HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-04-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.:
Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type;
proposed new language shown in red type.
(Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording
with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.)
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
April 26, 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: JoAnn Cornish, Director,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Brindley Street Bridge at Cayuga Inlet
Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Systems Engineer;
David Kennicutt, Delta Engineers,
Architects, & Land Surveyors, P.C.;
Jessica Pike, Ravi Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.
Tax Parcel #20.-2-3.1
Daniel R. Laux, Jr. and Maria T. Laux, Owners
511-513 Dryden Road
Joshua Liptzin, Owner
312-314 Spencer Road
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
at 620 S. Aurora Street
David Lubin, Unchained Properties
Parking Lot Expansion at 310 Taughannock Boulevard
Steven Rowe, T.G. Miller, P.C.;
Tim Ciaschi, Co-Owner
Cherry Artspace at 102 Cherry Street
Samuel Buggeln, Performance Premises, LLC;
Nick Salvato, Performance Premises, LLC;
Claudia Brenner, Claudia Brenner Architect
Apartments at 201 College Avenue
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Todd Fox, Visum Development Group
Maplewood Apartments at Veteran’s Place
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
Mixed-Use Project at 201 N. Aurora Street (Sketch Plan)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Todd Fox, Visum Development Group;
Charlie O’Connor, Visum Development Group;
Bryan Warren, Warren Real Estate;
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect
Apartments, Demolition, & Reconstruction at 203 Elm Street
(Sketch Plan)
Erik Reynolds, SWBR Architects;
Steven Rowe, T.G. Miller, P.C.;
Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Apartments at 107 Albany Street (Sketch Plan)
Lawrence Fabbroni, Sr., Civil Engineer;
Nick Stavropoulos, Owner
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
Blalock read the following announcement regarding the 2016 Community Development
Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Program:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency announces the continuation of the selection process
for projects that will be funded by the 2016 Entitlement Grant round. All funded projects
must meet HUD National Objectives and primarily benefit the City’s low-income
residents. The second of two public hearings for the grant is scheduled for May 11, 2016
at 6:00 p.m. in Common Council Chambers, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Neil Golder, 203 College Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 201 College Avenue
project and read the following statement:
203 College Avenue is my home. It has been my home for almost 44 years. The house
means a lot to me: my best friend's children were born in it and my wife Kathy died in it.
We've always had vegetable and flower gardens around it. I’ve decided to spend the rest
of my days there and have made many improvements, inside and outside: a new roof,
painting and new windows, re-insulating of the walls, solar panels. I’ve spent over
$100,000 so far and will probably spend that again on interior renovations. 203 College
Avenue is my home. The massive apartment building proposed for 201 would basically
ruin life for anyone living in 203. It would take completely away the light and warmth of
the southern exposure, and spell the end of the weeping cherry tree, the lilac bush and
flowers in the garden to the south. It would be like having a canyon wall blocking light
and air. And it would destroy the three huge beautiful spruce trees in the front yard of
201. These trees are irreplaceable. Two of them are 7 feet around, approximately 80' tall
and are likely over 100 years old. These trees are historic landmarks. They are visible
from up and down College Avenue, from Linden Ave. and Eddy St., and probably much
further away (Mary Tomlan tells me that she can see them from her kitchen window on
Delaware Avenue). Since their branches reach close to the sidewalk, they give shade and
a beautiful light-filtering view and sound-absorbing ambience to passersby. Not to
mention that they are home and food for many animals. They are an intrinsic part of the
neighborhood. It’s hard to imagine how the vast amount of greenery provided by these
trees could be mitigated by new tree plantings which would not give nearly what these
trees give. (I’ve spoken with Keith Vanderhigh of Limbwalker Tree Care about the health
of these trees.) I’m asking that at the least the building be scaled back-or built around —
enough to allow the continued flourishing of these spruce trees. Such a massive building
is also totally out of harmony with the neighborhood of 2 and 3 story residences. Perhaps
the project could wait until the Collegetown Design Guidelines Committee finishes its
work.) Also, I believe I have an established right of way through the parking lot in back
of 201 on the Bool St. (southeast side). I and people who have lived at 203 have been
using that driveway — and parking on part of it — for 44 years. Something will need to
be in place to preserve my access to and from Bool Street through that right of way.
Garry Thomas, 114 Delaware Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 201 College
Avenue project, noting he lives 200 yards from the proposed development. He is not
unilaterally opposed to development, he said, but he has serious concerns with the proposed
five-story building, calling it out-of-scale and not compatible with neighborhood character.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Marty Blodgett, 549 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed 201 College
Avenue project, terming it out-of-scale with surrounding buildings. The building’s height
would interfere with Golder’s solar panels, he said, and the proposed structure is out of
character with that segment of College Avenue.
David Callahan, 511 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to the 201 College Avenue project,
saying he was shocked to realize such a building could be built there, completely
overshadowing Golder’s house. He urged the Board to require the applicants to scale it down.
3. Special Order of Business: Brindley Street Bridge Presentation
City Bridge Systems Engineer Addisu Gebre; David Kennicutt of Delta Engineers,
Architects, & Land Surveyors, P.C.; and Jessica Pike of Ravi Engineering & Land
Surveying, P.C. described the proposed project, noting the draft Full Environmental
Assessment Form has been submitted to the Board. The principal purpose of today’s
presentation, he said, is to solicit comments from the Board. The applicants would like intend
to focus on Alternative 2 for the purpose of the environmental review.
Kennicutt walked through recent project changes, many of which were made in response to
comments from the City Planning and Economic Development Committee and the general
public:
• Project construction has been delayed until 2018.
• More landscaping detail has been added.
• Brindley Street will be converted into a multi-use pathway.
• A border feature has been added to both sides of this pathway, along with a cobbled
gutter.
• Both sides of this pathway will be lined with a low-maintenance metal gravel
mixture to separate it from the parking area near the Aeroplane Factory.
