HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2017-10-24 Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
October 24, 2017
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott(left 9:38 p.m.);
Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Jones-Rounds (left 9:25 p.m.);
Robert Aaron Lewis; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Board Vacancies: One
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Brindley Street Bridge Rebuilding and Relocation
Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Systems Engineer
David Kennicutt, Delta Engineering
Apartments at 203-209 Elm Street
Eric Reynolds, SWBR Architects
Andrew Sciarabba, T.G. Miller;
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services;
Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Supportive Senior Housing at 105 Dearborn Street
Frank Santelli, T.G. Miller;
Paula Horrigan, Landscape Architect;
Betsy Magre, Project Consultant;
Elizabeth Ambrose Classen, Project Sponsor
Duplex at 217 Columbia Street
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects;
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering;
Charlie O'Connor, Owner
1
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Duplexes at 209 Hudson Street(Sketch Plan)
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect
111-115 The Knoll(Chesterson House) (Sketch Plan)
Kate Kruger, STREAM Collaborative;
Karl Johnson, Executive Director of Chesterson House
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas alerted the Board to agenda revisions, including moving the Board
Recommendation on Draft Design Guidelines to the front of the agenda as a Special Order of
Business, and the addition of a new item D, 217 Columbia Street Duplex–Satisfaction of
Conditions.
2. Special Order of Business:
Board Recommendation on Draft Design Guidelines–Megan Wilson
Senior Planner Wilson,who gave a slide presentation on the draft Design Guidelines for
Collegetown and Downtown last month, returned to hear the Board's recommendations.
Wilson also referenced a list of recommended zoning changes to the Collegetown Area Form
Districts she had shared with the Board via e-mail, and invited the members' input on those
as well.
Jones-Rounds thanked Wilson, and consultant Winter and Co., for their work. She said it
looks like a great blueprint thus far.
Schroeder said that when the City created the Comprehensive Plan, it did research into the
process for adopting a full plan or amendments thereto. He noted that it looked at the General
City Law of NYS, and at the City Code, and the conclusion examined by the City
Attorney, and endorsed by both the Planning Board and Common Council—was that the
role of the Planning Board is to review (and modify, as it may consider desirable) the text of
a proposed amendment to the Comprehesive Plan, agree upon a proposed text, and vote to
recommend that text to Common Council. He said that the next step is for Common Council
to discuss and vote on this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment (Common Council can
make its own revisions to the text recommended by the Planning Board as it does so). He
asserted that the Design Guidelines under consideration would be such an amendment, and
he said, "I think we should take that review process very seriously, and we should have a
thorough discussion of both these documents."
Schroeder went on to say that he had lots of comments and that the review would take more
than 20 minutes (as provided in the revised agenda), adding that he has not yet had time to do
a thorough review of the Collegetown document,which he characterized as "more complex,
with the issue of proposed zoning [changes] to be considered simultaneously." Schroeder
2
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
added that the Board might be able to make further recommendations regarding changes to
zoning based upon its experience with site plan review. He suggested that the Board could
discuss and make its recommendation to Common Council on the Downtown Design
Guidelines tonight and do the same with the Collegetown Design Guidelines next month.
Wilson said that this proposed timeline sounded fine but added that she's not sure the
proposed design guidelines will be considered part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Jones-Rounds said design guidelines are sometimes referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
Cornish added that the City has in the past adopted design guidelines as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, and that it would be an option to consider. Cornish asked Wilson if the
Planning Division wanted to send both items to the Common Council together.
Wilson responded that they are separate actions.
After brief discussion, Blalock suggested that the Board review the draft Downtown Design
Guidelines at this meeting and the draft Collegetown Design Guidelines next meeting and
asked if the members wanted to continue discussion before or after the Site Plan Review
items. Schroeder said he thought it was more appropriate to do so afterwards, since so many
applicants and members of the public were in attendance tonight for the Site Plan Review
items.
Blalock asked Wilson if she had anything to add. Wilson said she did not.
Blalock suggested postponing discussion until after the Site Plan Review items. Schroeder
agreed. Board by consensus moved to the next item on the agenda.
3. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in favor of development
and chain stores.
