HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-09-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.:
Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type;
proposed new language shown in red type.
(Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording
with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.)
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
September 22, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott;
Robert Aaron Lewis; McKenzie Jones-Rounds;
C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage;
Michael J. Peter, Campus Advantage;
Jennifer Cassidy, Campus Advantage;
Dan Oltersdorf, Campus Advantage;
Vicki Taylor Brous, Brous Consulting
Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
William Joblanski, Empire GeoServices, Inc.
Site Improvements at 416-418 E. State Street
Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC;
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect
Hotel Ithaca Renovations at 222 S. Cayuga Street,
Previously Holiday Inn Expansion
David Hart, Hart Hotels, Inc.
87-Unit Housing Project at 815 S. Aurora Street (Sketch Plan)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Todd Fox, Modern Living Rentals;
Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Blalock noted that agenda item F — a sketch plan review of the proposed Old Tompkins
County Library project (itself a late addition to the agenda) — has now been removed from
the agenda.
2. Special Order of Business ― Priorities for Comprehensive Plan Phase II
Senior Planner Megan Wilson explained that Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will
include more detailed neighborhood and thematic plans to build upon the recently completed
Plan Ithaca. She said Phase II will be launched in early 2016, when Planning staff will focus
on preparing the two plans selected by Common Council, following tonight’s Planning Board
recommendation. The Comprehensive Planning Plan Committee, she said, has already
identified its “Priority Plans for Phase II.” including a list of the top 20 plans it believes are
most important. Additionally, it has listed its “Top 20 Recommendations From Plan Ithaca.”
Schroeder observed the housing study and the Southside neighborhood plan (the latter begun
but never finished several years ago) were both rated the highest by the Comprehensive Plan
Committee, and he agrees with that assessment. There were no objections.
Adopted Resolution: Planning and Development Board Recommendation of Priorities
for Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where
Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and
principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the
preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS: Plan Ithaca was adopted as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan by the Common
Council on September 2, 2015, and
WHEREAS: work on Phase II will begin in early 2016, and Planning staff will focus on the
preparation of two neighborhood and/or thematic plans to begin this second phase, and
WHEREAS: the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended three thematic plans (a
housing strategy; a city-wide transportation plan; and a floodplain management plan) and
three neighborhood plans (Southside; the Waterfront •••,••• and Inlet Island; and West Hill) to
be top priorities for completion in Phase II, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
Committee’s recommendation, the list of needed thematic plans identified by Plan Ithaca, and
the list of the City’s existing plans, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board recommends that the Common
Council select the Housing Strategy and the Southside neighborhood plan to be the first two
plans completed as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
3. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the Hotel
Ithaca Renovations project.
Leslie Sandman, 310 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed State Street
Triangle project, stating his primary concern relates to the Community Investment Incentive
Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) application, which would essentially mean taxpayers
would be subsidizing the project.
Peter Harriott, 139 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, a retired chemical engineer with an interest in
the environment, spoke about the Ithaca Falls lead contamination remediation project. He
stressed that — unlike lead compounds found in paint which are in fact hazardous to children
— the metallic form of lead found at the site is not the critical health concern some
community members have portrayed it to be.
Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke about recent downtown construction, saying it
often appears to start earlier than 7:30 a.m. She urged the City to make every effort to
enforce permitted construction hours. She also expressed concern about excessive noise from
live music concerts on the Commons and light pollution from its retail stores.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
4. Site Plan Review
A. State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing & Retail), 301 E. State Street /
M.L.K., Jr. Boulevard Street, Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage. Public
Hearing, CEQR Discussion, & Design Review Committee Meeting. The applicant
proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with a mixed-use building having 216,434 GFS
(reduced from 288,845), 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 232 units with approximately
582 bedrooms (reduced from 240 units with 620 bedrooms). Most of the building is 11
stories and 116’ tall; however, portions are stepped down to 95 and 85 feet in height. The
targeted market is primarily college students. The ground level includes a
loading/delivery area with vehicular access provided from N. Aurora Street and the
below-grade level includes a trash area with vehicular access from Green St. Thirty-five
parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited on-site temporary parking proposed.
The project is in the CDB-120 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“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 of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and Noah Demarest of
STREAM Collaborative walked through an overhead presentation, highlighting the
following project changes and points-of-interest:
• Applicants have discussed ways to improve the pedestrian zone at the corner of E.
State and S. Aurora streets with the Board of Public Works and City engineers, as
suggested by the Planning Board.
• Building height has been broken up, now lowered to 10 stories at the rounded
corner and dropping to eight and nine stories for a short stretch in the middle of the
E. State Street facade.
• Applicants received productive feedback from the Design Review Committee about
quality of building materials, detailing, recessing, shadow lines, etc. Applicants
examined various architectural precedents and tried to enrich the relationship of the
building to other local / nearby buildings.
• Activating ground floor / street level is an important part of the project.
• Some living units on the E. State Street side were removed.
• A shadow study was developed to more closely examine specific times of day to
provide a better sense of sun angles, and the building was scaled back to permit
more light to reach buildings on the other side of the street.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
• Applicants met with neighbors and community members, including the Community
School of Music and Arts.
