for one-
or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and minimum front, side and
rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The project requires Area Variances. 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.
Applicant George Frantz, Tioga Urbanscapes, LLC, presented a brief overview of the
proposed Subdivision, noting that Habitat for Humanity has a purchase contract for the
two lots on Morris Avenue. He said the proposal is to consolidate both parcels and
reconfigure them at ninety degrees to create two new lots, fronting on Third Street; the
applicants would then build a semi-detached dwelling for a two-family, owner-occupied
dwelling (or duplex), with a parti- party wall between the two units at the intermediate lot
line.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax
parcels: #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 located at 101 & 107 Morris Ave. The parcels will be
which will be consolidated first, then subdivided. The application is by George Frantz for
Habitat for Humanity, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to consolidate the exiting existing two tax parcels
(#44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6). The applicant proposes to subdivide the resultant 6.154 6,154-SF
(.141 0.141 acre) parcel into two lots•••;••• •••:••• Lot 1 measuring approximately 2,949
SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third Ave•••.;••• and Lot 2 measuring approximately
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on Third Ave. The resultant parcels will have •••a•••
Third Street addresses. The applicant intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable,
for-sale homes. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District•••,••• which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF for one- or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and
minimum front, side and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but not
less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Area Variances, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Subdivision
approval for City of Ithaca consolidated tax parcels #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 by George
Frantz for Habitat for Humanity.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously,
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds,
and approved unanimously, Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax
parcels: #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 located at 101 & 107 Morris Ave. The parcels will be
which will be consolidated first, then subdivided. The application is by George Frantz for
Habitat for Humanity, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to consolidate the exiting existing two tax parcels
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
(#44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6). The applicant proposes to subdivide the resultant 6.154 6,154-SF
(.141 0.141 acre) parcel into two lots•••;••• •••:••• Lot 1 measuring approximately 2,949
SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third Ave•••.;••• and Lot 2 measuring approximately
3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on Third Ave. The resultant parcels will have •••a•••
Third Street addresses. The applicant intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable,
for-sale homes. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District•••,••• which has a minimum lot
size of 3,000 SF for one- or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and
minimum front, side and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but not
less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Area Variances, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on January 26,
2016 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of this action, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on January
26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a draft
subdivision plat entitled “Habitat for Humanity Proposed Re-Subdivision of Tax Parcels
#44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6” dated 1/7/16 and prepared by George R. Frantz & Associates; and
other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels require area variance
Area Variances, because they do not conform to area requirements in the R-2b Zoning
District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
5. Site Plan Review
A. Cayuga Green II Place Two — Lofts at Six Mile Creek, 217 S. Cayuga Street,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
Bloomfield / Schon. Request for Project Changes. Applicant is requesting changes to
the Site Plan approved on 8/27/13. The applicant is requesting to omit the previously-
proposed green screen on the east wall of the Cayuga Street Garage.
(The applicant was not present to discuss the request.)
Nicholas explained there is currently one green screen already covering raw concrete
block on the east side of the garage, but the applicants were required by the Planning
Board to install another adjacent green screen to cover an additional stretch of raw block
that would be exposed due to previously-approved changes to the Lofts at Six Mile Creek
project. The applicant has now asked to be relieved of that requirement.
Schroeder noted that the garage was designed under the assumption there would be
another adjacent building immediately to its east, so much of the garage’s east façade was
left completely unfinished. He explained that the original version of the Lofts project
would have covered all of this unfinished wall north of the one existing green screen, but
that the revised project now has a smaller footprint that would therefore expose some
unfinished garage wall, contrary to the original expectations. Hence, the Planning Board
required the applicants to add another green screen panel to attractively cover the latter
area. He said if one stands directly in front of that façade it becomes immediately
apparent how bare it looks; therefore, he said he would not support approving the request.
Jones-Rounds agreed.
Adopted Resolution Disapproving Proposed Project Modification
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: on August 27, 2013, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
granted Modified Site Plan Approval for the Lofts at Six Mile Creek (formerly known as
Cayuga Green II), and
WHEREAS: the applicant requests modifications to the approved site plan consisting of
omission of the green screen proposed to be mounted on the north east façade of the
green garage Cayuga Street Garage, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has, on January 26, 2016, reviewed
materials submitted by the applicant to JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Zoning &
Economic Development, dated December 29, 2015, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning & and Development Board regards the green screen as an
important feature that improves the overall site and therefore does not approve the
applicant’s request to remove it.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
Vacancies: None
B. Hilton Canopy Hotel, 320-324 E. State Street, Scott Whitham for Neil Patel. Project
Update, Conditions of Site Plan Approval, & Requested Changes. The project was
approved on February 24, 2015. The applicant is requesting changes to the approved site
plan, including the following: increase from 123 to 131 guest rooms, increase from
74,475 GFA to 77,884 GFA, minor landscape changes, size and location of windows and
doors, and exterior materials and colors.
