HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-09-27DRAFT 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 27, 2016
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott;
Robert Aaron Lewis; Matthew Johnston;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None.
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 404 Wood Street
Karen Werner, Applicant
1001 N. Aurora Street (Subdivision and Site Plan Review)
Daniel Hirtler, Architect;
Stavros Stavropoulos, Owner
Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road
Doug Williams, Eastern Hospitality Advisors
Townhomes & Apartments at 119-121 & 125 College
Avenue (Sketch Plan)
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects;
Phil Proujansky, Owner;
John Novarr, Owner
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas explained that the agenda has been revised to include consideration of project
changes for the Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road, only just proposed by the applicant
earlier today.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the City
Centre project at 301 E. State Street and the proposed Carpenter Business Park-Maguire Ford
Lincoln Nissan Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) proposal.
3. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, 404 Wood Street, Karen Werner on behalf of Charles L.
Stanton. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of
Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing
to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into two parcels: one containing the existing
one-family dwelling and measuring approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet
of frontage on Wood Street; and another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with
approximately 71 feet of frontage on Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street.
The property is in the R-3b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for
a one- or two-family dwelling and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum
street width of 30’ for one- or two-family dwellings and higher requirements for other
uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but
no less than 20 feet, respectively. The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an
existing rear yard deficiency. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review.
Applicant Karen Werner, a friend of the owner, presented a brief overview of the
proposed Subdivision, noting it is a family home that the owner would like to sell. The
owner’s realtor suggested another residential building could be constructed on the vacant
land next to the family home. (The owner will not be building the second house himself.)
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #103.-1-2,
located at 404 Wood St. by Charles Stanton, and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into
two parcels: one containing the existing one-family dwelling and measuring
approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet of frontage on Wood Street; and
another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with approximately 71 feet of frontage on
Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning
District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and
higher requirements for other uses, and minimum street width of 30’ for one- or two-
family dwellings and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum front, side, and
rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively.
The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an existing rear yard deficiency, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local Environmental
Review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of Subdivision
approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #103.-1-2, located at 404 Wood St. by Charles
Stanton.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, 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.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
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 #103.-1-2, located at 404 Wood St. by Charles Stanton, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into
two parcels: one containing the existing one-family dwelling and measuring
approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet of frontage on Wood Street; and
another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with approximately 71 feet of frontage on
Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning
District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and
higher requirements for other uses, and minimum street width of 30’ for one- or two-
family dwellings and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum front, side, and
rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively.
The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an existing rear yard deficiency, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare
itself Lead Agency for the action, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did
on September 27, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by
Planning staff; a survey titled “Subdivision Map No. 404 Wood Street, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and dated 8/19/16; and
other application materials, 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,
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, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
Vacancies: None
The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “5.
Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes.
B. Minor Subdivision, 1001 N. Aurora Street (Tax Parcel # 12.-6-13), Daniel Hirtler for
Stavros Stavropoulos. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, &
Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with
approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring
approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and
52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which
has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for
other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for
other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or
50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. Site development will include removal of
existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new
landscaping to include two new street trees. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing house and to build a two-family dwelling on each new lot. This is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to
Environmental Review.
Architect Daniel Hirtler and owner Stavros Stavropoulos presented a brief overview of
the proposed Subdivision, noting the proposal is to divide the property into two buildable
lots, requiring the demolition of the existing house. The end result would be two 2-family
homes, one on each lot and both facing Queen Street.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision and two duplexes on of
City of Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 Tax Parcel #12.-6-13, located at 1001 N Aurora St N.
Aurora St., by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into
two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of
frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with
approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen
Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000
SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street
width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front,
side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing
single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping
to include including two new street trees, 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: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the
City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any
subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot,
and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local Environmental
Review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of site plan and
subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 actions of Subdivision and Site
Plan Approval for the proposed project, to be located at 1001 N. Aurora Street by Dan
Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos in the City of Ithaca.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, and
approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Subdivision and two duplexes on City of
Ithaca Tax Parcel #12.-6-13, located at 1001 N. Aurora St., by Dan Hirtler for Stavros
Stavropoulos, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into
two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with
approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen
Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000
SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street
width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front,
side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-
family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing
single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping
to include two new street trees, 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: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare
itself Lead Agency for the action, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did
on September 27, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by
Planning staff and the following drawings: “Plan of Area around 1001 North Aurora
Street (A1),” “Proposed Site Plan (A2),” “Elevations (A3),” and “Southwest Elevation
Showing Plantings And Colors”; and other application materials, 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,
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, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Nicholas explained that the above two resolutions have been written so that they apply to
both the action of Subdivision and the action of Site Plan Review.