• Project now comprises 232 living units (582 bedrooms).
Consultant Vicki Taylor Brous of Brous Consulting reported that the applicants reviewed
considerable data and have been collaborating with the Downtown Ithaca Alliance on the
Transportation Demand Management Plan, which she said will evolve over time. She
noted a Collegetown parking study conducted a few years ago determined that when a
property owner provides parking, 27 percent of tenants bring a vehicle; whereas, when no
parking is provided, that figure falls to 17 percent. The applicants therefore anticipate
providing no parking will reduce the number of people bringing vehicles. The applicants
will also work with Ithaca Carshare to provide a designated Carshare parking space near
the building, and a bike-share program will also be launched. In addition, she said, a
remote parking program is being developed and the applicants have been working with
TCAT and have included space in the project design for a new on-site bus stop. She said
the applicants examined City garage vacancy rates (especially the Cayuga Street Garage).
She said there is enough space to handle the project, according to City Parking Director
Frank Nagy’s data, which would be mutually beneficial to the City given the current
underutilization of City garages. Brous added that the project is actively seeking
commercial tenants for the building (e.g., Collegetown Bagels, or a neighborhood
grocery store), and will work to encourage residents’ use of the Rosie grocery delivery
service. As a result of all these efforts, Brous stressed, no new traffic is anticipated to
flow into the site.
Whitham indicated the applicants are also aware of various other concerns (e.g., load-in
and load-out, garbage storage and pick-up, quality of building materials, deliveries) that
they are working to address.
Macejewski noted the garbage pick-up location has been moved from Aurora Street to
Green Street, and that the mixture of living units has also changed: 60 percent would now
be 1- or 2-bedroom apartments, or efficiencies, in response to the Board’s concerns.
Whitham reported that the applicants discussed the project with the Board of Public
Works last week, and that the City Transportation Engineer is actively examining the
project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Robin Tropper-Herbel, Executive Director, Community School of Music and Arts,
spoke about her concerns with the proposed project, noting that CSMA’s direct access to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
sunlight would be affected more than any other building by the project. She added that
parking, circulation and traffic also remain significant concerns for the school.
Patrick Braga, student of Urban and Regional Studies at Cornell, spoke in support of the
proposed project.
Christine O’Malley, Preservation Services Coordinator, Historic Ithaca, described the
organization’s concerns with the proposed project, noting the majority of the changes
made to the project have not altered the overall height, massing and composition of the
building, which she said remain very troubling. Historic Ithaca is also concerned, she
added, with the solar access and aesthetic issues associated with the current proposal. She
urged the City to lower the permitted building height in the Zoning District.
Diane Wallace, 119 Ithaca Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, saying it is
too large for Ithaca and will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Erika Feldman, 26 Park Avenue, Homer, N.Y., spoke in support of the proposed project,
stating she is a former Campus Advantage employee at a facility in Blacksburg, Virginia.
At that facility, she said, Campus Advantage had staff available around the clock to
address noise complaints, so she does not believe that would be an issue for this project.
Roger Freeman, 241 Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the
proposed project. He urged the Planning Board to form a subcommittee to review the
project and ensure it is a genuinely multi-use project that benefits the community (e.g.,
affordable rental units, integrative medicine, rooftop restaurant).
John Semmler, 311 E. Green Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project,
alleging that the applicants have distorted some of the facts associated with the project —
e.g., that the project is being intended for a mixture of students, young professionals and
retirees; that it would enrich the pedestrian experience; and that there would be no
significant impact to traffic and parking.
Brett Bossard, Executive Director, Cinemapolis, spoke in support of the proposed
project, stating it represents a singular opportunity for downtown businesses, including
the planned retail and dining opportunities in the building itself.
Mack Travis, owner of Gateway Center, Gateway Commons and Center Ithaca, spoke in
support of the proposed project, noting it would bring nearly 600 new residents to the
downtown area. With regards to the tax abatement issue, Travis said when one considers
the property is currently assessed at $1.8 million and would contribute approximately
$1,169,000 in taxes over the next 12 years, compared to approximately $8,529,000 in
taxes, if developed (a $7,360,000 increase), and requiring little financial commitment on
the part of the City, it actually makes considerable economic sense for the community.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Gary Ferguson, Executive Director, Downtown Ithaca Alliance, spoke in support of the
proposed project on behalf of the DIA Board of Directors, noting he submitted a
resolution from that Board endorsing the project, with some conditions (e.g., the project
should address downtown parking concerns and create a parking plan, the project should
create a transportation demand management plan).
Daniel Hoffman, West Hill resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting
the applicants have not addressed all his concerns, like the lack of parking, solar access
impacts and his opposition to the tax abatement.
Gregar Brous, 2 Knoll Tree Road, Town of Dryden, owner of Collegetown Bagels, Inc.,
spoke in support of the proposed project, describing it is as a valuable opportunity to
make a statement that Ithaca is an urban environment, at a strategic gateway location. He
said Ithaca very much needs more density, for which there are not many suitable
locations.
Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project; she
objects to the building’s size and is concerned with noise, traffic and parking issues. She
also urged the City to institute a construction moratorium.