Applicants Scott Whitham and Catherine DeAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
and Neil Patel, Baywood Hotels, Inc., presented a brief project update and an overview of
the proposed project changes. Whitham noted the proposed changes are fairly minor,
including changes to the building materials and footprint; however, the massing would
remain the same.
DeAlmeida reported there has been ongoing discussion about installing a through-block
sidewalk route connecting Seneca Way to State Street. That discussion continues to move
forward. Whitham added there is general agreement by the applicant and adjacent
property owners that they would like to see that happen, but the details remain to be
developed.
DeAlmeida noted another proposed change involves the addition of a basement (~12,000
SF), for which there would be no additional environmental impact, to house mechanical
equipment and back-of-house restaurant facilities. Some slight changes to the building
footprint have also been proposed.
Planning Board members then discussed with the applicants some of the specific
proposed project changes, including concerns about some details. The applicants agreed
to return to the Board in February with further modifications and clarifications of the
changes. Formal Board approval would then be considered at that meeting.
C. Parking for 5 Cars, 424 Dryden Road, Daniel R. Hirtler for William and Angie
Chen. Declaration of Lead Agency. The property at 424 Dryden Road was subdivided
in 2015 to form a new parcel at 319 Oak Avenue. The required off-street parking for 424
Dryden Road was formerly located on the part of the original parcel which was
subdivided. The goal of this project is to provide the five required off-street parking
spaces for the small site, while providing the best maneuverability and retaining a
vegetative buffer at the rear of this parcel. The applicant is proposing two potential
layouts. The preferred layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the
10-foot vegetative buffer, and requires variances. The alternate plan is to construct a
garage that occupies a larger portion of the 10-foot buffer and removes a mature tree, but
does not require a variance. Both layouts include a trash enclosure. The project is in the
CR-2 Zoning 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.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
Applicants Daniel R. Hirtler, Flatfield Designs and Angie Chen, owner, presented a brief
overview of the proposed project, noting the original larger parcel had been subdivided to
allow construction of a new two-family residence at 319 Oak Avenue. Part of that project
involves configuring the remaining 424 Dryden Road parcel to accommodate the five
required off-street parking spaces. Hirtler explained that, unfortunately, a parking
proposal that meets zoning regulations would create a very tight parking scheme and
destroy a very large mature tree on the site. An alternate proposal, which is preferred but
would require two Zoning Variances, would alleviate that problem.
Schroeder reported that the Project Review Committee also strongly preferred the
proposal requiring the Zoning Variances.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a 5-car parking area to be located a at 424 Dryden
Road by Daniel Hirtler for William and Angie Chen, and
WHEREAS: the property at 424 Dryden Road was subdivided in 2015 to form a new
parcel at 319 Oak Avenue. The required off-street parking for 424 Dryden Road was
formerly located on the part of the original parcel which was subdivided. The applicant
proposes to provide the five required off-street parking spaces for the small site, while
providing the best maneuverability and retaining a vegetative buffer at the rear of this
parcel. The preferred layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the 10-
foot vegetative buffer, and requires variances. The project is on the CR-2 Zoning District,
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: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local
agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the
proposed project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
D. E-Hub College Avenue, 409 College Avenue, Noah Demarest for Student Agencies
Properties, Inc. Planning Board Feedback. Applicant proposes to create open office
spaces on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building, create outdoor rooftop patio off the 2nd
floor, and renovate the façade of the building. The façade renovation involves removing
brick and individual windows on the second and third floors, and creating a new glass
façade featuring a glass corner of fixed-frame window units with metal glass and granite
detailing. The project is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District and requires
Design Review. The project is under the threshold for full Site Plan Review — however,
due to the project’s prominence in central Collegetown, Planning Board review is
requested. 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.
Applicant Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative presented a brief overview of the
proposed project, noting the visually interrelated sequence of buildings on the north side
of the 400 block of College Avenue — including this one — was identified in the 2009
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines as model of great urbanism.
But he said the mid-block location of the façade makes it somewhat “lost in the mix,” so
the applicants would like the new version of the building to be visually more dramatic.
Demarest said there is a great opportunity here to do something bold with the northwest
corner to visually erode it and draw the eye toward the main building entrance. He added
that the applicants also want to animate the streetscape by reflecting the dynamic
programming inside the building; the proposed removal of brick and punched windows in
favor of continuous metal-and-glass curtain walls on the second and third floor levels at
the northwest building corner and the proposed brise-soleil would help accomplish this.