Hirtler explained he has not yet submitted the final Subdivision plat — which must be in
hand before the Planning Board can approve the Subdivision — since that plat cannot be
produced until the applicant has demolished the existing structure. Nicholas replied the
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
applicant can obtain the Demolition Permit once the Board issues the Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Two Duplexes, 1001 N. Aurora Street (Tax Parcel # 12.-6-13), Daniel Hirtler for
Stavros Stavropoulos. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination
of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan
Approval. The applicant proposes to construct two 2-family dwellings on the project site.
Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one
street tree, new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees.
Applicant intends to subdivide property so each building is on a separate tax parcel.
Project is in R-2b Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
The “Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency” resolution in agenda item 3.B. immediately
above was worded to apply to both Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review approval,
and therefore no second vote on Lead Agency status took place.
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
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 #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into
two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of
frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with
approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen
Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of
3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum
street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum
front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-
family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing
single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping
to include two new street trees, 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9
WHEREAS: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the
City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any
subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot,
and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan and
subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by
Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
See agenda item 3.B. above for a record of the Public Hearing that applied to both
Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review approval for this project.
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, and
unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
The “Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review” resolution in agenda
item 3.B. above was worded to apply to both Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review
approval, and therefore no second vote on the CEQR determination took place.
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott:
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 #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into
two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of
frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen
Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of
3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum
street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum
front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-
family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing
single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping
to include two new street trees, 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: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the
City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any
subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot,
and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan and
subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by
Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Architect Daniel Hirtler presented a brief overview of the proposed project, and passed
around revised elevations incorporating ideas suggested at the Project Review Committee
meeting, including using two different cladding materials and two complementary but
differing colors on the first and second floors of the duplexes, and also adding a gable
end (with a bay window below) facing N. Aurora Street. Hirtler noted that the cladding is
now composite wood siding, rather than vinyl siding.
Schroeder noted the Project Review Committee had made one additional suggestion for
improving the project’s architecture — adding some windows to the N. Aurora Street
side of the building, which currently includes a large blank area on its left-hand side.
Hirtler replied that he made revisions to the elevation (which he then distributed to the
Board). The siding was changed from vinyl to a painted composite wood siding, with red
roofing materials.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
Schroeder reiterated that his primary concern is to see some additional aesthetic interest
incorporated into this blank area, as the Board does not generally permit large blank areas
of wall facing public streets. Elliott, Jones-Rounds and Lewis agreed. Hirtler consented to
installing clerestory windows on both stories of the wall in this area.
Jones-Rounds asked about the structural state of the existing house and whether it would
be possible to re-use some of the old building materials. Hirtler replied that the building
is seriously deteriorated, and he is therefore skeptical there is anything to salvage.
Darling urged the applicant to salvage anything possible. Hirtler agreed to do so.
