HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-07-28DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.:
Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type;
proposed new language shown in red type.
(Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording
with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.)
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
July 28, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Robert Aaron Lewis;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; 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;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 106 & 108 Madison Street
Sharon Corbitt, Applicant;
Liz Hoyt, Applicant
DiBella’s Restaurant at 222 Elmira Road
David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E.;
Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect;
Amy Dake, SRF Associates
Building & Vehicle Display Expansion
at 308-318 Elmira Road
Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture
Two Duplexes at 804 E. State Street,
Previously Two Duplexes & Parking at 112 Blair Street,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Then Three Duplexes at 804 W. State Steet
Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture;
Ike Nestopoulous, Owner
Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated
Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Rob Morache, STREAM Collaborative
Cornell University Johnson School of Management
Executive Education Program at 209-215 Dryden Road
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 Architects;
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
John Novarr, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC;
Phil Proujansky, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC
State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Rob Morache, STREAM Collaborative;
Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage;
Michael J. Peter, Campus Advantage;
Scott Duckett, Campus Advantage;
John M. Kelly, Kelly Grossman Architects
Hotel Ithaca Renovations at 222 S. Cayuga Street,
Previously Holiday Inn Expansion (Sketch Plan)
David Hart, Hart Hotels, Inc.
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas noted the original agenda has been revised to include the following Special Order of
Business.
2. Special Order of Business ― Suggested Implementation Timeframes
For Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
Senior Planner Megan Wilson explained that Planning staff prepared the list of
recommendations and has prepared some suggested initial implementation timeframes for the
Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations. The Comprehensive Planning Plan Committee has
reviewed this. When the Committee originally discussed creating such a list, it assumed this
would be an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan; however, after further discussion,
Planning staff determined it would make more sense for it to be an entirely separate
document. Nicholas added that no Planning Board action on the document is required; it is
only being submitted for review and discussion.
Jones-Rounds asked if the document is being circulated to the public. Wilson replied, not yet.
Planning staff and the Committee need more time to review it and identify any changes they
would like to make.
Wilson noted the Planning Board will also receive a list of the top 20 recommendations
identified by the Committee, as well as a list of top recommendations for Phase II plans. The
actual wording of the documents is not subject to modification.
3. Privilege of the Floor
Joan Serra, 302 Lake Avenue (next to Madison Street), spoke in opposition to the proposed
106 & 108 Madison Street Subdivision and its associated project, stating it would be
intrusive and would not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood (which she said is dominated
by older houses). The project would generate a lot of dust, dirt, and noise, she said, and she
also has concerns about the project’s impact on her home’s value.
Virginia Augusta, 419 E. Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to Zoning Appeal 2991, 416-
418 E. State Street, stating that when the Argos Inn was being renovated she and her husband
lived through the renovation. Her property actually adjoins the Argos Inn property and the
disturbances from that site have significantly impacted her family (e.g., noise, voices,
cackling, smoke). Given all the negative impacts of the Argos Inn, she cannot possibly
imagine the proposed project would not have similar or worse impacts on neighbors. She is
entirely opposed to the Zoning Appeal and associated project.
Eric Rosario, 228 S. Geneva Street, spoke in opposition to Zoning Appeal 2991, 416-418 E.
State Street, stating that the shared parking plan and proposed pedestrian route to off-site
parking do not seem to meet either the letter or spirit of the City Code. He said this
pedestrian route would place pedestrians at risk, forcing them to cross a State route with no
lights or crosswalks. He added that it is not difficult to imagine a worst-case public safety
scenario. He noted the Tompkins County Planning Department also reached the same
conclusions in its July 17, 2015 letter.
Neha Khanna, 228 S. Geneva Street, spoke in opposition to Zoning Appeal 2991, 416-418
E. State Street, agreeing that asking people to cross a State route afterhours and in the dark at
a site with a history of accidents is ill-advised. She is also very concerned about the potential
noise. Argos Inn patrons and neighbors have complained regularly about noise from the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Argos Bar, she said.
David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to Zoning Appeal 2991, 416-418 E.
State Street, describing the noise and negative health impacts of a bar on neighbors as
significant. His written comments cite the numerous established negative health impacts of
bars in residential neighborhoods. He said not every B-4 Zoning District parcel is appropriate
for a bar. He explained that three of his bedrooms at 420 E. State Street are merely 10 feet
away from the existing proposed bar. Noise pollution is very difficult to address, he said,
even with soundproofing.
John Bleakley, 904 Giles Street, spoke generally about his concerns with the negative
impacts of building height, density and the siting of development projects in Ithaca, like the
proposed 301 E. State Street (State Street Triangle) project. The Commons is a unique place,
along with the rest of Ithaca, in terms of the public amenities and the green space it provides
residents and that needs to be preserved, he concluded.
Sharon Corbitt, 106 & 108 Madison Street and Subdivision applicant, responded to an
earlier comment about the project. She said the house was seriously dilapidated before she
renovated it for her tenants. Over the years, she and her partner simply grew tired of living in
an apartment and thought the Subdivision and associated new house would be a significant
improvement.
Graham Kerslick, 115 Orchard Place, spoke about the 804 E. State Street project. He urged
the Board to ask the developer to improve the building designs, so the project can be a
genuinely beautiful and sympathetic addition to the East Hill Historic District, which it abuts.
In particular, he said, the landscaping could be improved (e.g., most of it is currently in the
rear of the property) and the project definitely needs more mature trees.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, remarked that the City invested considerable time and effort
in establishing the Collegetown Area Form Districts zoning requirements. No single interest
group or point-of-view received everything it desired out of that process, she said, but the
final result was a satisfactory compromise. She is concerned the impetus for greater density
in the downtown area threatens to increase congestion (e.g., Carey Building, State Street
Triangle), given the lack of parking requirements. She urged the Planning Board to use the
Collegetown document as a model and call upon Common Council to revise the recently
enacted downtown zoning requirements.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, objected to local opposition to
growth and development. If Ithaca does not take advantage of opportunities for higher
density, other communities will, he said.
4. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 106 & 108 Madison Street, Tax Parcel 34.-1-10, Sharon Corbitt.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
Significance, and Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
the 7,991-SF lot into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 4,944 SF with 54 feet of frontage on
Madison Street, and containing an existing duplex; and Parcel B, measuring 3,047 SF
with 38 feet of frontage on Madison Street. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District
which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000-SF lot size for single-family
homes, and 4,000 SF for other uses; 35 feet of street width for single-of single- or two-
family homes and 40 feet of street width for other uses; 10-foot front yard, 10/5-foot side
yards, and a rear yard of 25% or 50 feet, but no less than 20 feet. The project requires
Area Variances. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is
subject to environmental review.
Applicants Sharon Corbitt and Liz Hoyt updated the Board on the proposed Subdivision.
Corbitt explained that one of reasons she is seeking the Subdivision is that her lending
institution indicated it would not finance a construction project with two residences on
the property. She added she would prefer to retain the existing garage, since it would be a
hardship to lose.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants would retain ownership of the property. Corbitt
replied, yes.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #34.-1-10, by owner, Sharon Corbitt, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,991-SF lot into two lots: Parcel
A, measuring 4,944 SF with 54 feet of frontage on Madison St., and containing an
existing duplex; and Parcel B, measuring 3,047 SF with 38 feet of frontage on Madison
St. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District which has the following minimum
requirements: 3,000-SF lot size for single-family homes, and 4,000 SF for other uses; 35
feet of street width for single- or two-family homes and 40 feet of street width for other
uses; 10-foot front yard, 10/5-foot side yards, and a rear yard of 25% or 50 feet, but no
less than 20 feet. The project 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Subdivision
approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #34.-1-10, by owner, Sharon Corbitt.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #34.-1-10, by owner, Sharon Corbitt, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,991-SF lot into two lots: Parcel
A, measuring 4,944 SF with 54 feet of frontage on Madison St., and containing an
existing duplex; and Parcel B, measuring 3,047 SF with 38 feet of frontage on Madison
St. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District which has the following minimum
requirements: 3,000-SF lot size for single-family homes, and 4,000 SF for other uses; 35
feet of street width for single- or two-family homes and 40 feet of street width for other
uses; 10-foot front yard, 10/5-foot side yards, and a rear yard of 25% or 50 feet, but no
less than 20 feet. The project requires Area Variances, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins
County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on July 28,
2015 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF),
Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled
“Survey Map, No. 106-108 Madison Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York,” dated 6/2/15 and prepared by T.G.Miller, P.C.; and other application materials,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require areas area
variances for relief from the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the
R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board 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, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “6.
Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes.
5. Site Plan Review
A. DiBella’s Restaurant, 222 Elmira Road (Ithaca Plaza), Marx Realty & Improvement
Co., Inc. No Action ― Project Update Only. Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to BZA. The applicant proposes to
construct a one-story 3,400-SF retail building with 49 parking spaces and associated
landscaping, walkways, and other site improvements. The 6.1-acre project site contains
an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces. The project includes relocation of the
existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway. The project is in the
SW-2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum building setback of 34 feet from the
curbline. The project requires an Area Variance for the proposed 70’ setback. The
applicant has proposed a 4’-tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage. This is
an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review.
Engineer David Herrick and architect Jason Demarest updated the Board on the proposed
project. Herrick announced that a few changes have been made to the project, the most
important of which is relocating the dumpster to a more remote location; the applicants
will return to the Board to provide specific details about that. The patio areas, he noted,
are now entirely clear of the dumpsters. He added that a planting concept plan has also
been developed in response to the Conservation Advisory Council’s comments about the
proximity of the curbcut entry route and parking area to the drainage channel. So some
plantings have been added there.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and
approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Jones-Rounds observed that the City Transportation Engineer’s memorandum indicates
he has not yet had a chance to review the project. Consultant Amy Dake explained that
she had contacted the City Transportation Engineer and he had indicated he would get
back to her if he had any questions or concerns. She noted that DOT was very specific
about what it is looking for in the intersection, like requiring the applicant to make the
entry lane 15-feet wide so it aligns with the through-traffic lane across the street. The
southbound left-turn lane will be striped, she added.
Randall asked if there would be a pedestrian lead. Dake replied, no, since DOT
specifically did not want a pedestrian crossing on the north side of the intersection.
Schroeder noted the Project Review Committee wondered whether the pedestrian
sidewalk over the intersection on the Ithaca Plaza side could be continuous (i.e., at the
same height). Dake replied she would actually recommend that it dip, and said there will
be pedestrian signals on the other side.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a retail building to be located at 222 Elmira
Road (Ithaca Shopping Plaza) in the City of Ithaca, by Marx Realty & Improvement Co.,
Inc., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 3,400-SF retail building
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
with 35 new parking spaces and associated landscaping, walkways, and other site
improvements. The 6.1-acre site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces.
The project includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds
Memorial Parkway. The site is predominantly paved; however, development requires
removal of 0.3 acres of existing vegetation along the north property line, contiguous to
the drainage area. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum
building setback of 34 feet from the curbline. The project requires Area Variances for the
proposed 70’ setback, as well as deficiencies in building frontage on the street, and
WHEREAS: this an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did on July 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins
County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on July 28,
2015 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF),
Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings
entitled “Topographic Map,” dated 10/24/14, “Existing Site Plan (C101),” “Layout Plan
(C102),” “Utility Plan (C103),” “Grading and Drainage Plan (C104),” dated 6/30/15 and
prepared by T.G. Miler Miller, P.C., and “Patio Plan (C1.01),” and “Concept Views
(PR1.1),” dated 7/2/15 and “Exterior Elevations (A2.00),” dated 7/6/15 and “Landscape
Plan (L1.00)” dated 7-28-15 and all prepared by Jason Demarest, architect, and; and other
application materials, 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
The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “6.
Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes.
B. 308-318 Elmira Road, Building & Vehicle Display Expansion. Tom Schickel
Architecture for Maguire Family Enterprises. Public Hearing, Determination of
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
Environmental Significance, Recommendation to BZA, and Consideration of
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval With Conditions. The applicant proposes to
construct a 1,100-SF 1,435-SF addition to the east side of the existing building,
reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout, including shifting the
existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast, add 20 parking spaces, and install other site
improvements including landscaping, lighting, and signage. The applicant is proposing
5% internal landscaping ― 12% is required. The applicant is requesting to build an
architectural wall / fence as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area
Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage should be occupied
by building mass. In accordance with the guidelines, the Planning Board may allow a
portion, not to exceed a third of the required 35% building frontage, to be occupied by an
integrated architectural wall. The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel
consolidation, as well as Area and Sign Variances for relief from district regulations in
the SW-2 Zoning District. 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.
Applicant Tom Schickel updated the Board on the proposed project. Since the last time
the Board reviewed the project, the applicants have slightly modified the configuration of
the addition, he explained, though the overall design of the project remains largely the
same. Eliminating two driveways provides a major improvement to traffic flow on the
site, he said.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building addition and expanded parking /
vehicle display area, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,435-SF addition to the east side of
the existing building, reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout,
including shifting the existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast, add 20 parking spaces,
and install other site improvements including landscaping, lighting, and signage. The
applicant is proposing 5% internal landscaping ― 12% is required. The applicant is
requesting to build an architectural wall/fence as an alternative to the requirement in the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be
occupied by building mass. The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel
consolidation, as well as Area and Sign Variances for relief from district regulations in
the SW-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: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 28, 2015
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has received comments from both the City Forester and
the •••the••• Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommending that the applicant be
required to provide 12% landscaping, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has determined the proposed landscaping plan is adequate
due to its creative inclusion of an internal greenspace in the vehicle display area and
provision for 17 new canopy trees ― eight of which are internal to the parking lot.
Adequate soil volumes for the new plantings will be required for Site Plan Approval. In
addition, drainage calculations provided by the applicant indicate that drainage loads will
remain comparable to existing conditions, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
July 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff;
and the following drawings: “Site Plan,” “Existing Conditions Plan (C100),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” “Grading Plan (C103),”
“Details (C201),” “Site Layout Plan (L1),” “Planting Plan (L2),” “Elevations (A3),”
“Elevations” (color), and “Floor Plans (A1 and A2)” dated with the latest revision date of
7/7/15 and all prepared by Schickel Architecture; and other application materials, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and 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 building addition and expanded parking /
vehicle display area, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,435-SF addition to the east side of
the existing building, reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout,
including shifting the existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast, add 20 parking spaces,
and install other site improvements including landscaping, lighting, and signage. The
applicant is proposing 5% internal landscaping ― 12% is required. The applicant is
requesting to build an architectural wall / fence as an alternative to the requirement in the
Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be
occupied by building mass. The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel
consolidation, as well as Area and Sign Variances for relief from district regulations in
the SW-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: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the project, and
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 July 28, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has received comments from both the City Forester and
the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommending that the applicant be required
to provide 12% landscaping, and
WHEREAS: the Lead Agency has determined the proposed landscaping plan is adequate
due to its creative inclusion of an internal greenspace in the vehicle display area and
provision for 17 new canopy trees ― eight of which are internal to the parking lot.
Adequate soil volumes for the new plantings will be required for Site Plan Approval. In
addition, drainage calculations provided by the applicant indicate that drainage loads will
remain comparable to existing conditions, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
July 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff;
and the following drawings: “Site Plan,” “Existing Conditions Plan (C100),” “Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” “Grading Plan (C103),”
“Details (C201),” “Site Layout Plan (L1),” “Planting Plan (L2),” “Elevations (A3),”
“Elevations” (color), and “Floor Plans (A1 and A2)” dated with the latest revision date of
7/7/15 and all prepared by Schickel Architecture; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on July 28,
2015 determine the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the
environment, and
WHEREAS: the Board understands the project requires Area Variances and that the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) intends to consider these variances at its August 4, 2015
regular meeting, and
WHEREAS: as this project has been before the Planning Board for several months, all
Site Plan Review issues have been resolved, and the Board intends to make a positive
recommendation to the BZA regarding the project, the Board feels it is appropriate in this
particular case to consider Final Site Plan Approval contingent upon the BZA granting
the required variances, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Written approval from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief that the project meets all fire access
needs, and
ii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
iii. Submission of colored elevations, keyed to materials samples board, and building
materials, and
iv. Before issuance of Building Permit, submission of revised Landscape Plan and Planting
Details showing soil volumes and amendments, as per recommendations in City
Forester’s comments of 7/20/15.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
The Board then agreed on two recommendations to the BZA, which are presented in the
“6. Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes.
C. Two Duplexes & Associated Site Improvements, 804 E. State Street /M.L.K., Jr.
Blvd. Street Tom Schickel Architecture. Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Approval. The applicant proposes to construct two duplexes (each with two 3-bedroom
apartments), a 16-space gravel parking area, and associated site improvements. Vehicular
access is via the existing driveway on Blair Street. Dedicated pedestrian site access to
Blair Street will be provided via the access drive. Site preparation will require removal of
existing garage, all paving, and fencing on the development site. The project requires
consolidation of six existing tax parcels: #83.-3-2 (804 E. State Street), containing a
duplex; #83.-3-3 (112 Blair Street), currently used as a parking lot; #68.-8.9, containing
the existing garage; #83.-3-9 (806 E. State Street); #83.-3-8 (808 E. State Street),
containing identical existing duplexes; and a 683-SF portion of an impacted vacant lot to
the north. The project is in the CR-2 Zoning District and is contiguous ― on its western
and northern boundaries ― to the East Hill Historic District. This is a Type 1 Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review.