Heather Lambert, 304 Hudson Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project,
stating that while it has great potential, it needs to be more mixed-use than it is now. She
is also concerned with vehicular circulation and traffic-related issues, as well as the vast
scale of the building. She suggested that it incorporate vegetated setbacks and allow more
light onto the street.
Greg Poe, 27 Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca, added his objection to the same project,
pointing to traffic flow at one of the major thoroughfares into town as his greatest
concern.
George McGonigal, First Ward Alderperson, 518 Hector Street, spoke in opposition to
the proposed project, declaring it simply too large.
Anna Kelles, 139 Linn Street, also voiced opposition to the same project, saying that
while she appreciates the changes that were made to the project, they are insufficient. She
urged the Board to look at the economic impact on surrounding property owners, as well
as the impact on parking. She agrees it is unnecessarily large.
Adil Griguihi, owner of Casablanca Pizzeria & Mediterranean Cuisine, spoke in support
of the proposed project, stating it would bring more students and business to the
downtown area, although there definitely need to be better parking and vehicular
circulation solutions.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
Julie Schrader, owner of Homespun Boutique, opposed the same project because she
said it is too large and will produce more traffic (e.g., buses, cars, deliveries, etc.).
Barham Lashley, 710 N. Aurora Street, opposed the same project, describing himself as
an avid walker; he said the project would make it too dense in downtown Ithaca for him
to walk.
Peter Harriott, 139 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, Town of Dryden, spoke in opposition to
the proposed project, agreeing it is too large. It would also be a mistake to give the
applicants a tax abatement, he maintained.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the
proposed project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Blalock noted the Board now needs to determine how to move forward in light of the lack
of clarity about the BPW’s position on allowing the project to expand into the City’s right
of way by eliminating the turning lane at the corner of E. State and S. Aurora streets. He
said the September 8 Design Review Committee meeting notes should also be reviewed
and discussed by the full Board.
Nicholas added she would like to review the Downtown Parking Future Capacity
Analysis table produced by City Parking Director Frank Nagy, as well as City
Transportation Engineer Tim Logue’s notes from the BPW meeting (as outlined in a
September 21 e-mail to the applicants). She noted the BPW requested a lot more
information before making its decision. At this juncture, she said, the critical question is
whether the applicants would like to move forward with a project proposal that includes
the turning lane, or one that does not, since it would be a very different project with the
removal of the parking and plaza.
Schroeder remarked that the inclusion of the plaza and extended sidewalk are extremely
important to integrating the project with the Commons. Whitham replied that the
applicants would certainly like to work with the BPW and City Transportation Engineer
to that end, but in parallel with other possible approaches.
Schroeder stressed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends a minimum
of 12 feet of street-side width in a central downtown commercial district even in the most
constrained conditions (the optimum recommended width is 21.5 feet). For a building of
this scale, Schroeder said, a 10-foot street-side width is simply not adequate and would
represent a significant environmental impact. If the turning lane is retained and the
pedestrian plaza removed, he said, the pedestrian accommodations at that corner would
be far too narrow and constricted for vehicles turning onto East State Street).
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
Whitham agreed the removal of the turning lane would be the best option. Nicholas
observed there may be other solutions to the problem other than using a part of the City
street.
Darling explained the BPW needs to consider several different factors, which is why it
asked for more information from both the applicants (e.g., impact on traffic operations on
E. State / M.L.K., Jr. Street and Aurora Street, and exploration of different curb
alignments more favorable to northbound right-turning truck traffic) and the City
Transportation Engineer (e.g., impact of project on conversion of the 100 block of N.
Aurora Street into a two-way street).
Blalock recalled that the City Transportation Engineer once informed the Board that
converting the 100 block of N. Aurora Street into a two-way street was not feasible.
Darling replied that no final determination has been made on that issue. The BPW
periodically discusses the possibility.
Whitham indicated the applicants will work with the BPW and City Transportation
Engineer to further identify all possible options.
Elliott asked the applicants to consider how they would retain the more accessible urban
experience in the current design, if the turning lane is not removed. The obvious solution,
he said, would seem to be moving the building footprint.
Schroeder suggested something along the lines of a first-floor arcade.
Blalock recalled that the State Department of Transportation has property on Green Street
that may be a possibility. Whitham replied that the applicants discussed that option with
the DOT, but the process for purchasing the land outright would have taken as long as a
year, far beyond the project schedule. Negotiating an easement, on the other hand, would
not take so long, so the applicants will continue exploring that possibility.
Blalock indicated the applicants will need a contingency plan in place for the purposes of
the environmental review, if the BPW does not end up approving expansion into the
City’s right of way.
Schroeder said the notion that the building has to be so close to State Street because of a
10-foot rear yard requirement on Green Street — on a site completely surrounded by
streets — is absurd. Moreover, he said, the question of where any rear yard is considered
to be in such a situation is entirely subjective. If the Green Street side were not the rear
yard, the applicants would have 10 feet to move the building closer to Green Street.
Blalock noted the Board should now discuss the Design Review Committee meeting,
which occurred but was never officially noticed as a public meeting.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
Nicholas indicated the Board could convene another Design Review Committee meeting
this evening, if it chooses.