Walter Hang, 218 Wait Avenue, said he has lived for more than 25 years in the Cornell
Heights Historic District, and has been involved with efforts to ensure that planning and
historic preservation guidelines are adhered to with respect to multiple projects. Hang spoke
in favor of the Bridges project at 105 Dearborn Place. He said he lives nearby, and has
spoken with neighbors, but has not heard anyone voicing opposition or concerns. He said he
thinks the Bridges building projects have been an asset to the historic preservation efforts
within the district.
John Novarr, 1001 W. Seneca Street, Signworks Building, expressed doubt that"the City
will be able to do the kind of analysis on the West End that it ought to be able to do."Novarr
attributed this to previous City leaders making policy decisions that didn't anticipate growth,
adding, "Little by little, Meadow Street/Route 13 has become more like the mess it used to
3
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
be, and there are long waits to get in and out of the City at certain times of day."He
attributed a lot of the traffic on Route 13 to Wegmans and noted that Brindley Street is a back
way into Wegmans. Pointing out that the student population is anticipated to grow
significantly in the next few years, he said he doesn't know if the current plan is workable.
He went on to express concern about the project and suggested planners leave open the
option of retaining the current bridge for future use.
Marian Rogers, 152 Coddington Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed development at
209 Hudson Street, saying that the development had the potential to "destroy the character"
of the South Hill neighborhood, and make it an undesirable place for non-students to live.
She said that if approved, it could lead to a"domino effect" of similar projects appearing all
along Hudson Street,but particularly uphill from the Hillview intersection where at present,
numerous single-family homes on large lots preserve "substantial greenspace."Rogers said
that she and her husband have lived on South Hill for more than 20 years, and that they chose
to live in the area because of its walkability; its proximity to both Cornell and I.C., and to the
natural areas and the South Hill Recreation Way; and because of the variety of single family
homes, including some of the oldest in the City, which can be found there. Rogers called the
house at 209 Hudson Street"a beautiful example of the Arts and Crafts style, a real gem."
She said that the City should take steps to protect the aesthetics and character of the South
Hill neighborhood, and spoke in favor of the South Hill Overlay District to be considered by
Common Council at its November 1 meeting.
David Beer, 311 Hudson Street said his parents own 211 Hudson, next door to 209 Hudson,
the site being considered tonight under sketch plan review. He said that this section of
Hudson Street is still residential and has not been affected much by the student housing just
down the hill. He went on to say that if 20 or 30 undergrads are relocated to 209, it could
diminish the desirability of his parents' owner-occupied property. He noted the property is a
William Henry Miller designed house, and that locating multiple duplexes right next to it
could diminish an historic property with a lot of integrity. Beer concluded: "The idea that
locating a few dozen beds on Hudson Street is going to alleviate a housing crisis I think is not
well thought out. The City should allow all this construction going on in the downtown area
and Collegetown to actually become occupied before they decide that the residential
neighborhoods should become more dense."
Steven Beer, 211 Hudson Street, said he has lived on South Hill for 21 years, following 28
years on East Hill. He said that his family operated its house as a B&B known as "Veralma,
The 1850 House" for 14 years, adding that many of the guests commented on the beauty of
the houses in the neighborhood, including 209 Hudson Street. He referenced the barn at 311
Hudson Street, which has been converted into two apartments, saying that it's a good
example of infill development, and contrasted that with the proposed development at 209. He
said that the proposed project at 209 is "not in keeping with the character of the existing
neighborhood" and spoke in favor of the proposed zoning overlay district being considered
by Common Council.
Joe McMahon, 318 Columbia Street, spoke about problems related to development on South
4
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Hill, including increased traffic, student noise at night, and garbage littering the area. He said
that the Building Division and Police Department can't keep up with the increased demands
on them, and that as chairperson of the City's Natural Areas Commission, he's concerned
because there is no funding for the police to oversee the Gorge Ranger program, with the
City's natural areas being degraded as a result. He said that his neighborhood has changed so
much since he moved there in 2003 that he has considered moving.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, said that at the November 1 meeting Common
Council would be considering an overlay district for South Hill to prohibit more than one
primary dwelling on a single lot in areas zoned R1 and R2. She said that zoning is a very
blunt tool in terms of trying to determine what type of development occurs in the City, and
pointed out that it's not legal or appropriate to attempt to limit what type of person lives in a
certain area, but added that declining owner occupancy rates are a problem for the City. She
said it's important to find tools to preserve owner occupied neighborhoods and asked for the
Planning Board's help to achieve that goal.