• The City Forester indicated maintenance of originally planned plantings would be a
burden on her department — so two planting areas will be provided instead, near
the intersection with Taughannock Boulevard.
• Trees along both sides of the relocated street will create more of a streetscape and
prevent discourage speeding.
• A Phase 1 cultural resources survey process is nearing completion; no features of
cultural or archaeological significance have been identified so far.
• Cost estimates for both alternatives have been reviewed: Alternate 1 has not
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5
changed, but Alternate 2 has increased slightly from $2.59 to $2.77 million.
Schroeder stressed the importance of complementing the unified design characteristics of the
existing West End and waterfront bridges. He hopes the approach railings will not be typical
interstate box-beam railings, but will be considered from an architectural and aesthetic point
of view. Kennicutt replied the project is required to provide crash-tested railings, but the
applicants can certainly further investigate the available options.
Schroeder noted the placement and design of the railings should also be considered from an
architectural and aesthetic perspective (e.g., symmetry of planters vs. railings).
Cornish asked the applicants if vegetation would be planted in the existing cindered parking
area. Kennicutt replied that this area would be replanted, but not in any formal manner; it
would be a low-maintenance meadow mix.
Nicholas noted she sees nothing in the draft FEAF forms about tree removal, adding that the
applicants need to provide a comprehensive analysis of all environmental impacts and
mitigations associated with the project in the Part 3 form. Kennicutt responded it appears the
applicants misunderstood the purpose of that form, adding that they would be more than
willing to provide additional analysis within the various categories.
Schroeder said he thought in the Part 2 form, Item #9 (under “Impacts on Plants and
Animals”) should be checked, “Yes.” Similarly, Item #18 (under “Impact on Growth and
Character of Community or Neighborhood”) should also be checked, “Yes.”
Kennicutt indicated the applicants will submit revised FEAF forms in approximately two
weeks. Gebre noted the applicants would like some written comments from the Planning
Board. Nicholas replied the Board could provide comments within a similar timeframe.
Kennicutt said the applicants should have the final cultural resources survey report completed
by that time.
Elliott asked if the applicants could submit an elevation of the bridge enabling one to see the
railings, and the transition from approach railings to bridge railings, in context. Schroeder
agreed that would be helpful. Kennicutt replied that the applicants have a graphic simulation
model available, so they definitely could provide the requested elevation or perspective view
of some kind.
4. Subdivision Review
A. Minor Subdivision, Tax Parcel #20.-2-3.1, Daniel & Maria Laux. Declaration of
Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide
tax parcel #20.-2-3.1 into two new parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.251 acres (10,946 SF)
with approximately 147.31’ of frontage on Westwood Knoll and 34.85’ on N. Taylor
Place; and Parcel B, measuring 0.23 acres (10,016 SF) with approximately 86.5’ of
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6
frontage on Campbell Avenue and 72.68’ on N. Taylor Place. The project is in the R-1a
Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, minimum width-at-street of
75’, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25’, 10’/10’, and 25% or 50 feet but not
less than 20’, respectively. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and requires Environmental Review.
Applicants Daniel R. Laux, Jr. and Maria T. Laux presented a brief overview of the
proposed Subdivision, noting they have a large vacant lot they have not been able to sell.
It is large enough to permit two lots under the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #20.-2-3.1, located on N. Taylor Place by Daniel and Maria Laux, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide tax parcel #20.-2-3.1 into two new
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.251 acres (10,946 SF) with approximately 147.31’ of
frontage on Westwood Knoll and 34.85’ on N. Taylor Pl.; and Parcel B, measuring 0.23
acres (10,016 SF) with approximately 86.5’ of frontage on Campbell Ave. and 72.68’ on
N. Taylor Pl. The project is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of
10,000 SF, minimum width-at-street of 75’, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of
25’, 10’/10’, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20’, respectively, 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 20.-2-3.1 by Daniel and Maria Laux.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7
Public Hearing
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, 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 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 #20.-2-3.1, located on North Taylor Place, by Daniel and Maria Laux, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide Tax Parcel #20.-2-3.1 into two new
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.251 acres (10,946 SF) with approximately 147.31’ of
frontage on Westwood Knoll and 34.85’ on N. Taylor Pl.; and Parcel B, measuring 0.23
acres (10,016 SF) with approximately 86.5’ of frontage on Campbell Ave. and 72.68’ on
N. Taylor Pl. The project is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of
10,000 SF, minimum width-at-street of 75’, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of
25’, 10’/10’, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20’, respectively, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision — Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on April
26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a
subdivision plat entitled “Survey Map Showing Lands of Daniel R. Laux, Jr. and Maria
T. Laux Located on Campbell Avenue & North Taylor Place & Westwood Knoll, City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 3/15/16 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.;
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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8
comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #20.-2-3.1, located on North Taylor Place, by Daniel and Maria Laux, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide Tax Parcel #20.-2-3.1 into two new
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.251 acres (10,946 SF) with approximately 147.31’ of
frontage on Westwood Knoll and 34.85’ on N. Taylor Pl.; and Parcel B, measuring 0.23
acres (10,016 SF) with approximately 86.5’ of frontage on Campbell Ave. and 72.68’ on
N. Taylor Pl. The project is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of
10,000 SF, minimum width-at-street of 75’, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of
25’, 10’/10’, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20’, respectively, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, 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
9
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
April 26, 2016, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on April
26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a
subdivision plat entitled “Survey Map Showing Lands of Daniel R. Laux, Jr. and Maria
T. Laux Located on Campbell Avenue & North Taylor Place & Westwood Knoll, City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 3/15/16 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.;
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 comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on April 26, 2016
determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the
environment, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision of Tax Parcel
#20.-2-3.1, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all
having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
B. Minor Subdivision, 511-513 Dryden Road, Tax Parcel #66.-1-3, Joshua Liptzin.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant
proposes to subdivide Tax Parcel #66.-1-3 into two new parcels: Parcel A, measuring
0.129 acres (5,654 SF) with 45’ of frontage on Dryden Road and containing an existing
one-family house; and Parcel B, measuring 0.135 acres (5,860 SF) with 46.6’ of frontage
on Dryden Road. The project is in the CR-1 Zoning District, which has a minimum lot
size of 4,000 SF for one-family homes and 5,500 SF for other uses, minimum width-at-
street of 45’ for one-family homes and 50’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and
rear yards of 10’, 5’, and 20’ or 20% of lot depth, respectively. This is an Unlisted Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and requires Environmental
Review.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10
Applicant Joshua Liptzin presented an overview of the proposed Subdivision, noting he
would like to subdivide the property into two parcels. Architect Noah Demarest of
STREAM Collaborative added that some preliminary concept designs for a future
residence have been drafted. It would very much be a ‘sister house’ to the existing house,
he said, in style and form.