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Design Review Committee meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING BEGINS
Some corrections and clarifications of the September 8 Design Review Committee
meeting notes were proposed by Schroeder and accepted. Schroeder remarked that in
light of the size and complexity of the project, he believes it would be appropriate to have
a second Design Review Committee meeting, at a later date, to conduct a further detailed
review of the evolving project design. No objections were raised.
There being no further discussion, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling,
and approved unanimously, the Design Review Committee meeting was adjourned.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CONCLUDES
Blalock stated the Board should now review the Downtown Parking Future Capacity
Analysis table produced by City Parking Director Frank Nagy.
Nicholas explained the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis table contains raw
data for the total capacity of each City garage, as well as numerical projections for the
parking demand from new development projects (calculated differently for each project).
Parking needs for each development project have generally been divided among different
garages. Each yellow-filled box in the table represents the total projected occupancy for
each garage, for daytime and evening (not including weekends).
Schroeder observed that some summary numbers on the second page of the Future
Capacity Analysis document must be wrong, if the corresponding numbers on its first
page are correct. Nicholas replied that Planning Division staff will double-check these
figures with Parking Director Nagy. She also hopes to provide explanatory text about the
figures, as well as language summarizing the City’s optimal goals.
Jones-Rounds said she would like to address public concerns about parking and traffic
issues. Many of those concerns, she said, appear to be based on more conventional or
traditional paradigms of vehicle use; however, policy decisions, like removing minimum
parking requirements, are legitimate approaches for improving the pedestrian experience
and pursuing other public policy objectives.
Blalock suggested it would be helpful to create a more easily and quickly understood
summary of the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis for the public. He agreed
that the data suggest there would be enough parking to accommodate the project.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
Whitham indicated the applicants understand they need to provide more information for
the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3.
At this point in the meeting, Blalock asked the Board if it believes the project design is
generally moving in the right direction.
Darling replied, yes; however, he remains very concerned about some of the potential
impacts, which he looks forward to seeing addressed.
Jones-Rounds indicated the applicants should seriously reconsider reducing the number
of beds, as well as increasing solar access and incorporating affordable rental units into
the project.
Lewis said he is very pleased with the design’s evolution, although details remain that he
does not fully understand.
Randall indicated she would like more information in the Transportation Demand
Management Plan. Also, while she appreciates the Downtown Parking Future Capacity
Analysis, she is concerned with what would happen to parking fees, once parking
availability in City garages falls below a certain threshold. She would like to see a more
comprehensive TDMP, as well as more information from the applicants about plans for
establishing active ground-level uses, an active streetscape and multiple transportation
modes.
B. Four Multi-Family Dwellings, “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street,
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for PPM Homes. No Action. The applicant
proposes to build a new multi-family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between
W. Spencer Street and W. Cayuga S. Cayuga Street. The project will include four
buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total). A 12-car
parking area is proposed with access off W. Cayuga 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 variance for parking. 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 of STREAM Collaborative updated the Board on the proposed
project, highlighting the following changes in response to the Board’s concerns:
• Ornamental fence has been added along S. Cayuga Street, with plantings to help
buffer the parking area from public view.
• Project will employ pole-mounted transformer, eliminating need for transformer
pad.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
• Handicapped parking requirements will be more closely examined.
• One parking space will be located where transformer pad would have been, but
parking count will remain the same.
• Two bike racks were added to base of retaining wall; and there will be bike storage
for tenants.
• Planting Plan was completed with clearly labeled schedule; Grading Plan has been
refined.
• Site section has been provided (cutting through Cayuga Street at top and Spencer
Street at bottom, illustrating scale of existing homes in context).
• Utility Plan has been completed.
• Catch basins have been added along stairs to collect as much water as possible; and
a bio-retention swale has been added to intercept some stormwater.
Consultant William Joblanski of Empire GeoServices, Inc. explained that, as noted in the
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), trichloroethylene (TCE) was discovered
in groundwater samples collected from two monitoring locations at the site, originating
from an inactive off-site source (the Emerson Power Transmission property). Since the
TCE in the groundwater could potentially migrate into the air as vapor, he said vapor-
mitigation systems will be installed in the new buildings in accordance with NYS
Department of Health standards. He said there is no reason to believe there has been any
soil contamination, although a Soil Management Plan will still be developed.
Randall asked if Joblanski foresees any need to conduct a Phase 2 ESA. Joblanski
replied, no; it would not provide any more information than already available. He
stressed it is a very low level of contamination.
Nicholas asked when the DEC would ordinarily get involved. Joblanski replied that the
DEC would become involved if it determines there is a need.
Randall asked if the DEC is an Involved Agency. Nicholas replied that the City did not
know about the contamination when the application was submitted, so the DEC was not
formally notified.
Randall indicated she would very much prefer to know the DEC is satisfied with how the
contamination and monitoring are being handled, before proceeding further. Joblanski
replied that the applicant can certainly confirm that with the DEC.