Schroeder asked for clarification on whether 209 Hudson Street the site of tonight's
sketch plan review project proposing new duplexes—was contained within the South Hill
Overlay District to be voted on by Common Council on November 1. Cornish replied, yes.
Schroeder pointed out that, if Council approves this overlay district, the amended Zoning
Ordinance would not permit the aforementioned duplexes.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Brindley Street Bridge Rebuilding and Relocation, Intersection of W. State Street
and Taughannock Boulevard, by Addisu Gebre for the City of Ithaca. Public
Hearing. The project will relocate the current Brindley Street Bridge to align with the W.
State Street/Taughannock Boulevard intersection. The new bridge will be a single span
bridge extending Taughannock Boulevard over the Cayuga Inlet to Taber Street. The
project will retain the existing Brindley Street Bridge and south approach road for
pedestrian and bike use. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 B.(1)(k) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) for which the Board of Public Works,
acting as Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance in
2016.
City Bridge Systems Engineer Addisu Gebre is the project manager for the bridge
replacement. Gebre reported on the progress on the project to date. He said that the City
has been working with Delta Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, and Trowbridge
Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects on the project. He said that based on a NYSDOT
inspection, the existing bridge has serious deterioration and is at risk of failure due to
scour(i.e., the loss of soil, sand or gravel from around bridge abutments that increases the
danger that these supports will fail). He also said that as a one-lane bridge with a 20-ton
limit, it is functionally obsolete.
5
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Gebre reiterated the primary project goals:
• Replace and update with a two-lane structure that can accommodate heavy vehicles
(removing the 20-ton limit).
• Select a cost effective replacement with a 75-year design life.
• Increase safety and mobility in alignment with the current W. MLK Jr. / State
Street project.
He explained that when the project was begun, two alternatives were developed: one that
would keep the existing bridge alignment; and a second that would move the location to
realign with Taughannock Boulevard, with the existing bridge being repurposed for
pedestrians. Common Council selected the second option. The hope, Gebre said, is to
complete ROW acquisition and finalize the design in spring of 2018, allowing
construction to take place over the summers of 2018 and 2019.
Gebre said Brindley Street Bridge replacement is critical at this point because (1)
Brindley Street and Cecil A. Malone Drive have the only two bridges providing access to
Nates Floral Estates and the Cherry Street Industrial Park, and(2)the Cecil A. Malone
bridge will need replacing within the next three to five years.
Gebre said that the project team had met with the Project Review Committee and that the
Committee had identified areas of concern, including approach railings; transitions;
colors; pedestrian bridge rails; plantings; lighting and bollards; questions related to the
historic character of the old Brindley Street Bridge railings; as well as some discrepancies
on the plans, renderings and drawings. Gebre concluded his comments by saying that the
team has a plan to address those concerns, as well as any concerns identified during
public comments. He said that they would try to submit their responses to the Board in
writing in advance of next month's meeting.
Schroeder said that the essence of the committee's concern was that the bridge actually
look like the two aerial renderings, which show the bridge railings in dark green with
light piers at the four corners, and the approach railings in galvanized steel, so that there's
a clear sense of entering onto the bridge, being on the bridge, and leaving. He said the
plan and elevation drawings conflicted with this.
He also said that there was an issue remaining from the environmental review which
stated that trees of over 8 inches dbh, proposed to be cut down, were to be identified for
potential replacement with native species. So that number needs to be determined and
places not among the street plantings to put them need to be identified. The final
concern Schroeder identified was that the Committee wanted to see the form of the
original Brindley Street Bridge railings referenced in the design of the replacement
railings on the repurposed original bridge.
Public Hearing
6
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Lewis, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, spoke in favor of the project, saying that she
thinks it will help alleviate some of the congestion on W. MLK Jr. / State Street. She said
it would also represent a step towards realizing the Six Point Traffic Plan. She asked the
Planning Board to regard the area between the old and new bridges as a natural area,
recreational area or greenspace for people to use. Brock noted that people are already
using the area, and asked the Board to consider ways to improve aesthetics and safety
when thinking about landscaping and lighting. She asked if the area between the two
bridges will be retained as a natural area and if it will be a long span or short span bridge.