Cornish asked if it would be a stick-built structure. Demarest replied that has not yet been
determined. It is certainly possible it would be a pre-fabricated home, but it would look
like the submitted design, one way or the other.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-1-3, located at 511-513 Dryden Road by Josh Liptzin, 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 #66.-1-3, located at 511-513 Dryden Road by Josh
Liptzin.
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 Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Ellen McCollister, 221 Bryant Avenue, former Common Council member, expressed
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11
concerns with the proposed Subdivision and prospective development project. She noted
the intention for re-zoning upper Dryden Road to a CR-1 Zoning District was to ensure it
would be the least dense of all the Collegetown Area Form Districts zones. Any future
building on the property should therefore be limited to a single-family home, she said,
and not a modular home of any kind. She implored the Board to scrutinize any future Site
Plan Review application for the site.
Max Zhang, 509 Dryden Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed Subdivision, noting
he lives immediately next to the property. He objected to how the Subdivision survey
map was drawn (e.g., he maintains it inaccurately shows the boundary line).
Elizabeth Fisher-York, 510 Dryden Road, also spoke against the proposed Subdivision,
describing the neighborhood as being now finely balanced between rental and owner-
occupied properties. She does not want to see it become less attractive for permanent
residents like herself.
Iwijn De Vlaminck, 100 Maple Grove Place, spoke in opposition to the proposed
Subdivision, stating he is concerned with the survey map and its representation of the
property lines. In addition, he said, given the lot size and location, any future building
should be limited to a single-family home.
Ben Wilson, 516 Dryden Road, also voiced opposition to the same Subdivision, noting
he would like to reiterate what the other speakers have stated. It is a nice closely-knit
neighborhood now, he said, and he is concerned the future residential building would not
be owner-occupied.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, remarked he supports the
development of new, safer buildings in Collegetown.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Blalock stressed that the only action being considered this evening is the Subdivision
itself and not any prospective future development of the site.
Cornish added that as long as the proposed Subdivision meets the minimum required
dimensions the Planning Board is obligated to approve it.
Schroeder noted construction of a single-family residence on the property would
ordinarily be subject to Limited Site Plan Review; however, he would like it to be
reviewed by the Planning Board, as a standard Site Plan Review. Jones-Rounds agreed,
and urged the applicant to reach out to the neighbors and involve them in the process.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-1-3, located at 511-513 Dryden Road by Josh Liptzin, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide Tax Parcel #66.-1-3 into two new
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.129 acres (5,654 SF) with 45’ of frontage on Dryden Road
and containing an existing one-family house; and Parcel B, measuring 0.135 acres (5,860
SF) with 46.6’ of frontage on Dryden Road. The project is in the CR-1 Zoning District,
which has a minimum lot size of 4,000 SF for one-family homes and 5,500 SF for other
uses, minimum width-at-street of 45’ for one-family homes and 50’ for other uses, and
minimum front, side, and rear yards of 10’, 5’, and 20’ or 20% of lot depth, respectively,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision — Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on April
26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a
Subdivision plat entitled “Subdivision Map No. 511-513 Dryden Road, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York,” with a revision date of 3/10/16 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.; 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 comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the CR-1 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Blalock noted the Planning Board reviews surveys conducted by licensed land surveyors
in making its determinations. If another survey were commissioned and submitted to the
Board, he said, it would be reviewed.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax
Parcel #66.-1-3, located at 511-513 Dryden Road by Josh Liptzin, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide Tax Parcel #66.-1-3 into two new
parcels: Parcel A, measuring 0.129 acres (5,654 SF) with 45’ of frontage on Dryden Road
and containing an existing one-family house; and Parcel B, measuring 0.135 acres (5,860
SF) with 46.6’ of frontage on Dryden Road. The project is in the CR-1 Zoning District,
which has a minimum lot size of 4,000 SF for one-family homes and 5,500 SF for other
uses, minimum width-at-street of 45’ for one-family homes and 50’ for other uses, and
minimum front, side, and rear yards of 10’, 5’, and 20’ or 20% of lot depth, respectively,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which
require Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land
resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
April 26, 2016, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April
26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14
Subdivision plat entitled “Subdivision Map No. 511-513 Dryden Road, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York,” with a revision date of 3/10/16 and prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.; 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 comments received have been considered, and
WHEREAS: due to concerns expressed by neighborhood residents at the April 26, 2016
meeting, the Board requests that any future development on the new vacant parcel
undergo full Planning Board Site Plan Review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on April 26, 2016
determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the
environment, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received
and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels conform to area
requirements in the CR-1 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision located at 511-
513 Dryden Road, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved
plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
C. Minor Subdivision, 312-314 Spencer Road, Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living
Rentals. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to consolidate, then
subdivide, three tax parcels: #105.-7-1.1 and #116.-1-1, with a combined area of
approximately 0.212 acres (9,234 SF), and containing an existing single-family house;
and #116.-1-2, measuring approximately 0.395 acres (17,206 SF) and containing an
existing single-family house. The new proposed parcels will be: Lot 1, measuring 8,571
SF with approximately 166.78’ of frontage on Old Elmira Road; Lot 2, measuring 5,600
SF with approximately 45’ of frontage on Old Elmira Road; and Lot 3, measuring 12,260
SF with approximately 191’ of frontage on Spencer Road and containing the two existing
houses. The proposed Lot 3 requires an Area Variance for a deficient front yard setback.