Note: The two original agenda action items (Determination of Environmental
Significance and Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals) were deferred.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
C. Site Improvements, 416 E. State Street, Scott Whitham. Declaration of Lead Agency
& Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing
commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one
apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of rear deck
and stairs connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a
curb-cut on State Street and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area,
walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment
require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is
being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 E. State Street, so
that 37 parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking
agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District.
The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review.
Schroeder disclosed he is involved in a potential business relationship with two of the
owners of the house directly east of the property in question, but this relationship would
involve a property in a different section of the City, so he does not have any existing or
potential financial interest in a property affected by the 416 E. State Street project and
remains confident he can serve as an impartial decision-maker for project review.
Applicants Jason Demarest of Jason Demarest Architect and Cathy deAlmeida of
Whitham Planning & Design, LLC updated the Board on the proposed project.
Schroeder expressed concern there is no curb cut on the far side of E. State Street at the
Schuyler Place intersection that would allow access to the proposed off-site parking at
Gateway Plaza; this intersection is not structured with a north-south pedestrian crossing.
DeAlmeida noted one major issue raised by community members is the potential for
noise pollution. To address their concerns, she said the owner has agreed to hire a sound
engineer to identify the primary noise-generating spaces and ensure the property
complies with the City Noise Ordinance.
Schroeder noted the applicants indicated there would be no amplified rock music
associated with the project. If that is the intention, then that needs to be formalized in
writing and enforceable over the life of the property, regardless of the owner. Blalock
replied that he asked Planning staff to consult with the City Attorney’s Office about the
binding nature of any noise-restriction agreements.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
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 site improvements, including a 3-car parking lot, to
be located at 416 E. State St. / M.L.K., Jr. Blvd., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing
commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one
apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of a rear deck
and stairs, connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a
curb-cut on State St. and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways,
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40
off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being
signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 East State Street, so that 37
parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The
project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project
requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, 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, to be
located at 416 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd. in the City of Ithaca.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Teresa Halpert, 420 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to the project, noting she is
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
skeptical about the legality of the parking plan and the proposal to establish a private
smoking membership-only arrangement, according to her understanding of NYS law. If
they are not possible, she would be extremely concerned.
Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca Street, also spoke against the project, noting his yard is
on the other side of the Argos Inn ‘amphitheater.’ He said he has heard excessive noise
from that location virtually every night during the summer (even past 10:00 p.m.). The
proposed new lounge / bar would be open even later, until 1:00 a.m. He emphasized this
is a residential neighborhood. He also expressed serious concerns about the parking
situation.
Eric Rosario, 228 S. Geneva Street, also voiced opposition to the project, noting the
applicant’s presentation did not even mention his property, merely five feet away from
the site. Creating another bar in the area will have a corrosive effect on the neighborhood,
he said, adding that the proposed pedestrian crossing also appears far too dangerous.
Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Place, also expressed disapproval of the proposed project,
stating he lives near the rear portion of the Argos Inn site and has experienced
considerable vibration and noise from that bar. The neighborhood is a fragile
environment, he said, and he is skeptical even a sound engineer would be able to mitigate
that kind of vibration. It would not be the kind of environment in which he would like his
family to live.
David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, added his comments opposing the project,
emphasizing that noise is not merely a nuisance, but also has documented negative
medical / physiological consequences. In addition, he said, there would be no way of
completely mitigating the external noises associated with the project. The real question to
him is whether this is an appropriate use of the building.
Benjamin Piekut, 417 E. Seneca Street, said he agrees with all the other public speakers
opposing this project. His main concern is parking and the treatment of outdoor spaces;
for example, he would be very concerned with the prospect of a smoking porch or
landing. The proposed project, he concluded, merely ends up relocating the Argos Inn’s
own design problems.
Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Place, added her voice against the project, pointing
out that she had tried contacting the applicants, but never received a response. It does not
seem there is any dialogue between the applicants and the community, she said, adding
that the community does not ultimately have any real assurance regarding the use of the
building. Allowing the project to move forward, she concluded, would establish a distinct
precedent and alter the character of the neighborhood.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
Nicholas noted the applicants only just submitted some additional information today.
Schroeder remarked he is very concerned with the issue mentioned by the County
Planning Department regarding patrons crossing East State Street and the associated
safety issues.
Jones-Rounds disclosed that Argos Inn owner, Avi Smith, is a close personal friend.
D. Hotel Ithaca Renovations, 222 S. Cayuga Street, David Hart. Amended Negative
Declaration of Significance. A project on this site was approved on July 24, 2012. The
applicant has since redesigned the project and now seeks Site Plan Approval for a new
proposal. The new proposal is for construction of a five-story wing with first- and
second-floor connections to the existing building. These connections will create a new
pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom, new break-out rooms, and a
new fitness center. Site improvements will include new landscaping, walkways, and site
furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the same, but parking throughout the site
will be reorganized, resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces. Site Demolition will
include removal of the north and west multi-story wings, as well as paving and some
landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District and requires Design Review.
This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B.(1) (h.)(4) and (l) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11). The Lead Agency will amend the Negative
Declaration issued on March 27, 2012. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Applicant David Hart of Hart Hotels, Inc. walked through a presentation of the revised
proposal.