Joel Harlan spoke in favor of the redesign as part of the Six Point Traffic Plan.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott,
and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Gebre responded to John Novarr's previous comment, saying that the old bridge will be
retained for pedestrians, and that based on preliminary analysis, relocating the bridge
should not cause any traffic issues. He also addressed Brock's question about the span,
saying that at first, the consultant was not sure whether it would require a double span,
but that after further investigation into soil conditions, the consultant thinks it will be a
single span.
Cornish added that the area of disturbance is noted on the plans, so the area Brock
mentioned will pretty much remain as-is. Gebre concurred.
Schroeder said that the plan should also include light bollards along the entire length of
the new bicycle and pedestrian way, including the repurposed old bridge.
Gebre said he will submit revised drawings before the next Project Review Committee
meeting. Preliminary and final approval is likely to be considered at next month's Board
meeting.
B. Elm Street Apartments, 203-211 Elm Street, by Lynn Truame for Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Consideration of Preliminary & Final
Approval. The proposed project consists of the demolition of one single family home
and two apartment buildings and the construction of a single 12,585 SF apartment
building with 13 dwelling units, parking for six vehicles, and other associated site
improvements. Due to the slope of the site, the building will have 2 stories facing Elm
Street and three stories in the rear. The project requires the consolidation of three tax
parcels. The project is in the R-3a Zoning district and is has received two area variances
for relief from rear yard setback and parking requirements. This is a Type I Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4
(1)(h)[3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) for
7
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance on September 26, 2017.
Andrew Sciarabba of T.G. Miller; Eric Reynolds of SWBR Architects; Lynn Truame of
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services; and Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services responded to some of the comments received at the Project Review Committee
meeting, saying they had provided more details on the windows and vents, the retaining
wall and the plantings. There was a request to provide additional screening on the
retaining walls, so the applicant has proposed additional plantings for those. They
responded to the City Transportation Engineer's comments by adding a bulb out at the
cross walk,providing a work zone safety plan and adding the slopes to the sidewalks.
The applicants reported that the BZA granted variances for reduction of parking and rear
yard setback.
INHS also provided material samples as requested at the project review meeting.
Applicant responded to the suggestion to use Boston Ivy instead of the proposed Virginia
creeper, saying they will go ahead with Virginia creeper as it is native to the area,
whereas Boston ivy is not. They moved the planting placement to screen the lowest tier
of the parking lot retaining wall, as requested.
Applicants said that the incorrect color key numbers on the building elevations have been
corrected. Also to address the question about placement of vents on the Elm Street
elevation, the applicants said that they intend to put as many as possible on the sides and
back of the buildings.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for construction of an apartment building at 203-209
Elm St.by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and
WHEREAS:the proposed project consists of the demolition of one single family home
and two apartment buildings and the construction of a single 12,585 SF apartment
building with 13 dwelling units,parking for six vehicles, and other associated site
improvements. Due to the slope of the site,the building will have 2 stories facing Elm
Street and three stories in the rear. The project requires the consolidation of three tax
parcels. The project is in the R-3a Zoning district and has received two area variances for
relief from rear yard setback and parking requirements, and
WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance("CEQRO") §176-4(1)(h)[3], and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11)and is subject to environmental review,and
WHEREAS:it was requested that the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner,
8
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Tompkins County Department of Health,NYS Homes and Community Renewal,and the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of
Ithaca Planning Board being Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project,
and
WHEREAS: all above agencies either provided written consent to the Planning Board or
did not respond within the required 30 day period,and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did, on July 25,2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the
project, and
WHEREAS:this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on
September 26,2017,reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental
Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3 prepared
by Planning staff; drawings titled: "Topographic and Survey Map No. 203,207,209 Elm
Street,City of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York"dated 3/25/15 and prepared by TG
Miller; "Existing Conditions Plan(C-101)","Demolition,Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan(C-102)", "Layout Plan(C-103)", "Grading and Utility Plan(C-104)","Details(C-
201)","Overall Landscape Plan(L-101)", "Overall Context Aerial(L-102)", "Lower
Level Plan(A-101)", "First Floor Plan(A-102)","Second Floor Plan(A-103)", "Roof
Plan(A-104)", "First Floor Plan(A-102)","Exterior Elevations(A-200)","Conceptual
Building Sections(A-301)"and"Sections(A301)"with a revision date of 8/16/17 and
prepared by SWBR Architects et al. and"Overall Site Plan"undated and prepared by