This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and
requires Environmental Review.
Applicants Charlie O’Connor of Modern Living Rentals and Noah Demarest of
STREAM Collaborative presented a brief overview of the proposed Subdivision, noting
that two existing houses would be contained on the resultant parcel fronting Spencer
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15
Road and one new duplex would be constructed on each of the other two resultant
parcels.
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 (preceded by
consolidation) of City of Ithaca Tax Parcels 105.-7-1.1, 116.-1-1, and 116.-1-2, located at
312-314 Spencer Road, by Charlie O’Connor for Modern Living Rentals, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to consolidate, then subdivide, three tax parcels:
#105.-7-1.1 and #116.-1-1, with a combined area of approximately 0.212 acres (9,234
SF), and containing an existing single-family house; and #116.-1-2, measuring
approximately 0.395 acres (17,206 SF) and containing an existing single-family house.
The new proposed parcels will be: Lot 1, measuring 8,571 SF with approximately
166.78’ of frontage on Old Elmira Road; Lot 2, measuring 5,600 SF with approximately
45’ of frontage on Old Elmira Road; and Lot 3, measuring 12,260 SF with approximately
191’ of frontage on Spencer Road and containing the two existing houses. The proposed
Lot 3 requires an Area Variance for a deficient front yard setback, 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 Parcels 105.-7-1.1, 116.-1-1, and 116.-1-2, located at 312-
314 Spencer Road by Charlie O’Connor for Modern Living Rentals.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
5. Site Plan Review
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street, Unchained
Properties, LLC. Closure of Public Hearing for Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (DGEIS) & Consideration of Extension of Public Comment
Period.
Blalock asked if any members of the public would like to make any comments before the
Public Hearing is closed. (The Public Hearing had been opened at a special Planning
Board meeting held for that purpose only at Cinemapolis, 120 E. Green Street, Ithaca,
N.Y. at 4 p.m. on March 29, 2016.)
David Lubin of Unchained Properties, LLC read the following statement:
Hello, I am David Lubin, Owner of Unchained Properties, LLC, and the developer
for the proposed Chain Works District on the former Morse Chain / Emerson Power
Transmission site on 96B in Ithaca.
Recently several misconceptions have been expressed about this site. I am speaking
today in an attempt to correct those misconceptions.
First, some have claimed that Emerson Power Transmission has done nothing to
clean up this site. This is simply not true. Emerson acted responsibly upon discovery
of an environmental problem with the site. Emerson was not the source of the
contamination of this property. Emerson inherited the problem when they purchased
the site in 1983. When they realized they had a contamination issue in early 1987,
they voluntarily notified NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the
NYS Department of Health. Emerson never used TCE. They initially traced the
problem back to the fire water reservoir. Since that time, Emerson has worked closely
with the State to implement a remedy to contain and remove this contamination. The
remedy consists of a dual phase extraction system to extract and treat effected
groundwater which has been enhanced three different times to be more effective. In
addition, Emerson has conducted extensive investigations of all areas of potential
concern identified at the site. We have worked closely with Emerson to ensure that
all environmental issues have been fully evaluated and will continue to work with
Emerson as additional remedial measures are planned and implemented. Emerson has
spent many millions of dollars to address the environmental issues and is committed
to fulfilling its obligations with the State.
All of these measures have been documented and made public through the NYSDEC,
so it is troubling to me when people say that nothing has been done.
Now about Unchained Properties. I first looked at the property in June of 2010. I
entered into a purchase agreement with Emerson to develop a mixed use community
on the site. Unchained Properties would supply housing, office space, studios, ample
space for start-ups, and manufacturing uses over a period of time through several
phases. I have and continue to conduct my own very thorough environmental
investigations. I am also working with Emerson, DEC and DOH to determine the
extent of contamination at the site and how to remediate the site to allow residential
use. Emerson has no obligation to do this but they have been willing to try. Emerson
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
17
could simply bring the site to industrial standards only and raze the buildings, leaving
the slabs to encapsulate the environmental conditions. There is little hope that a new
industry could be found that would want to relocate to this area, occupy that large
parcel, and construct new buildings.
I am encouraged by the results of the testing and that a path to development is
possible. I took on this project because I felt that the restoration of this property
would be a positive result for the community as well as for myself. We have
researched ideas and techniques that will embrace the best thinking on developing
this project in harmony with the community at large. I have been encouraged by
many City, Town, and County officials who have said that this is an important
project that they can support.
I must say, I am feeling discouraged with some of negative things that have been said
about the site. [••• J.G.S. Editorial Note: Did the following sentence lack a subject in
the original text? •••] have heard from a couple of community leaders who have said
that they don’t think that DEC and DOH are capable of making determinations about
how the property can be remediated to allow its safe reuse. Well, then who is?
There are naysayers that can’t believe that this project can be accomplished with the
environmental challenges. I don’t accept this as correct as it has been done on other
sites and I believe it can be done here. People also shouldn’t say the only way to fix it
is to remove it all. Technically, that is not possible nor is it necessary to bring the site
into productive reuse. Frankly, these naysayers don’t have the qualifications to make
such a determination. I have invested over $2 million dollars of my own money to do
this research, design, and permitting. I will only be able to move forward with this
project if it is possible to remediate the much [••• J.G.S. Editorial Note: Was the
wording error here in the original text? •••] of the site in a way which will allow
residential use. I certainly do not want to be in the same position as Emerson and
inherit these problems.