Schroeder remarked that, generally speaking, local exterior insulation finishing systems
(EIFS) have aged very poorly (e.g., Tompkins County Public Library). There have been
numerous complaints about the Seneca Way project, which used a lot of it. He strongly
urged the applicant to employ real stucco, or explore another alternative material, as
recommended by the Project Review Committee encouraged the applicant to explore.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: on March 27, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
determined that a proposed project, involving and an expansion and area variance of the
former Holiday Inn, located at 222 S. Cayuga St. would 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, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
WHEREAS: the above referenced proposed project included the demolition of the
existing north, south, and west guest room wings (110 rooms) and construction of two
new additions; One being a one-story 13,845 SF banquet and meeting facility on the
north side of the main building; the other being a 100’ tall 10-story (including rooftop
complex) tower with a 9,190 SF footprint, featuring 115 new guest rooms, a rooftop
entertainment complex, relocation of the existing hotel restaurant to the ground floor,
fronting Cayuga Street, and six 2-bedroom units of employee housing. Site development
included: two new curbcuts to make a conference center drop-off; reconfiguration of the
parking areas, resulting in a decrease of 21 parking spaces; removal of 9 mature trees and
much of the existing landscaping along Cayuga Street; new landscaping and sidewalks;
lighting; and signage, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has since redesigned the project and is now seeking site plan
approval for a new proposal, and
WHEREAS: the new proposal (now named Hotel Ithaca) is for construction of a five
story wing with first and second floor connections to the existing building. This
connection will create a new pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom,
new break out rooms and a new fitness center. Site improvements will include •••a•••
new landscaping, walkways and site furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the
same but parking throughout the site will be reorganized resulting in a reduction from
106 to 97 spaces. Site demolition will include the removal of the north and west multi
story wings, as well as paving and some landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100
Zoning District and requires Design Review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This project does not require an Area Variance, 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 (l) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City
of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that
changes are proposed for the project and the Lead Agency has determined that no
significant adverse impact will occur, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
September 22, 2015, reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled: “Existing
Site Plan (C-1),” “Proposed Site Plan (C-3),” “Proposed First Floor Plan (A-1),”
“Proposed Second Floor Plan (A-2),” “Proposed 3rd-5th Floor Plan (A-3),” “Proposed
Elevations (A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7),” dated 8-1-15 and prepared by NH Architects, and
other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as lead Agency has determined that the proposed changes
result in a project that is significantly smaller in scale and will therefore have no new
impacts that were not previously considered, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby determine
that the proposed Ithaca Hotel Modernization Project will result in no significant impact
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
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, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
E. 815 S. Aurora Street, 87-Unit Housing Project – Sketch Plan
Applicants Todd Fox and Charlie O’Connor of Modern Living Rentals and Noah
Demarest of STREAM Collaborative described the proposed project to the Board.
Fox indicated the project would house Ithaca College students and represents a great
opportunity to build a high-density project, while drawing some Ithaca College students
away from South Hill residential neighborhoods. The one obstacle is that it would require
a Zoning Variance. The applicants would like to petition the Board of Zoning Appeals for
permission to build the project just outside the cell phone tower fall zone.
Demarest explained the current regulations prohibit construction within twice the height
of the cell tower. At this stage in the process, the applicants would like an indication from
the Planning Board regarding what may be possible and whether the Board would likely
approve the project. It is a very complicated project, due to the topography and fall zone
requirement.
Schroeder indicated the applicants should really appeal to Common Council. It is the
City’s elected officials who determined that the fall zone should be twice the height of
the tower; and he does not believe that kind of decision should be circumvented by a
Zoning Variance.
Fox responded that most municipalities in the region do not have fall zones defined as
twice the height of a cell tower. He believes Common Council’s original decision was
influenced by the desire to deter construction of cell towers. He noted he had a discussion
with the company that designed the tower. Said company indicated it would be willing to
build a monopole tower, if the applicants paid for it, which would eliminate the fall zone
issue and be safer than the current tower.
Blalock agreed with Schroeder that Common Council should be making the decision on
the matter. The applicants are essentially asking the Planning Board and / or the BZA to
overturn a decision of Common Council, he said, which seems beyond the Planning
Board’s purview.
5. Zoning Appeals
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
Appeal #2999 — 1106 N. Cayuga Street: Area Variances
Appeal of Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for Sarah and Craig Cummins, owners
of 1106 North Cayuga Street for variances from Section 325-8, Columns 7, 10, 11, and 12,
Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, and Side Yard, respectively,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to add a 505-SF addition to the existing single-family home at 1101
North Cayuga. This one-story addition will be located in the property’s rear yard. However,
before the addition can be constructed, the applicant must remove an existing 355 SF deck.
Though the addition will meet zoning setback requirements, it will increase the existing lot
coverage deficiency from 36.2% to 40.76%. The allowed lot coverage is 35%. Furthermore,
the existing building does not meet several district regulation requirements. The lot width is
32.9 feet; required is 35 feet. The front yard is 3 feet; required is 10 feet. The side yard is 2.2
feet; required is 10 feet.