Schroeder inquired into the porch detailing. Hirtler replied that there would be capitals on
its columns, and that the original drawings incorporated a bench at the edge of the porch
front. However, he said, recent measurements necessitated more effectively protecting
the porch; therefore, the bench will remain but a railing will be installed as well.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning
and Development Board for a Subdivision and two duplexes on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#12.-6-13 located at 1001 N. Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into
two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of
frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with
approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen
Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000
SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street
width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front,
side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet,
respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-
family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing
single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping
including two new street trees, 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: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare
itself Lead Agency for the action, 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
September 27, 2016, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did
on September 27, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by
Planning staff and the following drawings: “Plan of Area Around 1001 North Aurora
Street (A1),” “Proposed Site Plan (A2),” “Elevations (A3),” and “Southwest Elevation
Showing Plantings and Colors”; and other application materials, 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, as Lead Agency, did on September 27, 2016 determine
the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, 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. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised dated and labeled
elevations showing the revisions shown to the Board at its September 27, 2016
meeting, plus added clerestory windows on both •••on••• the upper and lower
floors of the façade facing Aurora Street, and
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored building elevations
keyed to building materials, and
iii. Submission of building materials samples, and
iv. Subdivision must be filed before Building Permit is issued, and
v. Provision for bike racks and / or storage, and
vi. All work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
vii. Removal of any City trees requires a Tree Permit, and
viii. Bike racks to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and
ix. Written approval by the City Fire Department that all life safety access
requirements have been met.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder, Darling, Elliott
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
B. Holiday Inn Express, 371 Elmira Road, Douglas Williams for Ithaca Hotels, LLC.
Consideration of Project Changes. The applicant is seeking changes to the site plan,
approved by the Planning Board on March 25, 2014, and modified on October 27, 2015.
The project site is zoned SW-2 and abuts a residential district on Spencer Road. The
approved project included landscape features at the rear of the property along Spencer
Road, including a retaining wall, landscaping, stairs leading to Spencer Road, and a
sidewalk along the same. The applicant is proposing to remove the stairs, sidewalk and
retaining wall and treat the slope with a rip-rap stabilization system. The applicant is also
proposing to replace a fence on the southern property edge with Alberta spruce. The
project is nearing completion and the applicant wishes to resolve these items to allow
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Applicant Douglas Williams of Eastern Hospitality Advisors, representing the owners,
presented a brief overview of the proposed changes, noting the documents he submitted
earlier in the day have been revised (e.g., photographs have been added depicting where
the applicant proposes to add new vegetation in a new stone-wrapped area proposed in
the rear near Spencer Road.) He explained the owners have been working on the project
since November 2015. Unfortunately, he said, the soils on the site are far worse for
construction purposes than originally anticipated: approximately five feet of non-
historical fill was discovered that had been dumped illegally. As a result, he continued,
the owners were forced to remove the fill, pay for environmental testing, and return new
structural fill to the site, adding approximately $220,000 to the project cost. He said the
owners also had to install (1) rigid intrusions under the building foundation, costing
$358,000, and (2) a load-transfer pad, footers, and foundation walls, all of which added
$475,000 to the project cost. Because of these cost over-runs, he said, the owners
considered halting the project altogether. They then explored options for handling the 65-
degree slope from Spencer Road that would not require the originally-proposed three-
tiers of retaining walls, he said.
Additionally, Williams said, along the southwest project boundary, the owners purchased
the adjacent property to also decrease another re-grading cost; the owners then removed
the fence along the property line there and added a green 5½-foot tall deer-repelling
arborvitae barrier instead. Williams stressed that originally-proposed plantings have been
retained, with the addition of this arborvitae in lieu of the privacy fence. He said the
owners would like to create a permanent easement to protect the barbecue area on that
adjacent property to use for hotel guests. They propose planting five vegetative rows (26
plants each), he said. The entire project would have approximately 1,400 plantings, he
emphasized.
Williams noted that while the nearby Fairfield Inn features a winding pedestrian path
through its property, the Holiday Inn Express property has a 70-degree slope that requires
installing stairs; however, Holiday Inn Express’s insurance adjuster would not agree to
cover these stairs due to liability concerns regarding people cutting across the parking lot.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Williams explained the owners are now asking for relief from the Board for the stairs
(down from Spencer Road) and sidewalk (along Spencer Road) requirements of the
original Site Plan Approval. He said there is insufficient space to install the sidewalk. To
mitigate for the loss of an immediate sidewalk, however, he said the owners are willing to
enter into a binding agreement requiring them to install the sidewalk once surrounding
properties have installed their own sidewalks on Spencer Road.
Schroeder responded that the sidewalks along Spencer Road were always a part of the
project design, so he does not understand how there could have been enough space for the
Spencer Road sidewalk when the project was approved in 2014, but not now. Williams
replied the original drawing did not accurately indicate the location of the road shoulder
and the actual cliff edge.