Owner Ike Nestopoulos and architect Tom Schickel updated the Board on the proposed
project and enumerated the following changes to the project design:
• Sidewalks would be flush with the asphalt pavement.
• A significant amount of landscaping and trees have been added and a couple of
more trees retained, completing the desired buffer with the Orchard Place
properties.
• At the front of the site, the owner has planted 350 creepers along the bank near the
retaining wall. Furthermore, some arborvitae and other trees have been added in
front of both buildings.
• Responding to Project Review Committee concerns, white banding has been added
to add visual interest to the elevations, tying in with the fascia.
• Windows would include a four-inch projecting outer frame.
Schroeder recalled the applicant mentioned shutters would be added. Schickel replied that
it turned out those would not have functioned properly and would have looked
incongruous. He added that the window frames would project out from the windows,
however, giving them more substance.
Schroeder expressed concern with the driveway and the proposed flush 28.3-foot wide
curbcut, compared to the existing curbcut of 17 feet. Schickel explained that if the Fire
Department requirement is not met, then the buildings would need to be sprinklered,
which would add considerable cost to the project.
Jones-Rounds remarked she would like to hear City Transportation Engineer Tim
Logue’s response to this change before proceeding. Schickel responded that the applicant
would prefer to receive Site Plan Approval, conditioned on Logue’s approval.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
Schroeder noted he understands the plans were altered in response to Fire Department
fire truck access requirements; however, he suggested that the apron where the Blair
Street driveway meets Blair Street be reconfigured with normal angles on the north and
south edges, between the street and the sidewalk, rather than with the perpendicular edges
depicted in the current drawings.
Schroeder also wondered if Planning staff could not convince the Fire Chief to permit a
reduced curb width. He noted that the proposed flush concrete curb is almost 30 feet wide
in a residential neighborhood, which would look ridiculous. If it absolutely has to be
concrete, he said, it could at least be textured or colored concrete.
Nicholas remarked that strictly speaking the Fire Chief cannot require the increased
width, as there is no explicit City Code requirement. Rather, it is simply a matter of what
he believes optimal for Fire Department access. Therefore, she said, it is ultimately the
Planning Board’s decision; there are two choices: either install the curbcut or sprinkler
the buildings.
Blalock remarked he would prefer not to question the Fire Chief’s judgment.
Schickel explained that the Fire Department could get over the curb; he believes the
principal concern is the possibility of the fire trucks getting flat tires. He said the other
concern is that if there is no flush curb, the property owner would likely not plough.
Jones-Rounds noted it does not seem responsible for the Planning Board to make a
decision on the matter purely on the basis of aesthetics. Schroeder replied that a
moundable mountable curb would be a reasonable alternative. Nicholas pointed out that
the Fire Chief has opposed all those options. Jones-Rounds observed that City
Transportation Engineer Logue does not appear satisfied with the driveway either.
Randall noted that regardless of the parking configuration, access to the alley is necessary
for the fire trucks to reach the two buildings in the rear. Cornish agreed.
Schickel proposed angling the outer edges of the driveway to follow the line of the wheel
base from the auto-turn program. Schroeder remarked then it sounds as though the
applicant believes the Fire Chief would approve that alternative. Schickel replied, yes.
Schroeder remarked, in that case, the applicant could introduce a 45-degree angle on both
sides of the curb cut.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds,
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
Nicholas asked what the applicant plans to do with the dumpster. Nestopoulous replied it
would be best if it were enclosed with fencing. Schroeder asked the applicant to provide a
revised site plan reflecting that. Nicholas added that the City does require dumpsters to be
enclosed.
Nestopoulous also remarked he would prefer to avoid painting the foundations, as he has
always had difficulty painting concrete. Schroeder replied, okay.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for three two duplexes to located at 804 E. State St.,
by Tom Schickel for John Puglia and Costas Nestopoulos, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct two duplexes (each with two 3-bedroom
apartments), a 16-space gravel parking area, and associated site improvements. Vehicular
access is via the existing driveway on Blair Street. Dedicated pedestrian site access to
Blair Street will be provided via the access drive. Site preparation will require removal of
existing garage, all paving, and fencing on the development site. The project requires
consolidation of six existing tax parcels: #83.-3-2 (804 E. State St.), containing a duplex;
#83.-3-3 (112 Blair St.), currently used as a parking lot; #68.-8.9, containing the existing
garage; #83.-3-9 (806 E. State St.); #83.-3-8 (808 E. State St.), containing identical
existing duplexes; and a 683-SF portion of an impacted vacant lot to the north. The
project is in the CR-2 Zoning District and is contiguous ― on its western and northern
boundaries ― to the East Hill Historic District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(4), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
§617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving, funding or carrying out the action, did on January 27, 2014
2015 declare itself Lead Agency for 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: as more fully described in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), the applicant has worked closely with the Planning Board over several
months to address concerns about potential impacts to the Historic and Aesthetic
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Resources, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
July 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a FEAF, Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings:
“Boundary and Topographic Map No. 804-806 East State Street, No. 112 Blair Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 12/10/14 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.; “Site Section - Facing South,” “Site Section - Facing East,” “Site Section
(L6),” and Floor Plans (A1),” all dated 7/7/15; and “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(LO),” “Utilities Plan (L4),” “Site Details (L5),” and “Elevations (A2),” all dated
7/22/15, and “Demolition Plan (L1),” “Site Layout and Planting Plan (L2),” and
“Grading Plan (L3)•••”••• dated 7-28-15 and prepared by Schickel Architecture; and
other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for two duplexes to located at 804 E. State St., by Tom
Schickel for John Puglia and Costas Nestopoulos, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct two duplexes (each with two 3-bedroom
apartments), a 16-space gravel parking area, and associated site improvements. Vehicular
access is via the existing driveway on Blair Street. Dedicated pedestrian site access to
Blair Street will be provided via the access drive. Site preparation will require removal of
existing garage, all paving, and fencing on the development site. The project requires
consolidation of six existing tax parcels: #83.-3-2 (804 E. State St.), containing a duplex;
#83.-3-3 (112 Blair St.), currently used as a parking lot; #68.-8.9, containing the existing
garage; #83.-3-9 (806 E. State St.); #83.-3-8 (808 E. State St.), containing identical
existing duplexes; and a 683-SF portion of an impacted vacant lot to the north. The
project is in the CR-2 Zoning District and is contiguous ― on its western and northern
boundaries ― to the East Hill Historic District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(4), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
§617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on January 27,
2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
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 July 28, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: as more fully described in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), the applicant has worked closely with the Planning Board over several