The property at 1106 N. Cayuga Street is in an R-2b Use District, where the single-family
home is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a
Building Permit can be issued.
The Board did not identify any long-term planning issues and recommends granting this
appeal.
Appeal #3003 — 209-215 Dryden Road: Design Variances
Appeal of John Novarr for 209-215 Dryden Road Associates for variances from Section 325-
45.2 G. (2.) (12) and 325-45.2 G. (3.) (b), distance between entries and chamfered corner,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to develop a new six-story building at the corner of Dryden Road and
Linden Avenue, located in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) Zoning
District. This building will be the home for Cornell University’s Johnson School of
Management Executive Education program. The proposed building design incorporates
classrooms, offices, and meeting spaces on all six stories of the building and includes an open
three-story atrium with a stairway visible to pedestrian traffic along Dryden Road. However,
to meet the school’s programmatic needs, the applicant is requesting two variances from the
MU-2 Zoning District’s design requirements.
The applicant requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G. (2.) (12), the requirements that
the distance between functioning street-facing entries be limited to a maximum of 60 feet
apart, and that those commercial entries be functional and useable during business hours. The
proposed building has two street-facing façades, one on Dryden Road, and one on Linden
Avenue. The façade on Dryden Road is 122’ 8” long and has one- two-door entry located
between 8 and 14 feet from the façade’s northwest corner; required are two doors along this
face of the building. On Linden Avenue, one door is located approximately 16.5 feet to 20
feet south of the northeast corner of the building and 64’ from the building’s southeast east
corner; required are two doors on this face of the building. While the entry door on Dryden
Road meets the requirement that entries must be functioning and useable during business
hours, the door on Linden Avenue serves a stair exit and is not intended for ingress access.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
The applicant also requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G.(3) (b), requiring a building
on a corner lot in the MU-2 Zoning District have a chamfered corner or be setback a
minimum of 5 feet from both street frontages. The proposed building is set back 7 feet from
Dryden Road, but the Linden Avenue setback varies from 2 to 0 feet. The applicant claims
the slight gain in visibility or pedestrian access at the corner would cause a significant loss of
useable interior space and a greater construction cost due to increased structural complexity.
The proposed building at 209-215 Dryden Road is in the MU-2 Zoning District where the
proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Area Variances be granted
before a Building Permit is issued.
The Board supports granting this appeal for two reasons: (1) regarding the doors, the Board
feels that the design of the building meets the intent of the Collegetown Area Form Districts
zoning. The extensive glazing on its bottom floors provides an animated street experience, as
views are into well-lighted gathering and event areas; and (2) regarding the required
chamfered corner on Dryden and Linden, the Board feels the building meets the intent of the
ordinance on this corner. This corner transitions from a high-density mixed-use district to a
lower-density residential district. There is far less vehicular, pedestrian, and bike traffic at
this corner than at the corner of Dryden and College Ave., where a chamfer is also required.
The bottom floors of the building are pushed back from the property line an additional 2 feet
in excess of the required setback ― which achieves sufficient visibility and openness (as
intended by the ordinance) in this location.
Appeal #3004 — 705 N. Aurora Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Joseph Steuer, owner of 701 N. Aurora Street, for variances from Section 325-8,
Columns 4 and 14/15, Parking, and Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has requested a Lot Line Adjustment from the Director of Zoning
Administration for two of his contiguous properties located at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street.
The existing property at 705 N. Aurora Street is a two-family dwelling with a non-
conforming accessory structure, which is located 2.9 feet from the rear yard property line.
This accessory structure was granted a variance on March 10, 1986 (Appeal #1678) to the
former property owner for an accessory use as a home office. As the new owner of 705 N.
Aurora Street, the applicant wants to convert this structure into a studio apartment making it a
second primary use on the lot. However, the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street does not have
sufficient lot area for two primary uses. To resolve the lot size issue, the applicant proposes to
consolidate a portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street and its accessory use with the adjacent
property at 701 N. Aurora Street. This will create an “L”-shaped parcel at 701 N. Aurora
Street with sufficient lot area for two primary uses.
The Director of Zoning Administration cannot adjust the lot lines of two contiguous lots, if it
will create a new buildable lot or create a zoning deficiency in either lot. Both properties in
their current configurations have a number of existing area deficiencies, but these deficiencies
are not relevant to issuing a Lot Line Adjustment. While the proposed Lot Line Adjustment
would cause the lot size at 705 N. Aurora Street to be reduced from 4,080 SF to 3,010 SF, the
lot area requirement for the two-family dwelling is only 3,000 SF. Furthermore, the proposed
Lot Line Adjustment would create two deficiencies at 705 N. Aurora Street, lot coverage and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
depth of rear yard, compliant with respect to zoning regulations.
Nevertheless, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create new deficiencies for the property
at 701 N. Aurora Street. The 4-bedroom single-family home at 701 N. Aurora Street requires
two parking spaces. The studio apartment will increase the parking requirement to three off-
street spaces. The property at 701 N. Aurora Street has no off-street parking. Furthermore, the
Lot Line Adjustment will cause the property to have a deficient rear yard. In its current
configuration, 701 N. Aurora Street has a compliant rear yard with a lot depth of 29’6”.