SWBR Architects 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 did on September 26,2017 determine that the proposed
project would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), &(3) of the City of Ithaca
Code, and
WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
August 22,2017,and
WHEREAS:this Board has on October 24, 2017,reviewed and accepted as adequate
new and revised drawings titled: "Demolition,Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(C-
102)","Layout Plan(C-103)", "Grading and Utility Plan(C-104)", "Work Zone Traffic
Control Plan(C105)", "Details(C-201)", "Exterior Elevations(A-200)", "Misc Details
(A-401)", "Overall Landscape Plan(L-101)"and"Colored Site Plan(L 103)"all with a
latest date or revision date of 10/6/17 and prepared by SWBR Architects and other
application materials, now,therefore, be it
9
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
RESOLVED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant
preliminary and final site plan approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of a revised Landscape Plan showing vines at the base of the tiered
retaining wall, and
ii. Submission of an updated sheet—A200–Exterior Elevations—showing
correct labeling/numbering, and
iii. Noise producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday-Friday(and Saturday 9 a.m.to 7:30 p.m.with
advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and
Development), and
iv. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
V. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
vi. A MP&T plan must be approved by Engineering before issuance of a building
permit, and
vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by
City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc.
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
C. Bridges Cornell Heights Residence (Senior Housing), 105 Dearborn Place by
Elizabeth Classen Ambrose. Determination of Environmental Significance, and
Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to
construct a two story single family residence with 12 bedrooms to house up to 16 people
on the .446 acre lot. The building will have a footprint of approximately 4,150 SF,
including porches. Site improvements include a porte cochere, a driveway and parking
area for nine cars, three patios, walkways and landscaping plantings. The site is currently
vacant. Site development will require the removal of approximately 25 trees of various
sizes. The applicant is proposing to use the Landscape Compliance method, which
requires Planning Board approval for placement of the parking area. The project is in the
R-2a Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Local Historic District and has received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC). This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)(4) and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and is subject to environmental review.
Landscape architect Paula Horrigan reported information provided to the Board since the
10
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
last meeting, including providing more detail on traffic impacts from the project;
proposing amendments to the Environmental Assessment Form (coverage of existing
mature trees, confirming the removal of 25 trees and detailing the exact species,
correcting mistakes on the original, and including the revegetation plan); and providing
more details on the lighting plan, the landscaping materials and the planting plan.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for a senior housing project at 105 Dearborn Place by
Elizabeth Classen Ambrose, and
WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to construct a two story single family residence
with 12 bedrooms to house up to 16 people on the .446 acre lot. The building will have a
footprint of approximately 4,150 SF, including porches. Site improvements include a
porte cochere, a driveway and parking area for nine cars,three patios,walkways and
landscaping plantings. The site is currently vacant. Site development will require the
removal of approximately 25 trees of various sizes. The applicant is proposing to use the
Landscape Compliance method,which requires Planning Board approval for placement
of the parking area. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District and the Cornell Heights
Local Historic District and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC), and
WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance("CEQRO") §176-4(1)(h)(4)and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review
the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did, on September 26, 2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of
the project, and
WHEREAS:this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on
October 24, 2017,reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form(FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3 prepared by Planning
staff; drawings titled: "Existing Site Conditions (C101)", "Site Demolition Plan(C102)",
"Site Layout Plan(C103)","Site Grading Plan(C104)", "Site Utility Plan(C105)",
"Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(C106)"and"Details(C201 &C202)' all prepared
by TG Miller PC, and"Architectural Site Plan(A01)", "Site Plan Study-Dimensional&
Rear Yard(A.01.A)"and"Architectural Landscape Plan(A02)", all dated 10-2-17 and
"North Elevation Study(SK.20)", "West Elevation Study(SK.21)","South Elevation
Study(SK.22)"and"East Elevation Study(SK.23)",dated October 2016 and prepared by
11
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Bero Architecture PLLC, and"Schematic Outdoor Lighting Plan"and"Landscape
Planting Plan"both dated 10-24-17 and prepared by Paula Horrigan,Landscape
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,
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, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Lewis commented that the project has been somewhat controversial but the applicant has
been responsive throughout the process. He added that the proposal is "sensitive in the
design sense" and expressed support.