To the media and our representatives, do not sensationalize the issues! Take the time
to think and conduct research before you speak, print stories, and alarm others. I am
the one taking this risk. My investment is totally dependent on the decisions that will
be made by the DEC, DOH, this board, and many other agencies. Let me move ahead
on our planning and approvals so we can get this site cleaned up sooner. If it is not
done now, I doubt anyone will touch the site for a very long time to come, if ever.
We have made all of our information available to the public for years. You can read
the environmental reports, and our Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement,
and other information we have shared, on our website at chainworksdistrict.com.
Together we can get this site to be a productive and amazing place that generates
revenues for the local economy, alleviates some of the housing issues, and lets people
live, work, and recreate in a sustainable community. That is my commitment. It is
what I have been led to believe this community wants. If this is not something that
you want me to do, or if you are not going to join with me and help me to do so, then
let me know now so I can quit spending money and time on this project.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
18
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-
Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Nicholas then announced that the Planning Board had received requests from the Town
of Ithaca Board, members of the City Common Council, and the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board to extend the Public Comment Period, currently scheduled to close on May 10,
2016.
Jones-Rounds said she is not sure if she sees any reason to extend the Public Comment
Period. Darling agreed.
Nicholas remarked it is not unusual for people to ask for extensions.
Schroeder noted that — at some future time — it might be our Board asking one of the
aforementioned bodies for an extension. So, given that the project will not be delayed by
a short extension, Schroeder sees no reason not to extend the comment period for a short
period as a courtesy to our fellow municipal boards.
After further discussion, the following resolution was adopted.
Adopted Resolution for Extension of Public Comment Period:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David
Lubin of Unchained Properties, and
WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the
+/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a
95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The
applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, manufacturing and a
natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four
existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site
adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within
remaining areas of the site. The project also requires a Subdivision approval and
approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone and Site Plan
Approval, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received a request
from the Town of Ithaca Board, members of the City of Ithaca Common Council, and the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board to extend the Public Comment Period for the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), now, therefore, be it
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
19
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board has agreed to extend the Public
Comment Period, currently scheduled for closure on May 10, 2016, by 15 days, to May
25, 2016.
In Favor: Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: Blalock
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
B. Parking Lot Expansion (Addition of 17 15 Spaces), 310 Taughannock Boulevard
(Island Health & Fitness), Terry & Tim Ciaschi, Owners. Declaration of Lead
Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to expand the
parking area by 17 15 spaces, from 98 to 115 113. The existing bioretention area has been
filled in and is currently used as parking. The applicant proposes to remove the current
bioretention system and install porous pavement to accommodate 13 11 spaces. The
project also includes re-striping a portion of the existing parking area to add four
additional spaces. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4
B(1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11),
and is subject to Environmental Review.
Engineer Steven Rowe of T.G. Miller, P.C. and Tim Ciaschi, co-owner, presented a brief
overview of the project. Rowe noted the curbing has now been extended to the end of the
porous pavement to make it appear continuous. Motorcycle parking has also been added.
The applicants met with the City Forester and discussed the shade trees currently on the
site and appropriate replacements.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for a parking lot expansion by Terry and Tim Ciaschi, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand the parking area by 15 spaces, from 98 to
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
20
113. The existing bioretention area has been filled in and is currently used as parking.
The applicant proposes to remove the current bioretention system and install porous
pavement to accommodate 11 spaces. The project also includes re-striping a portion of
the existing parking area to add four additional spaces, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-13, Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit
Development (TMPUD) District, of the City Code: “Any changes to existing structures
that do not enlarge the footprint or total floorspace of an existing building by 50% are
not subject to the TMPUD and remain subject to the pre-existing underlying zoning,” and
therefore this project is not subject to the TMPUD, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and •••, an••• under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(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 in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and
approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for a parking lot expansion by Terry and Tim Ciaschi, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand the parking area by 15 spaces, from 98 to
113. The existing bioretention area has been filled in and is currently used as parking.
The applicant proposes to remove the current bioretention system and install porous
pavement to accommodate 11 spaces. The project also includes re-striping a portion of
the existing parking area to add four additional spaces, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-13, Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit
Development (TMPUD) District, of the City Code: “Any changes to existing structures
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
21
that do not enlarge the footprint or total floorspace of an existing building by 50% are
not subject to the TMPUD and remain subject to the pre-existing underlying zoning,” and
therefore this project is not subject to the TMPUD, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
April 26, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by planning staff;
and the following drawings: “Existing Conditions Plan (10F4),” “Layout and Grading
Plan (30F4),” “Demolition, Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (20F4),” and “Details
(40F4),” all dated 1/22/16, with a revision date of 4/18/16, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.;
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 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, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Jones-Rounds indicated she will vote in favor of the project, but she does not generally
support additional surface-level parking projects, especially given that the project site is
in the vicinity of downtown and is walkable. She strongly urged the applicant to make
every effort to promote alternative modes of transportation use. Schroeder said the City
should be doing everything it can to improve TCAT bus service to Inlet Island.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
22
application for a parking lot expansion by Terry and Tim Ciaschi, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand the parking area by 15 spaces, from 98 to
113. The existing bioretention area has been filled in and is currently used as parking.
The applicant proposes to remove the current bioretention system and install porous
pavement to accommodate 11 spaces. The project also includes re-striping a portion of
the existing parking area to add four additional spaces, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-13, Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit
Development (TMPUD) District, of the City Code: “Any changes to existing structures
that do not enlarge the footprint or total floorspace of an existing building by 50% are
not subject to the TMPUD and remain subject to the pre-existing underlying zoning,” and
therefore this project is not subject to the TMPUD, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 26, 2016
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
April 26, 2016, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on
April 26, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by planning staff;
and the following drawings: “Existing Conditions Plan (10F4),” “Layout and Grading
Plan (30F4),” “Demolition, Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (20F4),” and “Details
(40F4),” all dated 1/22/16, with a revision date of 4/18/16, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.;
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 City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency
in Environmental Review, did on April 26, 2016 make a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
23
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
C. The Cherry Artspace, 102 Cherry Street, Performance Premises, LLC / Samuel
Buggeln. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval with Conditions.