Consolidating the rear portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street with the parcel at 701 N.
Aurora Street would reduce the rear yard to 2.9 feet. 701 N. Aurora Street is required to
provide a rear yard that has a depth of 26 feet.
The properties at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street are in the R-2b Use District where converting
the former accessory structure to a one-unit dwelling is permitted. However, Section 290-1,
“Lot Line Adjustment,” requires that variances be granted before the Zoning Director issues a
Lot Line Adjustment.
As there are no physical changes to the neighborhood, the Board did not identify any long-
term planning issues and recommends granting this appeal. The Board recognizes the need
for new housing and supports the conversion of an existing structure into housing.
Appeal #3005 — 123-127, 133, 135-139 E. State Street (Harold’s Square): Area Variances
Appeal of Scott Whitham for the owner, L Enterprises, LLC, for an Area Variance from
Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard
Depth, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a 140-foot
tall, 11-story, mixed-use building of approximately 162,750 GSF, known as “Harold’s
Square.” The building is designed to have commercial business on the ground floor, three
stories of upper-story office space, 6 stories devoted to residential use, and an 11th-story
penthouse with multi-purpose amenities. The residential portion of the building is in a tower
that will be set back 62'8" setback or more from the building’s four-story façade facing the
Commons. This tower will reach a height of no more than 140 feet. The building will have
two main entrances, one on the Commons and the other facing the Green Street Alley
between the Commons and the Green Street garage.
The applicant claims the size of the project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the
building. However, District Regulations state that 100% lot coverage is allowed only when
the required 10-foot rear yard is provided. As proposed, the project has no rear yard. The
proposed project is located in the CBD-60/CBD-140 Use Districts where the uses of the
proposed building are permitted. However, Sections 325-38 and 325-39 require Area
Variances be granted before a Building Permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
The Board granted Site Plan Approval for this project in August 2013 and granted a two-year
extension to the approval in August 2015. The Board supports the project and recommends
granting this appeal.
6. Old / New Business
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
A. December 2015 Planning Board Schedule
Nicholas noted the December Planning Board meeting is ordinarily scheduled a week
earlier than usual to accommodate holiday schedules, but it will take place on the regular
meeting day this year, December 22, 2015.
B. Interim Design Guidelines for Collegetown & Downtown
No discussion.
C. Recommendation to Board of Public Works
Re: Railing Height and Railing Painting on Cascadilla Creek
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling:
To:
Board
of
Public
Works
From:
Planning
and
Development
Board
RE:
Improvements
to
Cascadilla
Creekway
Date:
September
23,
2015
The
Planning
Board
has
reviewed
plans
dated
September
15,
2015
for
the
proposed
improvements
to
Cascadilla
Creekway.
As
the
Board
understands
the
project
it
is
to
include
some
wall
repairs,
safety
railings
on
both
sides
of
the
creekway,
possible
intersection
improvements
and
a
pedestrian
bridge
replacement.
Drawings
illustrating
the
proposed
height
of
the
railings
in
relation
to
pedestrians,
cars
and
cyclists,
show
that
the
railings
on
the
south
side
of
the
creek
are
proposed
to
be
approximately
five
feet
high.
The
Planning
Board
understands
that
the
reason
for
this
height
—
which
as
the
drawings
depict,
can
be
taller
than
a
car
—
is
to
comply
with
safety
standards
that
would
allow
the
southern
side
of
the
creekway
to
be
an
official
bicycle
boulevard.
However,
the
Board
also
understands
that
bike
boulevards
can
include
portions
posted
as
dismount
areas.
The
Board
also
understands
that
due
to
cost,
the
only
feasible
railing
design
is
a
standard
steel
box
beam
railing
system.
The
Planning
Board
feels
that
the
tall
height
of
the
railings
on
the
south
creek
side
combined
with
their
standard
highway
design
will
significantly
detract
from
the
experience
of
being
in
this
truly
unique
and
beautiful
part
of
the
City.
Since
the
structure
of
the
railings
cannot
(as
the
Board
understands
it)
be
under
consideration
the
Board
suggests
that
the
railings
be
painted
dark
green,
similar
to
the
railings
on
the
Thurston
Avenue
Bridge.
In
addition,
it
urges
the
Board
of
Public
Works
to
post
this
portion
of
the
bike
boulevard
as
a
dismount
area
so
that
the
railings
on
its
south
side
can
be
lowered
to
the
more
open,
welcoming
and
pedestrian
scaled
3’6’
3’6”
proposed
for
its
north
side.
The
Board
feels
that
the
creekway
will
continue
to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
function
as
an
important
pedestrian
and
bike
route
with
this
change
and
that
lower
painted
railings
will
significantly
improve
the
aesthetics
and
human
scale
of
this
project,
and
render
it
more
appropriate
for
its
beautiful
creekside
setting.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Cornish noted she had sent some information to the Board about ex parte communication
guidelines. It would be helpful to discuss this subject as a group, at some point during a
future Planning Board meeting.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
8. Approval of Minutes
No minutes were approved.
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.