Schroeder said that the proposed designs show a great attention to detail in the Arts and
Crafts style, and that the planting plan is "one of the lushest we've ever been presented."
Elliott acknowledged that some people have expressed concerns about changing the
character of the neighborhood,but pointed out that further down Dearborn several large
homes have been converted to fraternity and sorority houses. He drew a parallel to this
proposed project, saying: "The difference is that this is a new big house." He said he
thinks the use is compatible and that the development will build on the urban fabric.
Johnston asked for clarification on a question received in public comments about whether
the building is subject to ADA requirements. Applicant responded that it is not a
commercial building, it is a residence, so it is not required to be ADA compliant.
Jones-Rounds said she thinks the project is a responsible use of the space, and she
appreciates the design, adding that her only concern is about traffic. She suggested to the
applicant that they try to prevent delivery vehicles from parking on Dearborn Place.
Blalock expressed his approval of the design and said that he appreciates that the project
will bring a range of ages to the neighborhood.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
12
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for Site Plan Review for a senior housing project at 105 Dearborn Place by
Elizabeth Classen Ambrose, and
WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to construct a two story single family residence
with 12 bedrooms to house up to 16 people on the .446 acre lot. The building will have a
footprint of approximately 4,150 SF, including porches. Site improvements include a
porte cochere, a driveway and parking area for nine cars,three patios,walkways and
landscaping plantings. The site is currently vacant. Site development will require the
removal of approximately 25 trees of various sizes. The applicant is proposing to use the
Landscape Compliance method,which requires Planning Board approval for placement
of the parking area. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District and the Cornell Heights
Local Historic District and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC), and
WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance("CEQRO") §176-4(1)(h)(4)and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review
the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being the local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
did, on September 26,2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of
the project, and
WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property
owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), &(3) of the City of Ithaca
Code, and
WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on
September 26,2017,and
WHEREAS:this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on
October 24, 2017,reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment
Form(FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3 prepared by Planning
staff; drawings titled: "Existing Site Conditions(C101)", "Site Demolition Plan(C102)",
"Site Layout Plan(C103)","Site Grading Plan(C104)", "Site Utility Plan(C105)",
"Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(C106)"and"Details(C201 &C202)' all prepared
by TG Miller PC, and"Architectural Site Plan(A01)","Site Plan Study-Dimensional&
Rear Yard(A.0l.A)"and"Architectural Landscape Plan(A02)", all dated 10-2-17 and
"North Elevation Study(SK.20)", "West Elevation Study(SK.21)","South Elevation
Study(SK.22)"and"East Elevation Study(SK.23)",dated October 2016 and prepared by
Bero Architecture PLLC, and"Schematic Outdoor Lighting Plan"and"Landscape
Planting Plan"both dated 10-24-17 and prepared by Paula Horrigan,Landscape
13
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
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
WHEREAS.the Planning Board did on October 24,2017 determine that the proposed
project would result in no significant impact and did 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 to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Noise producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday-Friday(and Saturday 9 a.m.to 7:30 p.m.with
advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and
Development), and
ii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
iii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
iv. A MP&T plan must be approved by Engineering before issuance of a building
permit, and
V. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by
City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc.
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
D. 217 Columbia Street Duplex— Satisfaction of Conditions
Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering provided plans updated to satisfy conditions from
the final approval resolution passed at the September Planning Board meeting. Applicants
updated plans to include a drainage inlet at the end of the driveway to collect runoff,
provided additional details for the shed; updated the architectural plan to illustrate the
fence details (white, wood construction); acknowledged the requirement for tree permits,
ROW permits and plumbing permits; and agreed to limit construction hours, as specified.
Schroeder asked about changes made to the drawings. Schroeder and Fishel reviewed the
materials submitted.