Jones-Rounds indicated she has not heard anything today that should relieve the owners
of the obligation to include the items required as part of Final Site Plan Approval. The
sidewalk and stairs will help integrate the hotel and surrounding property into the rest of
the community, she explained. Both the Board and City are always seeking ways to
increase pedestrian activity and decrease vehicular traffic throughout the City as much as
possible. She said she could not support relieving the owners of the obligation to install
the sidewalk and the stairs.
Schroeder agreed with eliminating the retaining walls below Spencer Road and replacing
the privacy fence with arborvitae — however, the current Site Plan Review Ordinance
clearly states that the Board shall require sidewalks for the projects it reviews whenever
feasible. Part of the project’s benefit to the community as initially approved was that it
did not “turn its back” to Spencer Road, he explained, and given the long stretch of
properties between Elmira Road and Spencer Road, increasing the permeability between
the two thoroughfares (as the proposed stairs would do) is a highly desirable goal.
Sidewalks with street trees represent an important amenity for transforming the City, he
said, and the City’s Comprehensive Plan explicitly calls for providing sidewalks where
none exist now.
Williams replied there would be nowhere for the sidewalk to connect to at the current
time. Nicholas asked if Williams consulted the City Engineering Division about using the
City’s Right-of-Way for the sidewalk. Williams replied, no.
Darling observed the lack of sidewalks along Spencer Road is a problem that extends
along the entire street. He thinks installing a sidewalk at the Holiday Inn Express site
would be placing the cart before the horse, because it would simply sit there unused in
the middle of the block and deteriorate, before the City institutes a city-wide sidewalk
installation plan for the entire street. He remarked that requiring sidewalks for every Site
Plan Review project probably does not make sense in every situation.
Williams reiterated the owners would be happy to enter into a formal legal encumbrance
on the property, requiring them to install the sidewalk after certain conditions had been
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
met. Jones-Rounds responded she cannot envision any mechanism that would effectively
achieve that.
Schroeder indicated an encumbrance of some kind sounds good to him; he thinks it
would be a reasonable compromise, as long as the stairs are installed now. Williams
replied the owners could certainly install the stairs, but they would likely become a
liability issue for the hotel.
Lewis indicated he would definitely like to see both the stairs and the sidewalk installed.
Nicholas observed the proposed plantings in lieu of the privacy fence appear to be slow-
growing plants, so those may need to be reviewed. Schroeder responded those kinds of
details could be worked out with City staff.
Darling noted the City has a sidewalk plan with Sidewalk Improvement Districts; this
plan is implemented on a district-by-district basis, but the City Engineering Division is
grappling with the question of who owns retaining walls.
Blalock asked Nicholas how the Board would incorporate the issue in its resolution.
Nicholas replied the City simply does not have a mechanism for a developer to pay for
future work in advance right now, so she does not know how to answer the question.
Darling agreed there seem to be limitations on how the issue could be currently managed.
Jones-Rounds suggested the Board vote on that to which it has already agreed, but
include a condition in its resolution that Williams consult the Engineering Division about
the sidewalk.
Williams explained the encumbrance would simply state that if the owners sold the
property, the next owner would remain obligated to install the sidewalk according to the
terms of the agreement.
Jones-Rounds noted she would like to see the actual written language of the agreement.
Nicholas noted she did not have the opportunity to prepare a resolution for this agenda
item, due to the last-minute nature of the request. Since the Board needs more
information before one can be drafted, she suggested that Planning staff prepare a draft
resolution for the Board to review at its October 18, 2016 special meeting.
Schroeder suggested Planning staff work with the City Attorney’s Office to determine
how to proceed. Darling added Planning staff should also ask the City Attorney’s Office
to provide a standing legal mechanism that could be used in the future.
Schroeder noted the Board will also require a detailed landscape plan from the applicant
showing the species and placement of all new proposed plantings. Williams agreed to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
provide one.
C. Townhouses & Apartments at 119-121 & 125 College Avenue – Sketch Plan.
Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP presented a brief
overview of the proposed project, noting it would be in the CR-4 Zoning District and in
complete compliance with all zoning regulations.
Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5 architects walked through an overhead presentation, noting the
project is designed to conform to the row house category of the Collegetown Area Form
Districts zoning regulations (i.e., row house being defined as a “residential structure
composed of three or more attached modules with shared sidewalls, the facade of each
module measuring no more than 25-feet in length and maintaining a uniform setback
from the street line”). Chimacoff said this will enable the buildings to be built closer to
the street. The project will include two buildings of four units each, with zero setback
along the sides. A third building would conform to the remainder of the Collegetown
zoning regulations. The buildings would be four-story buildings with habitable
basements. There would also be an elaborately landscaped courtyard behind the street-
facing buildings, permitting access through to the rear building. The project will also
include bike racks.
Chimacoff said considerable work will need to be done in front of the façades of the
street-facing buildings in terms of designing the landscaping, given the very limited
amount of space.
Chimacoff stated the façades would include projections, cornices, bay windows, and so
on, as well as a roof canopy. The intent, he explained, is to create a modern interpretation
of the traditional row house. He said the design team has tried to create modestly-scaled
modules giving the visual impression of separate row house structures within each of the
two street-facing buildings. He said the ground floors would feature interesting porches
with recessed entries, with the main entrance being more accentuated than the individual
entrances. A pergola-like canopy would be situated between the two street-facing
buildings, he concluded.
Lewis urged the applicants to focus their attention on the articulation of the two
buildings, stating that the current design looks less like row houses, and more like small-
to mid-size buildings.
Darling said it seems like a good design.
Elliott asked the applicants to ‘jiggle’ the buildings a little. Chimacoff replied they could
only do that by pushing the buildings deeper into the site, since the buildings are already
right on the setback line.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
Schroeder said he would definitely like to see more variety amongst the row house
modules in the elevations. For example, instead of each featuring yellow vertical
elements, perhaps they could be clad in two related colors, to add some alternation from
one row house module to the next. Chimacoff agreed to explore those kinds of options.
Schroeder noted his other major concern is the interface with the street and the public
realm / sidewalk. The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines
calls for street trees and wider sidewalks. He personally feels strongly that, in a major
urban setting like Collegetown, the existing five-foot sidewalks are inadequate and
should widened. He said the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards call for
minimum 12-foot wide streetside width, from building face to curb, in such urban
contexts.
Chimacoff replied there is a very limited amount of space between the property line and
the curb, but the applicants will certainly try to maximize that space.
Schroeder also exhorted the applicants to investigate the feasibility of installing
underground utilities. Novarr replied that the City itself is probably best-positioned to do
that, since it has more clout than any single developer.
Schroeder remarked that the City commissioned the Collegetown Historic Resources
Worthy of Detailed Research (2009) study, prepared by Mary Tomlan and himself, in
which all three existing buildings on this site are featured. While he is not asking that
these buildings be protected, he did ask that their exteriors be documented in
photographs. He also said other properties mentioned in that study should have local
historic landmark protection. He said the Board should keep this in mind.
The applicants agreed to perform this requested photographic documentation.
Proujansky explained that the applicants postponed applying for the Demolition Permit
for that very reason. They would, however, like to pursue demolition as soon as possible,
so it would be helpful if they could establish that the Board has no objections, other than
the above request for photographic documentation. No objections were raised.
Wolf added that Novarr actually met with City Historian Mary Tomlan and discussed the
project. The owners also have engaged the services of Bero Architecture to prepare a
documented history of the buildings. Novarr noted Tomlan indicated she would like to
see this document describe the use of the buildings and their occupants, in addition to
including photographs.
Proujansky asked if the applicants could seek the Demolition Permit if they submit the
Bero Architecture report at the next Board meeting. Schroeder replied, yes, as long as the
report and the photographic documentation is received before demolition begins.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
Elliott asked the applicants to explore options for re-using parts of the existing houses
(e.g., chestnut wood). Novarr agreed to do so.
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #3044 — 170 Pearsall Place: Area Variance
Appeal of Jessica Ryan for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Side
Yard, requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2013, the applicant hired a contractor
to build a 120-SF deck attached to the front (south side) of her two family home
located at 170 Pearsall Place. The deck extends a length of 18 feet from the front stair
landing to the southwest corner of the house and is in line with the west side wall.