He said all building materials would be derived from the existing building (e.g., black
windows, black / grey granite).
He said the applicants had met with the Project Review Committee, which suggested the
design be slightly revised to retain a pier of buff brick at the northwest corner and by
retaining a horizontal band of buff brick just above the red-brick ground-floor base of the
building. Schroeder said he thought these revisions would provide the dynamism and
symmetry asymmetry the applicants seek, but in a manner allowing the upper three floors
to still “read” as a masonry building within an urban ensemble of masonry structures. He
asked the applicants to submit three drawings in different styles, including one that
retains the northern-most window bay.
Demarest noted the applicants are also trying to harmonize the signage with the
building’s architecture, including removing the obtrusive Student Agencies sign currently
located just below the third floor on the front facade.
Nicholas remarked the applicant should work with Planning Division staff to schedule the
Design Review Committee meeting as soon as possible. Demarest agreed to do so.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
Demarest asked if the project will still be considered a Limited Site Plan Review
application. Schroeder replied, yes.
E. Elmira Savings Bank (602 W. State Street) – Sketch Plan
Applicants Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP; and Thomas M. Carr, Elmira Savings Bank,
introduced the proposed project to the Board, noting they would like as much feedback
from the Board as possible.
Michaels explained that the project — which incorporates lots extending all the way from
W. State Street to W. Seneca Street along the west side of Meadow Street — would retain
the existing brick structure on State Street and renovate it so the first-floor would serve as
the bank’s operations (with an ATM lane), while the second floor would be used by
rental office tenants. She said the one-way streets surrounding the property necessitate
building a large parking lot with multiple entrances (entrance off Meadow Street,
entrance / exit off Seneca Street, exit-only off State Street).
She added that the applicants would like to build a seminal piece of architecture at the
corner of Seneca Street and Meadow Street, perhaps with an architectural wall, and that
the project would include a considerable amount of green space and landscaping. Elmira
Savings Bank is not interested in retaining ownership of the other Seneca Street property
it owns, she said, but would likely sell it to a developer for a mixed-use project.
Schroeder asked why the applicants could not keep the northernmost of the two existing
houses along Meadow Street intact, rather than demolishing them both, with the
understanding that the Seneca Street and Meadow Street corner now owned by the bank
could be the site of a future mixed-use project. He said that destroying habitable housing
and replacing it with surface parking is not compatible with the West End Urban Design
Plan. Michaels responded that Elmira Savings Bank is not a landlord, and it would still
need all the properties to create a drive-through space with adequate parking.
Cornish asked if the applicants would consider subdividing the property. Carr responded
that the bank would prefer to work with a developer and establish a land lease for those
residential lots, which would make more financial sense. Schroeder remarked that the
applicants could still subdivide the portions of the property they do not want or have any
use for, so the houses would not have to be demolished. Cornish agreed, noting that the
worst use of land in Ithaca is surface parking. She asked how many parking spaces the
applicants propose. Michaels replied, 32.
Elliott suggested the applicants approach the Board, accompanied by a developer, and
propose a combined project that conforms to the West End Urban Design Plan. He
indicated the applicants should not simply demolish residential buildings, without
demonstrating some kind of feasible plan for replacement development.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
F. Cherry Artspace (Samuel Buggeln) – Sketch Plan
Applicants Samuel Buggeln and Nick Salvato introduced the project to the Board, saying
that they have been searching for some time to find a suitable new performing arts space.
They said that contiguous to the site is a large parking lot that they would rent from its
owner. They described the project as reasonably challenging, since it would be built on
quite a small lot that adjoins a large 25-foot easement owned by the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation where development is prohibited. The proposed building,
they said, would be a simple rectangular box placed quite tightly on the site, along with a
sidewalk and an urban streetwall, with three new street trees and 8-foot median.
(Blalock departed at 10:17 p.m.)
Schroeder asked if the applicants are aware the Black Diamond Trail is planned to extend
by the property. Buggeln replied, yes. Schroeder suggested the applicants consult with
the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to determine
precisely where the new portion of the trail will be going and ensure it is fully protected.
(This concern turned out to be unwarranted; the portion of the Black Diamond Trail route
planned for the east side of the Flood Control Channel would actually extend south from
a new pedestrian / bicycle bridge proposed to span the channel near Cecil A. Malone
Drive.)