The Board agreed by consensus that all the conditions addressed this evening had been
satisfied.
14
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
Blalock and other Board members thanked the applicant for coming in and providing a
thorough response.
E. 209 Hudson Street Duplexes—Sketch Plan
Blalock reminded the Board that it is considering this sketch plan under the current
zoning rules, but it could be impacted by Common Council's November 1 decision
regarding the proposed South Hill Overlay District.
Architect Jagat Sharma presented the proposal to the Board, detailing the proposed
changes to 209 Hudson Street. He and his client, the owner, want to put two additional
buildings (duplexes) on the lot. Sharma said that the lot is 26,000 square feet and current
zoning requires 5,000 square feet per building. He walked through a series of slides with
the Board. The current plan is to eliminate the pool, widen the driveway from eight to 12
feet, expand a parking lot in the rear to accommodate five cars, and build two new two-
story duplexes, "Building B"to the north of the current house, and"Building C"behind
the existing house. The current house ("Building A")will be retained.
Blalock requested each Board member to share his or her thoughts about the proposal,
considering it"under the current rules."
Jones-Rounds said she could see how the plan would work in a dense urban
neighborhood. She said she thinks the design of the buildings themselves might be
incongruous with the historic neighborhood, as they are not very ornate, and she added
that she would like to see elevations showing how they would look from the sidewalk in
context with the existing home on the site, "Building A."
Elliott said that if you are putting two new buildings in the same precinct as the existing
structure, it is probably better that they all work together, speak to one another, rather
than being divorced from each other. He explained that most of the buildings on this
street have front doors that face the street,but this one does not. He suggested that the
architect should consider creating a small campus of buildings that act in concert with
each other, and should also address the property's relationship to the street and to the
neighborhood as a whole with the design.
Johnston said that the spread of the houses and the size of the yards in this part of South
Hill is part of what people find attractive and enjoyable as they walk or drive through the
area. He cautioned against just dropping houses down on the neighborhood without
considering its appearance and character.
Lewis said that on the plus side, the site plan is laid out nicely, and it provides student
housing where student housing is needed. He added that while the layout is sensible, the
buildings' orientation, especially of"Building B," is probably wrong. He went on to say
that the architect could probably create a really interesting"pocket neighborhood,"but
15
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
would need to reconsider the material selections and the building orientations.
Schroeder said the new buildings are oriented to the driveway and to the parking lot,
which is alien to a neighborhood where the traditional houses are oriented to the street.
He also said that concerns are being raised that new housing, such as this, is
overwhelmingly geared toward students, tipping the balance of the neighborhood towards
a monoculture of a certain demographic.
Jones-Rounds suggested building a second single-family home, rather than duplexes, on
the lot.
Blalock summarized the discussion, noting that the Board expressed concerns regarding
the orientation, and with the design being incongruous with the existing building. He said
the applicant would have to return in the future after Common Council has made a
decision regarding the proposed changes to the zoning. After some additional discussion,
Blalock suggested that Sharma might advise his client to attend the upcoming Common
Council meeting to lobby for retaining the current zoning.
F. 111-115 The Knoll (Chesterton House)—Parking Lot,Addition & Landscape
Improvements—Sketch Plan
Architect Kate Kruger of STREAM Collaborative and Karl Johnson, Executive Director
of Chesterton House, presented their sketch plan project to the Board. They are coming to
the Board for Site Plan Review after receiving two variances from the BZA and a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the ILPC. The Chesterton organization is a religious
studies group at Cornell. The house at 115 The Knoll is a men's dormitory, and the house
at 111 The Knoll is being renovated to house the women. They are planning on tearing
down the garage of the latter house and building a two-story addition there.
The applicants asked the Board to review their idea for a redesign of their parking lot,
with the idea that they will remove a median to merge the two parking areas of 115 and
111, creating a larger, more rectangular parking lot. Some of the spots associated with
111 would"bleed over" into the lot on the 115 side. The BZA had suggested the
applicant obtain an adjusted deed restriction to accomplish this. Cornish asked if they had
considered consolidating the lots.
Schroeder suggested retaining some of the median with its existing vegetation as a tree
island so that the new rectangular lot would not become overwhelming, and expressed
concern about undefined overflow parking areas shown at the east side of the site plan.