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,944-SF building on the 5,402-SF project site. The
site contains an existing 1,137-SF building (formerly Renovus Solar). The new building
will have a galvanized corrugated-steel exterior finish to harmonize with the existing
building, and have a matte foundation with perimeter-grade beams. A sidewalk will be
provided along the entire parcel width, and 6.5’ tree lawn and street trees in front of the
existing building. (Space does not permit a tree lawn in front of the new building.)
Parking will be provided on adjacent lot immediately to the south. The applicant is also
proposing an exterior patio in the rear of the building, landscaping, and signage. The
project site is in an area currently under study for an Area Plan as a part of the Phase II of
the Comprehensive Plan. Since this planning effort will likely result in changes in zoning
requirements in this area, the City has rezoned the entire area to a Temporary Mandatory
Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone, until the Area Plan is complete. Therefore,
the project sponsor has also applied to Common Council for a (TM) PUD TMPUD. The
project will require a permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) for encroachment into the permanent easement along the Flood Control Channel.
This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency
made a negative determination of Environmental Significance on March 22, 2016.
Applicants Samuel Buggeln and Rick Salvato of Performance Premises, LLC and
Claudia Brenner of Claudia Brenner Architect presented a brief project update. Buggeln
noted that after meeting with the City Forester, he is proposing that the three new street
trees be a columnar species of cherry tree appropriate for this location).
Brenner walked through the proposed construction materials:
• Siding would be traditional corrugated metal, with galvanized surface of same
approximate color as Renovus Solar building.
• Building would feature horizontal dark brown band below the sloped roof, with
bronze windows and marine bronze light fixtures.
• Roof ribbing would be dark brown commercial-grade siding.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis:
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
24
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for The Cherry Artspace to be located at 102 Cherry St., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,944-SF building on the 5,402-SF
project site. The site contains an existing 1,137-SF building (formerly Renovus Solar).
The new building will have a galvanized corrugated-steel exterior finish to harmonize
with the existing building, and have a matte foundation with perimeter-grade beams. A
sidewalk will be provided along the entire parcel width, and 6.5’ tree lawn and street
trees in front of the existing building. (Space does not permit a tree lawn in front of the
new building.) Parking will be provided on adjacent lot immediately to the south. The
applicant is also proposing an exterior patio in the rear of the building, landscaping, and
signage, and
WHEREAS: the project site is in an area currently under study for an Area Plan as a part
of the Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this planning effort will likely result in
changes in zoning requirements in this area, the City has rezoned the entire area to a
Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone, until the Area Plan is
complete. Therefore, the project sponsor has also applied to Common Council for a
TMPUD. The project will require a permit from the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) for encroachment into the permanent easement along the Flood
Control Channel, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(11), and is subject to Environmental
Review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council and the NYS DEC have consented to
the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for the action
of site plan review and TMPUD for the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on March 22, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency for
the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
March 22, 2016, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on March
22, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF),
Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings
titled “Site Plan and Zoning Information (L-1),” “1st Floor Plan (A-1),” “Mezzanine Plan
(A-2),” “Elevations (A-3 & A-4),” all dated 1/4/16 and prepared by Claudia Brenner,
architect; 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
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
25
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency
in Environmental Review, did on March 22, 2016 make a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby grants
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following
conditions:
i. Adoption by Common Council of The Cherry Artspace Zoning District, and
ii. Submission of revised site plan showing location, number, and type of bike racks to be
installed, before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
iii. Submission to the Planning Board of color elevations, keyed to materials sample sheet,
and
iv. Submission to Planning Board of project details including exterior lighting, signage,
canopy design, and paving materials.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
D. Apartment Building, 201 College Avenue, Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative,
for Visum Development Group. Project Update & Discussion. The applicant proposes
to build a 5-story apartment building on a 0.173 acre lot at the corner of College Avenue
and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76
bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows
looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp
access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping,
lighting, 4 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The project is proposing a curb bump-out
that will require approval form the Board of Public Works. The site has a 17’ difference
in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to
707.00. Site development will require the removal of the existing 2-‐story wood-framed
house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, gravel parking area, and five trees. The
project is in the MU-‐1 Collegetown Area Form Districts and requires area variances. This
is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(k) & (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review.
Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative and Todd Fox, co-owner, presented
a brief overview of the proposed project.
Schroeder explained that the Planning Board will not declare Lead Agency at this time
since staff wanted to sort out the implications of the addition to the project of a College
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
26
Avenue bulb-out that may require Board of Public Works (BPW) approval. The Planning
Board should not declare Lead Agency until after that has been determined.
Demarest responded that the bulb-out is not an integral part of the project. While the
applicants would prefer to include it, they cannot afford any delays to the project because
of it. Cornish assured the applicants the project would not be delayed.
Darling reported the BPW reviewed the project at its meeting a day earlier, but did not
take any action. He said the BPW would likely cede Lead Agency status to the Planning
Board at its meeting in two weeks.
Demarest announced there has been a slight revision to the front of building, but no
changes to the rest of the structure. At the Project Review Committee meeting, he said, a
suggestion was made to add a six-foot push-down on all four building corners; however,
there are serious cost-related implications to that. He said the applicants would be willing
to use push-downs on the College Avenue façade, but would prefer not to on the back
side.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants would like to respond to the neighbors’ concerns, as
expressed earlier in the meeting.