Buggeln stated the proposed building would consist of the same galvanized, corrugated
steel siding as the existing nearby building, which has a solar panel-ready roof. There
would be two main entrances to the new building featuring awnings, he said, and it would
contain two floors with a small mezzanine area. Buggeln noted that Zoning Variances
would be required.
6. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #3012-A — 101-105 & 107 Morris Avenue: 210 Third Street: Area Variance
Appeal of George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland County for an
Area Variance for 210 Third Street from Section 325-8, Columns 6, 7, and 13, Area in Square
Feet, Width in Feet at Street Front, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to consolidate two contiguous parcels located at 101 Morris Avenue
and 105 &107 Morris Avenue, on the corner of Morris Avenue and Third Street, and then re-
subdivide the combined parcels to create two new building lots to be addressed 210 Third
Street (Lot 1) and 208 Third Street (Lot 2). An approximately 1,400 SF two-story, one-
family, semi-detached building (a building containing two owner-occupied, one-family
dwelling units) will be constructed and sited, so that half
the
building
and
one
dwelling
unit
will
be located at 210 Third Street. The other half of the building and the second unit will be
constructed on 208 Third Street.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Both 210 and 208 Third Street are in an R-2b Use District, which allows a semi-detached
building, provided the building and lot meet District Regulations requirements. However, the
applicant’s proposal to site the building so it straddles both lots requires three Area Variances
for the lot at 210 Third Street. The lot is 2,949 SF in area; required is 3,000 feet. The
proposed width in feet at street front for 210 Third Street is 30.98 feet; required is 35 feet. In
addition, the proposed lot at 210 Third Street does not meet the setback requirement for other
side yard. As designed, the building’s other side yard setback is 0 feet; required is 5 feet.
While the proposed one-family, semi-detached building at 210 Third Street is a permitted use
in the R-2b Zoning District, General Municipal Law, Article 3, Section 33.3, requires Area
Variances be granted before Subdivision is approved.
The project is desirable urban infill and the Planning Board supports granting the variance.
Appeal #3012-B — 101-105 & 107 Morris Avenue: 208 Third Street: Area Variance
Appeal of George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland County for
Area Variances for 208 Third Street from Section 325-8, Columns 7 and 13, Width in Feet at
Street Front, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to consolidate two contiguous parcels located at 101 Morris Avenue
and 105 &107 Morris Avenue, on the corner of Morris Avenue and Third Street, and then re-
subdivide the combined parcels to create two new building lots to be addressed 208 Third
Street (Lot 2) and 210 Third Street (Lot 1). An approximately 1400-SF two-story, one-family,
semi-detached building (a building containing two owner-occupied, one-family dwelling
units) will be constructed and sited so that half the building and one dwelling unit will be
located at 210 Third Street. The other half of the building and the second unit will be
constructed on 208 Third Street.
Both 208 and 210 Third Street are in an R-2b Use District, which allows a semi-detached
building, provided the building and lot meet District Regulations requirements. However, the
applicant’s proposal to site the building, so it straddles both lots, requires two Area Variances
for the lot at 208 Third Street. The proposed width in feet at street front for 208 Third Street
is 30 feet; required is 35 feet. In addition, the proposed lot at 208 Third Street does not meet
the setback requirement for other side yard. As designed, the building’s other side yard
setback is 0 feet; required is 5 feet. While the one-family, semi-detached building at 208
Third Street is a permitted use in the R-2b Zoning District, General Municipal Law, Article 3,
Section 33.3, requires Area Variances be granted before Subdivision is approved.
The project is desirable urban infill and the Planning Board supports granting the variance.
7. Old / New Business
A. Planning Board Resolution to Common Council and Board of Public Works:
Seneca Street Streetscape.
Cornish announced that she had spoken to Director of Engineering Services Tim Logue,
who indicated that reconfiguring the Seneca Street streetscape has always been
something the Engineering Division wanted to pursue, but simply did not have the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
necessary funds to accomplish. (Also, NYS Department of Transportation approval
would currently be necessary for such a project.)