months to address concerns about potential impacts to Historic and Aesthetic Resources,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
July 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a FEAF, Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings:
“Boundary and Topographic Map No. 804-806 East State Street, No. 112 Blair Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 12/10/14 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.; “Site Section - Facing South,” “Site Section - Facing East,” “Site Section
(L6),” and Floor Plans (A1),” all dated 7/7/15; and “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(LO),” “Utilities Plan (L4),” “Site Details (L5),” and “Elevations (A2),” all dated
7/22/15, and “Demolition Plan (L1),” “Site Layout and Planting Plan (L2),” and
“Grading Plan (L3)•••”••• dated 7-28-15 and prepared by Schickel Architecture; and
other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on July 28, 2015 determine the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and made a
Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval to the propose proposed project, subject to the following
conditions:
i. Written approval from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief that the project meets all fire access
needs:
a. Submission of revised Site Plan (L2) showing modification of the apron where
the 112 Blair Street driveway meets Blair Street to show normal angles at its
north and south edges between the street and the sidewalk (based on auto turn
geometry prepared by T.G. Miller and dated 7-25-15), rather than the
perpendicular edges depicted on the current L2 drawing dated 7-28-15,
or
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
b. If the above layout is not acceptable to the Fire Chief and / or will not be
permitted by the Transportation Engineer, the Blair Street access drive curbcut
will remain as is under existing conditions, and the applicant will implement a
sprinkler system for the new buildings to the Fire Chief’s satisfaction, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored elevations keyed to materials
samples board, building materials, and showing a continuous belt course on all façades
of the buildings, and
iii. Revised Landscape Plan showing installation of a vegetative buffer along the western
boundary contiguous to the Historic District and details on soil improvements for
proposed planting areas, particularly in compacted areas as per Shade Tree Advisory
Committee standards, and
iv. Submission of landscape establishment plan, including temporary irrigation, and
v. Applicant shall work with Planning Division staff to determine an appropriate location
– perhaps on adjacent property owned by applicant – for enclosed dumpster or other
trash management system, and
Before Certificate of Occupancy:
vi. Installation of two bike racks, and
vii. Replacement of any unhealthy / dying plantings throughout the site.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: Randall
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
D. Tompkins Financial Headquarters, 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street, Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, & Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for
Phases 1 & 2. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1 (Drive-
Through). The applicant proposes to construct a 7-story, 110,000-SF office building as a
new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing drive-
through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new building
will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will
include retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building. There
will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on site to the north of the ground-floor
footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor will
be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street line to
align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new 985-
SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified to
create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a
new ATM will be added to the site. The seven-story building has received Design
Review. Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)
(h)[4] and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4
(6.)(iv), and is subject to environmental review.
Architects Steve Hugo and Nathan Brown of HOLT Architects and Kim Michaels of
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP updated the Board on the proposed project.
Michaels explained that no major changes have been made to the site plan, except the
addition of signage and convex mirrors at the drive-through exits. Hugo added that the
north face of the building was also situated further south to provide better sight lines for
vehicles.
The applicants presented some building material samples for the Board’s review.
Brown said the drive-through materials will be matched stone-for-stone from the existing
stone on the building. A metal-panel canopy will cover the front entrance, with black /
dark brick being employed elsewhere on the small building, which will also feature a
granite base would be built along the drive-through. The west façade will include a green
screen along the stone wall to soften that elevation.
Michaels reported that the project has received the Fire Chief’s approval and the
applicant is collaborating with the City on the Transportation Demand Management Plan
for the headquarters building (which is not being approved tonight).
Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1 (Drive-Through):
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. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street
line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new
985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified
to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
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
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 and
HOLT Architects; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 23, 2015 determine the
proposed project will 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:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
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
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 applicant seeks Final Site Plan Approval for the Drive-Through portion for the
project located at 119 E. Seneca Street, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on July 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted 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 finds the applicant has satisfied condition “i.,” “iii.” and partially satisfied
condition “iv.” pertaining to the Drive-Through portion of the project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the portion
of the project to be located at 119 E. Seneca St. (Drive-Through), 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not
limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
E. Four Multi-Family Dwellings, “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street,
Noah Demarest for PPM Homes. Declaration of Lead Agency. Public Hearing and
CEQR Discussion. The applicant proposes to build a new multi-family ‘pocket
neighborhood’ on a hillside site between W. Spencer St. and S. Cayuga St. The project
will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12
units overall). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off S. Cayuga Street. Site
circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces connecting
through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The
project is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires a Parking Variance. 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.
Architect Noah Demarest updated the Board on the proposed project, making the
following points:
• Additional drawings and a three-dimensional drawing model provide further visual
/ spatial and architectural context for how the buildings would fit into the
neighborhood.
• A couple of trees would be removed at the top of the site to make way for the 8-
foot retaining wall, near the parking lot.
• One parking space per unit is required by the Zoning Ordinance, but the applicants
are seeking a Zoning Variance for the non-conforming front yard.
• An additional shade tree was not included on the provided landscape plan.
• A service barrier would provide screening at pedestrian eye-level.
• No changes were made to the floor plans.
• Roof lines would be no higher than other roof lines on Cayuga Street.