Demarest responded that the project design remains unfinished; the applicants still need
to identify the façade materials and develop relief / shadow detailing. In terms of the
building’s massing and size, he said the applicant is trying to adhere to what the Zoning
Ordinance allows. The applicants certainly appreciate the neighboring property owners’
concerns.
Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants would consider an additional step-back to allow
more sunlight to reach the neighboring property. Demarest replied, unfortunately, that is
not feasible.
Jones-Rounds urged the applicants to speak with some of the neighbors about their
concerns. Fox replied he already had approximately 10 personal conversations with one
neighbor, Neil Golder.
Elliott noted New York State law includes provisions for solar easements to protect
property owners’ investments in solar panels. He suggested the applicants install the
neighbor’s solar panels on the proposed building, so he can continue to benefit from
them.
Fox replied he had a conversation with Golder several months ago, during which he
offered to place the solar panels on the roof of the proposed building. The applicants are
more than happy to be accommodating in that respect.
Elliott noted the other concern raised by the neighbors is the access to Golder’s property
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27
from Bool Street. Fox replied there is no easement or similar provision in the project
property’s deed that would allow for that. He said this issue was only raised with him last
week.
Schroeder remarked he continues to have concerns that the building appears too box-like,
in comparison to the surrounding buildings. He would also like the building to meet the
American Society of Civil Engineers street-width Transportation Engineers streetscape
standards (including sidewalk width). He said the tree pits should also comply with the
standards in the City’s Forestry Master Plan (“Ithaca's Trees: Master Plan, Inventory and
Arboricultural Guidelines for Public Trees of the City of Ithaca, New York”). Finally, he
said he is concerned about the proposed bumpout, since the City still does not know what
the long-term plan is for College Avenue.
Johnston asked the applicant how the building would be powered. Demarest replied that
the building would be powered entirely by electricity. The applicants are interested in
incorporating solar panels, he said, but further study is needed regarding that.
Jones-Rounds asked the applicants to conduct a shadow study for the project. Demarest
replied, they would be happy to do that.
E. Maplewood Redevelopment Project, Veteran’s Avenue (between Maple Avenue &
Mitchell Street), Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, for Cornell
University. Lead Agency Concurrence for Town of Ithaca. The applicant proposes to
redevelop the existing 170-unit and 372-bedroom Maplewood housing complex into a
new project with 500-600 units and up to 975 bedrooms. The units are to be a mixture of
townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will include
a community center, some neighborhood-scaled retail, and internal circulation network,
including connections to adjacent East Hill Recreation Way, landscaping, lighting, and
other amenities. The project site is approximately 17 acres — 0.75 of which is in the City
of Ithaca and is proposed to contain an apartment building a small park. The applicant
intends to develop the Town portion of the site as a Planned Development Zone (PDZ),
while the City portion will comply with current R-3b Zoning District regulations. This is
a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(k)&(i), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review. It is expected the
Town of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency for the Environmental Review of the project, will
issue a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance at its May 2016 meeting.
Consultant Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC noted the Town of
Ithaca is seeking to serve as Lead Agency, since the vast majority of the project lies
within the Town. He noted some changes have been made to the site plan: the originally
proposed large building partially on the City’s portion of the site has now been pulled
back, so that the City’s portion of the site will now have a landscaped entry area,
including a ‘parklet’ and one small non-residential structure.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
28
Elliott asked the applicant to provide statistics comparing how much of the existing site is
dedicated to vehicular traffic and parking versus the proposed project. He suspects the
proposed project would have higher numbers. The Planning Board should be able, he
said, to determine the project is genuinely pedestrian-friendly from the project’s site plan.
Whitham replied that is a reasonable request. He added that the applicants have already
commissioned a traffic study, and that the project is also required to produce an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Johnston urged the applicant to design the project with a long-term perspective, keeping
in mind that it should last 75-years.
Schroeder added that the site plan should include pedestrian connections that align
seamlessly with the City’s. Sidewalks should be built on Worth Street, he said,
connecting to existing sidewalks, since that will be a route to Belle Sherman school.
Whitham responded that Miller Street would ordinarily continue into the East Hill
Recreation Way, but there is actually a private parcel obstructing it. Schroeder responded
that planning should consider what, in the public interest, ought to exist.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency Concurrence:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law
requires 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 Site
Plan Review application for the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project to be
located at Veteran’s Place, and
WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca has also received an application for Site Plan Approval
and a zoning change for a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) for the proposed
Maplewood Redevelopment Project, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes redevelop the ±16-acre site, of which approximately
0.75 acres are located in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has notified the City of Ithaca Planning
Board of its intent to act as Lead Agency in this review for this project, and
WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca has determined this action to be a Type I Action under
both the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), and
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
29
Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, Town of Ithaca Town Code, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby consent to the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board’s acting as Lead Agency for the Environmental Review of the
project.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
F. Mixed-Use Project at 201-207 N. Aurora Street – Sketch Plan
Applicants Noah Demarest and Robert Morache of STREAM Collaborative and Todd
Fox of Visum Development Group introduced the proposed project to the Board.
Demarest stressed the design is still very early in its development. He said he is seeking
as much feedback from the Planning Board as possible. He noted the existing building
suffers from serious structural and architectural issues.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
30
Warm Warehouse Alternative
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
31
Modern Alternative
Johnston remarked that the warm warehouse design looks good.
Jones-Rounds agreed, although she likes all the options. She added there should be as
much articulation as possible.
Lewis indicated he likes both alternatives.
Darling expressed a preference for the warm warehouse alternative.
Elliott indicated there are merits to both alternatives, although he does not like the warm
warehouse façade as much.
Schroeder noted Aurora Street has a delicate scale, with its pedestrian-friendly and
modestly-scaled buildings. He would oppose any kind of monolithic-looking building. He
likes the notion of breaking the design up into different building façade types. He prefers
the warm warehouse alternative.