The depth of the deck measures 6’8” from the front corner façade.
Last month during a City Housing Inspection, the applicant learned her contractor
constructed the deck without a Building Permit and that she needs a Zoning Variance
because the deck’s location exacerbates an existing side yard deficiency. The existing
side yard setback is 5.5 feet. The required side yard setback is 10 feet. The depth of
the deck increases the deficient side yard an additional 6’8”.
The property at 170 Pearsall Place is located in an R-1b residential use district where
the two-family home is a legal non-conforming use; however, Section 325-38
requires a variance be granted before a retroactive Building Permit may be issued.
The Board does not identify any long-term impacts in this appeal and has no
objections to its approval.
Appeal #3046 — 404 Wood Street: Area Variance
Appeal of Karen Werner, on behalf of the owner Charles Stanton, for an Area
Variance from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Dimension, of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel located at 404 Wood Street
into two lots. One lot will contain the existing single-family home and the other lot
will be a new buildable lot. In order to subdivide the parcel, the applicant is
requesting a variance for an existing rear yard deficiency. The existing dwelling has a
rear yard that is 8’6” of the 20’ required by the ordinance.
The property at 404 Wood Street is located in an R-3b Zoning District where the
proposed use is permitted; however, General Municipal Law Article 3, Section 33,
states that a subdivided plat must comply with a Municipality’s Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, compliance can be achieved provided the BZA grants this variance for the
rear yard deficiency.
The Board identifies only positive long-term planning impacts in this appeal. The site
as is a desirable location for infill within the City.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
Appeal #3048 — Appeal of Zoning Determination for 201 College Avenue
The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is appealing the zoning
determination of Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration which concludes
that a proposed apartment project located on 201 College Ave complies with façade
length requirements of the MU-1 Collegetown Area Form District Districts (CAFD)
as applied to its Bool Street side.
Please refer to the Planning Board’s written statement that lays out its argument for
appealing the determination.
6. Old / New Business
None.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Nicholas reminded the Board of the upcoming Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Special
Meeting on October 19, 2016 (later rescheduled for October 17) at which the BZA will
review Zoning Appeal #3048, Appeal of Zoning Determination for 201 College Avenue.
The Planning Board also has a Special Meeting on October 18, 2016 to review comments
on the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project’s Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (DGEIS).
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling reported that work on the College Avenue and Dryden Road intersection has
been delayed, because of subterranean obstructions to new underground NYSEG utility
vaults. The BPW is investigating ways to take ownership of some utilities in the City, he
added, noting that the City has installed some underground telecommunications conduits,
which it may be able to rent out.
He reported the BPW passed a resolution giving Cornell University the right to install a
larger canopy at its Cornell Store outlet on the Commons.
Darling reported that the Ithaca Skate Park will receive lighting, courtesy of the Park
Foundation.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
Schroeder mentioned that he had discovered legal analysis suggesting the City could
require public utilities private utility companies to install utilities underground, so long as
the City states it is in the public interest to require that (most likely through a formal
resolution of Common Council).
Schroeder added Blalock said he would like to follow up on the Board’s ongoing
discussion about the width of the sidewalk next to the Tompkins Financial Headquarters
building currently under construction and the Hilton Garden Inn on Seneca Street (i.e.,
narrowing the vehicular portion of the 100-block of East Seneca Street there, so street
trees, wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities can be constructed, making it a
“complete street” with priority given to the pedestrian experience and not to vehicles).
Schroeder said now, while the headquarters building is being constructed, would be the
opportune time to take action on the issue, perhaps by the Board sponsoring a meeting or
drafting a memorandum to move this idea forward. (The latter could be a follow-up to its
original April 26, 2016 resolution January 26, 2016 memo on this topic to the BPW and
Common Council.)
Nicholas recalled hearing the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency is renegotiating its lease for
the hotel property with the new owner and so it may be able to require widening the
sidewalk as part of that process.
Darling cautioned that the greatest obstacle would probably be negotiating with the State
Department of Transportation. He said he could sponsor a resolution at the next BPW
meeting, calling for a study to be conducted on the issue.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft August 23, 2016 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:26 p.m.