• T.G. Miller, P.E. is working with City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson on the
SWPPP.
Schroeder asked if the applicant could place plantings on the high retaining walls in the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24
middle of the site. Demarest replied, yes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Lallas, 12 Allessandro Drive and owner of 509 S. Cayuga Street, spoke in
opposition to the project, calling it incompatible with the neighborhood. He does not like
the orientation or the massing, and says there is no comparable building in the area.
Cayuga Street residents, he said, would only see the tops of two buildings just beyond the
parking lot. The project would also add considerably more traffic to the street, he said,
and the parking lot would certainly not contribute anything to the neighborhood. That
segment of Cayuga Street is already very narrow, he added. The project, he said, would
create an isolated, insular, high-density cluster of houses. He submitted written comments
for the project record.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, expressed support for the
project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Jones-Rounds agreed the parking lot would not improve Cayuga Street or provide any
benefit to the neighbors. She would like to discuss it in more detail.
Cornish indicated it would be helpful to have a drawing showing the project in the
context of the other side of Cayuga Street.
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
Nicholas walked through the document with the Board.
Schroeder asked the applicant if an exterior transformer is genuinely necessary, and, if so,
where it would be placed. Demarest replied that the applicants are still working with T.G.
Miller, P.E. on details like that.
F. 209-215 Dryden Road (Cornell University Johnson School of Management
Executive Education Program), Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for 209-215 Dryden
Associates, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency and CEQR Discussion – Review
FEAF, Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes to build a six-story / 80-foot tall education
and office building on the 12,301-SF project site. The building will house the Cornell
Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program, which will be a tenant of
the building; so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property. The
building will include classrooms, meeting rooms, staff and faculty offices, and a large
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25
atrium for public assembly and to provide street-level active use. The building is in the
MU-2 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This project is a Type I Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B.
(1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (6.)(11), and
is subject to environmental review.
Applicants John Novarr and Phil Proujansky of 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC;
Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5
Architects updated the Board on the proposed project.
Wolf explained that some design alterations have been made in response to the Board’s
comments. She said the applicants also have met with City Transportation Engineer Tim
Logue and City Superintendent of Public Works Michael Thorne about traffic routes,
utilities and construction staging.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for a six-story educational building to located at 209-
215 Dryden Road by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a six-story / 80-foot tall education and office
building on the 12,301-SF project site. The building will house the Cornell Johnson
School of Management Executive Education Program, which will be a tenant of the
building; so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property. The building
will include classrooms, meeting rooms, staff and faculty offices, and a large atrium for
public assembly and to provide street-level active use. The building is in the MU-2
Zoning District and requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (6.)(11), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Tompkins County Industrial Development
Agency (IDA), a potentially involved agencey agency consent to the City of Ithaca
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26
Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the IDA did, by not responding to the request within 30 days, consent to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project in the
City of Ithaca.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 and Part 3
Some minor revisions were made to the Parts 2 and 3.
Special Note: It was agreed that a separate meeting of the Design Review Committee
would no longer be required, in light of the extensive discussions and design alterations
made at the Project Review Committee level.
G. State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing & Retail), 301 E. State St. /
M.L.K., Jr. Blvd. Street, Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage. Declaration of
Lead Agency and CEQR Discussion ― Review FEAF, Parts 2 & 3. The applicant
proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 11-story, 116’-tall, 288,845-GSF
mixed-use building, with approximately 12,341 SF of new ground-floor retail space,
2,029 SF of which is anticipated to be a restaurant. Upper floors will have a mix of unit
types (1-bedroom / 1-bath to 5-bedroom / 4-bath) for a total of 240 units with
approximately 620 bedrooms. The targeted market is primarily college students. The
ground level includes a loading / delivery / trash area with vehicular access provided
from N. Aurora Street. 35 parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited on-site
parking proposed ― no on-site parking is proposed. The project is in the CDB-120
Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4], (k) and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv) and (11), and is subject
to environmental review.
Applicants Scott Whitham and Cathy deAlmeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Ronnie L. Macejewski, Michael J. Peter and Scott Duckett of Campus Advantage; and
John M. Kelly of Kelly Grossman Architects updated the Board on the proposed project.
Whitham announced that the applicants have done a considerable amount of work since
the last meeting to respond to the Board’s initial comments on the project, including
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27
bringing STREAM Collaborative onto the project team. He said the applicants have
collaborated with SRF Associates and T.G. Miller, P.E. to examine the auto turns and
how best to design the project from a vehicular and traffic-flow perspective. The new site
plan includes a slip lane and an improved intersection, he said, and with the elimination
of two curbcuts, the applicants realized they could eliminate five parking spaces, replace
three of them, and insert a bump-out on the sidewalk. He said they have also begun
conversations with DOT to determine the possibility of canting the building a little
toward Green Street on the site plan. The unit types have also changed significantly, he
concluded.
Schroeder remarked that for this particular site — which faces a street on every side —
the concept of a rear yard is entirely pointless, so he would personally support a Zoning
Variance allowing the applicants to angle the building toward Green Street and thereby
provide more public open space opposite the Commons.
Kelly added that the building would have six retail spaces along the State Street side. She
said the applicant will try to work as much as possible on the streetscape to develop a
sense of continuation of the Commons area.
Jones-Rounds noted she likes many of the changes (e.g., fenestration, street-level
amenities, horizontal banding), but it will be difficult to convince many community
members about the need for such a tall building.
Demarest walked through a presentation of the shadow studies that were conducted.