Adopted Resolution Regarding Seneca Street Streetscape:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
To:
City
of
Ithaca
Common
Council
&
Board
of
Public
Works
From:
City
of
Ithaca
Planning
and
Development
Board
Date:
January
26,
2016
Re:
Support
for
Improvements
to
Seneca
Street
from
Tioga
Street
to
Cayuga
Street
WHEREAS:
the
100-‐block
of
East
Seneca
Street
is
home
to
the
Hilton
Garden
Inn,
the
historic
DeWitt
Building,
Moosewood
Restaurant,
the
soon-‐to-‐be-‐built
Tompkins
Financial
Headquarters,
among
others,
and
WHEREAS:
this
block
is
a
critical
and
heavily-‐used
east
/
west
pedestrian
route
connecting
businesses
between
Cayuga
and
Tioga
Streets
to
major
north
/
south
pedestrian
routes
in
the
heart
of
downtown,
and
WHEREAS:
the
100-‐block
of
East
Seneca
Street
is
46
feet
wide,
while
the
100-‐block
of
West
Seneca
Street
narrows
down
to
40
feet,
and
WHEREAS:
there
are
no
street
trees
(with
the
exception
of
trees
on
private
property
near
the
DeWitt
Building’s
southern
entrance)
or
other
pedestrian
amenities
on
either
side
of
the
entire
length
of
the
100-‐block
of
East
Seneca
Street,
creating
an
unfriendly
pedestrian
environment
and
giving
priority
to
vehicular
traffic,
and
WHEREAS:
any
attempt
to
add
street
trees
in
front
of
lot-‐line
or
street-‐wall
buildings
on
this
block,
under
current
conditions,
results
in
inadequate
sidewalk
width,
and
WHEREAS:
members
of
the
Planning
Board
would
like
to
see
the
vehicular
portion
of
the
100-‐block
of
East
Seneca
Street
narrowed,
so
that
street
trees,
sidewalks,
and
other
pedestrian
amenities
can
be
constructed,
making
it
a
“complete
street,”
with
priority
given
to
the
pedestrian
experience
and
not
to
vehicles,
now,
therefore,
be
it
RESOLVED:
that
the
City
of
Ithaca
Planning
and
Development
Board
recommends
to
Common
Council
and
the
Board
of
Public
Works
that
funding
be
approved
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
complete
street
with
wider
street
tree
/
sidewalk
areas
on
the
100-‐block
of
East
Seneca
Street.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
B. Planning Board Comments to Board of Public Works:
Cascadilla Street Railing Options.
Planning Board members reviewed a draft memorandum generated by Nicholas to the
BPW, which would recommend Alternative 2. This alternative would eliminate box
beams and “require a new design for a railing, an analysis of the implications of
modifying it, and submission to FHWA for approval.”
Darling suggested the Planning Board postpone submitting its comments for the time
being. He said the Engineering Division would like to find out if there is a possibility of
raising the base wall and placing a railing system on top of that. If so, he said, then BPW
could consider a different railing system, similar to what is along the Six Mile Creekwalk
downtown. The Planning Board should probably wait for more information, he
concluded. There were no objections.
C. Discussion: Potential Rezoning of Portion of Lower E. State / M.L.K., Jr. Street
Blvd. from B-4 to R-3a.
Cornish noted this subject has been brought up already at prior Planning Board meetings.
Sparked by a project recently reviewed by the Planning Board, the proposed rezoning
would include the two residential properties immediately below Schuyler Place on the
north side of E. State Street. These two properties would be rezoned to the R-3a Zoning
District. The one property in question is the third property down from Schuyler Place: the
416-418 E. State Street property.
Schroeder responded that he believes the aforementioned two houses immediately below
Schuyler should definitely not be in the B-4 Zoning District. He said they should be in a
residential zone, or other kind of business zone consistent with their current use. He said
the 416-418 E. State Street property, which contains both a house and an addition
originally built for industrial use, is a more complicated question; perhaps it could be
rezoned to one of the business zones that exclude the automotive uses (such as “Gasoline
station” and “Motor vehicle sales and service”) allowed in B-4. He said these currently
permitted automotive uses are clearly incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Cornish indicated Planning Division staff will prepare a memorandum for the Planning
and Economic Development Committee for discussion.
D. Proposed City Code Amendments: Potential Telecommunications Fall Zone
Ordinance Revisions & Revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance
Nicholas remarked that she wanted to bring both proposed amendments to the Planning
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Board’s attention. Comments would be welcome.
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling noted the BPW has examined the Brindley Street Bridge project proposals
options. It now appears the bridge will run from Taughannock Boulevard, rather than
replacing the current one-lane bridge with a two-lane one, which is what the Planning
Board had recommended. (This decision is fully consistent with the Planning Board’s
recommendation.) The proposal will be coming before the Planning Board for Site Plan
Review next month.
Darling reported that the issue of food trucks continues to present some difficulties for
the City, primarily in the Collegetown area, and the BPW will continue to explore the
situation. The greatest area of contention, he said, is Eddy Street.
Darling remarked that progress has been made in collaborating with NYSEG on the
installation of underground utilities on Dryden Road. He also announced that the Green
Street Garage engineering analysis report should be finalized shortly.
9. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft November 24, 2015
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Randall
Vacancies: None
10. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:53 p.m.