G. Apartments at 107 Albany Street – Sketch Plan
Engineer Lawrence Fabbroni, Sr. and Nick Stavropoulos, owner, introduced the proposed
project to the Board, noting it would include nine units, with no required parking.
[••• J.G.S. Editorial Note: Illustration removed here. •••]
Lewis indicated he likes the porch entrance, although it looks like an afterthought (e.g.,
location of columns).
Jones-Rounds said the design is too simple and would benefit from some more details
(e.g., roof lines, more windows on north façade).
Elliott stated the design does not take advantage of opportunities for making the addition
seem like a genuine extension of the existing house (e.g., hipped roof conflicting with
gable roof). He likes the banding, but said it needs to address the original building. The
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
32
windows in the addition should also reflect the ones on the existing house, he concluded.
Schroeder agreed, saying it should appear as though there is an organic connection
between the two buildings (e.g., eave overhang, no hip roof), including the use of
materials.
H. Apartments, Demolition, & Reconstruction at 203-209 Elm Street – Sketch Plan
Applicants Scott Reynolds of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS); Steven
Rowe of T.G. Miller, P.C.; and Erik Reynolds of SWBR Architects introduced the
proposed project to the Board.
Scott Reynolds noted the existing buildings are too deteriorated to merit renovation. The
applicants met with the neighbors, who indicated they would like the sidewalk pulled
away from the road to provide some additional green space.
Eric Reynolds noted the new two-story, residential building would contain 12 units. The
façade would be broken up, he said, with a pedestrian-friendly scale at street level.
[••• J.G.S. Editorial Note: Illustration removed here. •••]
Elliott asked if the applicants could deconstruct the building, rather than demolishing it.
Scott Reynolds replied, yes; they would probably work with Finger Lakes ReUse for that.
Jones-Rounds inquired about the number of parking spaces. Erik Reynolds replied there
would be 12 spaces. Jones-Rounds noted the Planning Board would support a Zoning
Appeal for the project, if it would mean the project could have less parking. Schroeder
agreed. He would also like to see some effective screening of the parking lot from the
street.
Cornish observed the proposed retaining wall seems particularly massive. Schroeder
agreed, suggesting the applicants reduce the amount of parking and the size of the
retaining wall.
6. Zoning Appeals
Appeal #3021 — 307 Warren Road: Special Permit
Appeal of Carolyn and Jeremiah Anderson, owners of 307 Warren Place, for a Special
Temporary Permit for an existing accessory apartment in an owner-occupied single-family
home as authorized under Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-10, Accessory apartments.
The applicants seek a Special Temporary Permit to rent an existing accessory apartment in
the basement of their home at 307 Warren Place. The studio apartment was originally
constructed and rented by the former owner of 307 Warren Road under Zoning Appeal
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
33
#2400, granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on December 1, 1998. The property at
307 Warren Road has 3 off-street parking spaces and meets zoning requirements for both
units. The single-family, 4-bedroom unit has 1,604 SF of habitable space and the existing
apartment has a total of 603 SF. This apartment also has a separate entrance at the back of the
house. The property at 307 Warren Road is in an R1-a Zoning District where the installation
of an accessory apartment is an allowed accessory use. However, Section 325-10 requires that
the BZA grant a Special Temporary Permit for the accessory apartment prior to a Building
Permit being issued.
The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and
supports granting this appeal.
Appeal #3023 — 201 Stewart Avenue: Area Variance
Appeal of Christopher Anagnost for Paul and Katherine Karakantas, owners of 201 Stewart
Avenue, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Minimum Lot Size,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes converting existing basement space into a fourth bedroom at 201
Stewart Avenue; however, the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-32 C. (3), “Nonconforming
structures,” does not permit extension of buildings when the building does not comply with
minimum lot size requirements. The property at 201 Stewart Avenue has a lot size of 4,700
SF; the required lot size is 7,000 SF. In addition, the applicant’s proposal to add a bedroom
will increase the amount of habitable space in the building and the calculated number of
unrelated occupants allowed under City Housing Standards. This increase in occupancy is
considered an extension of a non-conforming structure and is not permitted unless the Board
of Zoning Appeals grants an Area Variance for the lot size deficiency. Since Section 325-32
C. (3) was adopted in 1996, the 201 Stewart Avenue property’s occupancy rights have been
limited to use as a 3-bedroom Cooperative Household with a maximum occupancy of four
unrelated persons. Adding a fourth bedroom will increase 201 Stewart Avenue’s number of
unrelated occupants to 8. The property at 201 Stewart Avenue is located in an R-3a Zoning
District, where a Cooperative Household is a permitted use.
The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and
supports granting this appeal.
7. Old / New Business
A. Project Review Committee Membership
Blalock explained the Project Review Committee meets monthly to review projects, one
week before the full Planning Board meeting. It currently only comprises himself and
Schroeder, so it would be very helpful to have at least one other member. Johnston
expressed interest in joining the committee.
B. Planning Board Recommendation to Common Council Regarding Seneca Street
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
34
Blalock remarked that Seneca Street downtown is wider east of Cayuga Street than it is
west of Cayuga Street. At its January 26, 2016 meeting, the Planning Board approved a
resolution in support of narrowing the 100 block of E. Seneca St., installing wider
sidewalk areas and adding street trees.
Cornish noted the resolution was sent to BPW. She suggested the Planning Board send
the same resolution to Common Council. There were no objections. (Note: The original
resolution had been addressed to both BPW and Common Council.)
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
Darling reported the BPW discussed the 200-300 block of Tioga Street and its proposed
bike lane. He said the Engineering Division would like to stripe that segment of the street
and remove on-street parking, consistent with the City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan.
A working group will be formed to study the proposal in more depth and collaborate with
the Parking Committee to develop a viable, comprehensive parking plan for the City.
9. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft February 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
10. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.