Schroeder responded that the shadow studies do not address the crucial point. He believes
such a tall, massive building, without any substantial upper-story stepbacks being
provided on the State Street side, would have a serious negative impact on the buildings
and historic resources along State Street and on the streetscape itself. To him, the issue is
not so much the shadow impact, but the impression such a massive structure would have
on people at street-level and the lack of a feeling of openness to daylight and sky above.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28
application for Site Plan Approval for an 11-story mixed-use building by Michael Orsak
for Campus Advantage, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 11-story,
116’-tall, 288,845-GSF mixed-use building, with approximately 12,341 SF of new
ground-floor retail space, 2,029 SF of which is anticipated to be a restaurant. Upper
floors will have a mix of unit types (1-bedroom / 1-bath to 5-bedroom / 4-bath) for a total
of 240 units with approximately 620 bedrooms. The targeted market is primarily college
students. The ground level includes a loading / delivery / trash area with vehicular access
provided from N. Aurora Street. 35 parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited
on-site parking proposed. The project is in the CDB-120 Zoning District and requires
Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4], (k) and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv) and (11), and is subject
to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the NYS DOT and the Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency (IDA), both potentially involved agencies, consent to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: NYSDOT provided written consent and the IDA did, by not responding to
the request within 30 days, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
Blalock remarked that the impact of adding 600-plus people to this particular section of
the City needs to be thoroughly assessed (e.g., sidewalk space, transportation, traffic,
parking and unloading, vehicular logistics).
Whitham replied that the applicants had a productive meeting with City Parking Director
Frank Nagy and TCAT about some of those very issues. TCAT indicated this is the best
location in the City for transition points and access to transportation hubs.
Nicholas stressed that the Planning Board needs to see actual documentation of all those
kinds of assertions, as well as what kinds of on-site services and amenities could mitigate
some of the transportation needs.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
29
Jones-Rounds remarked that the applicant also needs to address whether there is in fact
enough capacity in nearby parking garages. She is also concerned with ensuring access
for bicyclists.
Randall noted that while the Board received some environmental site assessment
information, it needs to see all that information. The geotechnical report, she said, raises
some potential concerns (e.g., drilled shafts hitting groundwater).
Lewis indicated he is most concerned with the building’s massing. Darling agreed. The
applicants should also pay close attention to the utilities to ensure the same problems
encountered with the Commons reconstruction project are not repeated (e.g.,
telecommunications, electricity, water, sewer).
Cornish indicated the applicants should also carefully review construction staging issues,
given that it would be such a massive building on a small site surrounded by streets.
Whitham replied the applicants are collaborating with LeChase Construction Services,
LLC to work through those issues. Cornish added the applicant should also provide
detailed information on move-in / move-out logistics and deliveries.
Schroeder exhorted the applicants to reach out to community organizations, like Historic
Ithaca. It would also be productive if they could present the project to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission, he suggested.
H. 222 S. Cayuga Street, Hotel Ithaca Expansion – Sketch Plan
Applicant David Hart introduced the Board to the proposed project, noting he would
submit a formal application in time for review at the Board’s September 2015 meeting. It
would be a modification of the project that was approved in 2013, but would not build
out the site as aggressively. He plans to demolish two three-story wings and replace those
with 100 rooms, as well as build a 90-room addition to the north. On the south (the
Clinton Street side), the site would be landscaped and paved, with the intent to develop it
with some variation of the previously-approved tall building, at some future date.
Schroeder expressed concern that if the existing south wing were demolished and
replaced only with surface-level parking, the City could end up with only the first phase
of the project for years or decades, which would be unfortunate from an urban planning
perspective. He would very much prefer that the current south wing be preserved until it
could be replaced with a new building. Other Board members expressed agreement with
this.
6. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #2969 ― 222 Elmira Road: Area Variances
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
30
Appeal of Marx Realty and Improvement Co., Inc., for Ithaca Joint Venture, owners of 222
Elmira Road, Ithaca Plaza, for Area Variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8,
Column 7, Width of Street, Column 11, Front Yard, and from Section 325-20 I., which
restricts the location of on-site parking.
The applicant proposes to construct a new 3400 GSF restaurant at the northeast corner of
Ithaca Plaza at 222 Elmira Road. To maintain viable site access, the new building will face
Meadow Street and the restaurant’s façade will align with the existing face of Five Guys
Burgers & Fries restaurant. The proposed building setback is approximately 71 feet from the
South Meadow Street curb face, which does not comply with zoning requirements for width
at street and front yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires that 35% of lot’s street width be
occupied by building frontage between 15 feet and 34 feet from street curb. Furthermore,
Section 325-20 I. states that parking areas are not permitted in the first 100 feet, unless the
requirements of 325-29.2 B. (1) through (3) are met. The applicant proposes to construct 28
new parking spaces for the restaurant. While most of these parking spaces will be more than
100 feet from the street curb, handicapped spaces are located within the 100-foot setback and
eight parking spaces will be reconstructed in an existing parking location within 20 feet of
Meadow Street’s curb. As mitigation for the continued presence of parking spaces facing
Meadow Street, the applicant proposes to construct a four-foot tall site wall between the
parking lot and the South Meadow Street right-of-way, extending the full width of the new
building.
The property at 222 Elmira Road where the proposed restaurant will be located is in a SW-2
Zone where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires variances be
granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues and supports granting this
appeal. The applicant has proposed a site plan that vastly improves the functionality and
attractiveness of the site.
Appeal #2988 ― 506 S. Cayuga Street: Parking Variance
Appeal of Thomas Amici for Mazza and Amici, LLC, owners of 506 South Cayuga for a
variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, a requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
On May 5, 1985, the former owner of 506 South Cayuga Street, James Iacovelli appealed to
the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance, which would allow the conversion of a
single-family home into a two-family unit. Variances were primarily needed because the
property provided no off-street parking and since parking could not be developed on the
property due to the lot size and topography. The Board granted the variance for the lack of
off-street parking, as well as the property’s existing lot size, front yard, side yard, and rear
yard deficiencies. However, granting the variance was conditioned on the owner obtaining a
lease agreement on a yearly basis for three off-site parking spaces within 500 feet of 506
South Cayuga Street.
The current owner, Mazza and Amici, LLC, purchased 506 South Cayuga Street in 1986.
They have provided the three off-site parking spaces over the years, but now state their ability
to lease off-site parking within 500 feet of 506 South Cayuga Street has ended. The property
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
31
that had additional off-site parking spaces for 506 South Cayuga Street was sold. The current
owner plans to redevelop this property. The applicant claims that there now is no off-site
parking available within 500 feet of 506 South Cayuga Street and is requesting relief from the
off-street parking requirements for the duplex.
The property at 506 South Cayuga Street has two units: the four-bedroom unit requires two
parking spaces and the one bedroom apartment requires one space. 506 South Cayuga Street
is in an R-3a Zoning District where neighborhood parking (off-site parking) is allowed.
Although a two-family unit is a permitted in the R-3a Zoning District; Section 325-39 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance be granted for the parking deficiencies before a
Certificate of Compliance can be issued.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues and supports granting this
appeal. The Board feels that the street is very steep and it is hard to locate parking within
500 feet.
Appeal #2989 ― 308-218 Elmira Road: Area Variance
Appeal of Thomas Schickel, Architect for Maguire Family Enterprises, owners of 308-318
Elmira Road, for Area Variances from the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 7,
Width At Street and 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and from 325-39. B., which allows one-
third of the building frontage requirement to be substituted for architectural walls or fencing.
Proposed are additions and renovations to Maguire Chrysler and Fiat Dealership located at
308-318 Elmira Road. The applicant proposes a 1,435-SF addition on the east side of the
existing building, which will expand the showroom to Fiat-Chrysler standards and provide
space for a new lunchroom. The original dealership building at 308-318 Elmira Road
received Area Variances for front yard setback, street frontage, and location of architectural
fencing requirements under Appeal #2831, held on September 7, 2010. Now, the applicant
proposes that a 43.25 foot wide addition be located in line with the existing building and
setback from the street curb 57.3 feet. Section 325-8, Column 11, requires that building
frontage be located between 15 and 34 feet from the street curb. While Section 325-8,
Column 7, requires building frontage to occupy 35 % of the parcel’s street width, Section
325-29 B. (2) provides that one-third of the required building frontage can be substituted with
architectural walls or fence.
The property at 308-18 Elmira Road has a width at street front of 476.22 feet. The
dealership’s building frontage will total 113.25 LF with the proposed addition; required
is166.67 LF of building frontage. One-third (55.56 LF) of the building frontage can be
architectural wall or fence located between 15 and 34 feet from the street curb. Though the
applicant proposes to add 54.44 feet of architectural wall to meet the building frontage
requirement, he proposes to install the architectural fence 13 feet from the street curb.
The property at 308-318 Elmira Road is in a SW-2 Zoning District where the use is permitted
however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be
issued.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues and the applicant has
resolved all site plan issues. The Board supports granting this appeal.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
32
Appeal #2992 ― 308-218 Elmira Road: Sign Variance
Appeal of Thomas Schickel, architect for Maguire Family Enterprises, owners of 308-318
Elmira Road for variances from Section 272-7 A., which restricts freestanding businesses to
one freestanding sign, as well as restricts the amount of allowable signage.
The applicant proposes to install a new freestanding sign at the Chrysler-Fiat dealership at
308-318 Elmira Road. An existing freestanding sign advertises the Maguire’s Chrysler,
Dodge, Jeep, and Ram business. The applicant proposes to install a second freestanding sign
having 16 SF of signage in order to advertise the Fiat business, which is also on site. Sign
Ordinance, Section 272-7 A., states that a freestanding business may only have one
freestanding sign. In addition, Section 272-A restricts the amount of signage allowed on
freestanding signs to 50% of the property’s building frontage. A proposed addition at 308-
318 Elmira Road (Appeal #2989) to the Maguire’s Dealership building will bring the building
frontage to 113.25 LF. This will allow the applicant 56.6 SF of signage. The applicant
proposes at total of 64 SF of signage on two freestanding signs.
The property at 308-18 Elmira Road is in the SW-2 Zoning District where business signs are
allowed; however Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18, requires that variances be granted before
a Sign Permit is issued.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues and supports granting this
appeal. The applicant is removing one sign.
Appeal #2990 ― 106-108 Madison Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Sharon L. Corbitt, owner of 106-108 Madison Street, for Area Variances from
Sections 325-8 Columns 10, 11, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, and Other
Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant owns the property at 106-108 Madison Street where a two-family dwelling is
located and proposes to subdivide the 7,991 square foot lot into two parcels. The existing
two-family dwelling will be on Parcel A, which will have a lot size of 4,944 SF. The eastern
portion of 106-108 Madison Street, Parcel B, will have a lot size of 3,047 SF. Parcel A
exceeds the percentage of allowable lot coverage and has two setback deficiencies. The
proposed subdivision will result in Parcel A having a lot coverage of 38%; the maximum
allowed lot coverage is 35%. The location of the two-family dwelling on Parcel A is non-
conforming with respect to front yard and other side yard setback requirements. The front
yard has a 1.9’ front yard setback; required is a 10-foot front yard setback. The other side
yard is 3.2 feet; required is a 5 feet. Parcel B has no deficiencies.
The property at 106-108 Madison Street is in an R-2b use district where the proposed use is
permitted. However, City Municipal Law Section 33.3 requires parcels that are to be
subdivided to comply with Local Zoning regulations.
The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports
granting it. The deficiency is with the existing parcel due to a garage and the lot coverage
deficiency is very small. The subdivision addresses a long term need of providing more
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
33
housing in the City that is compatible with the neighborhood.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Cornish reported that there has been considerable interest in Collegetown in recent
months, including a meeting of Collegetown merchants, who are interested in becoming
more actively involved in economic activity and development in that part of the City.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling reported that the BPW recently discussed the Ithaca Falls Park project, which
will likely require significant changes as a result of a budget shortfall. There was also
mention of possible historic ruins on the site, which will mean the site will need to be
scanned.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft May 23 26, 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
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:09 p.m.