Nicholas suggested that they schedule a meeting to run the new parking lot plan by the
ILPC and the Zoning Administrator and take their recommendations into consideration
before developing a Site Plan to present to the Board.
5. Zoning Appeals
16
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
The Board discussed the following Zoning Appeals and agreed to forward the following
recommendations to the BZA:
Appeal#3084—151 Maple Avenue: Sign Variance
Appeal of Whitham Planning&Design on behalf of the owner Cornell University for a Sign
Variance from Section 272-6 B (1), size requirements of permitted signs. The applicant
proposes to install a banner sign on the temporary leasing and management trailer located at
151 Maple Avenue. The property is part of the Maplewood Redevelopment Housing Project
and the applicant would like to install the banner to advertise the apartments to potential
tenants. The proposed banner will be 48 square feet and the sign ordinance limits the size of
signs in residential zones to 5 square feet. Currently,the active construction site is visually
confusing and a larger sign is needed to identify the leasing office and make it more visible to
passing motorists.
The property is located in an R-3b residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a sign variance be granted before a building
permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and
supports its approval provided such approval is consistent with the stated temporary
timeframe.
Appeal#3085—235 S. Cayuga Street(Coltivare): Sign Variance
Appeal of Jason Sidle of Coltivare Culinary Center on behalf of the owner Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency for a sign variance from Section 272-6B (2),Number of Signs allowed by
the sign ordinance. The applicant proposes to install a 6'-4"by 13' awning at the property
located at 235 S. Cayuga Street. The proposed awning will be located at the building entrance
for Coltivare to provide cover from the weather and a visual entrance marker for the patrons.
The awning will contain three signs consisting of a Coltivare logo and two"Farm to Bistro
Culinary Center"signs. The sign ordinance limits a business to one freestanding sign or two
wall signs in a commercial zone. On August 5,2014,Cultivare received a variance from the
sign ordinance for the two existing signs located on the building. The applicant would like to
install three additional signs, for a total of five signs for the business. The sign ordinance
allows only two signs per business.
The property is located in a CBD 100 and a CBD 120 business use district in which the
proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a sign variance be granted
before a building permit is issued.
The Planning Board is not opposed to the concept of additional signage, however such
signage should be integrated with the overall design of the garage in general and Coltivare
in particular. The proposed awning does not accomplish this and appears to be pasted on the
s found that Coltivare's LED lighting, which is multicolored and on a continually changing
loop, is not in compliance with the approved concept as described and illustrated in the
attached Planning Board minutes from March 25, 2014 and rendering prepared by the
applicant and dated June 9, 2014. The rendering was submitted in response to the Board's
17
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
concern that the originally proposed lime-green and purple light colors may have a negative
impact on the neighborhood and the aesthetics of the downtown, and was meant to illustrate
the lighting's intended appearance.
6. Old/New Business
A. Planning Board Recommendation on Draft Design Guidelines for Downtown
The Board went through the August, 2017 draft Downtown Design Guidelines from
beginning to end, discussing numerous recommendations made by Schroeder for
correcting, clarifying or modifying that draft. Johnston also suggested one major
modification.
After reviewing these, the Board agreed by consensus to recommend the Downtown
Design Guidelines, as revised this evening, to Common Council for adoption.
Schroeder submitted the changes, in writing, to Wilson for her to make the edits. Wilson
added that, where there is parallel text, she will in advance apply the changes to the
Collegetown document as well.
The Planning Board will consider making a recommendation to Common Council
regarding the draft Collegetown Design Guidelines at its meeting next month.
(Jones-Rounds departed at 9:25 p.m.)
Elliott said that we should carefully consider integrating building height
recommendations (as a ratio of the street width) into the design guidelines instead of
relying on zoning alone.
Cornish asked him to draft some language.
B. Aerial Access Requirements for Fire Safety
The Board discussed aerial access requirements for fire safety and the possibility of
having electrical lines buried underground in Collegetown. Per the Ithaca Fire
Department, new buildings over 30 feet tall now cannot have overhead wires located
between a street providing aerial fire truck access and the building. This issue has at least
temporarily delayed several Collegetown projects already approved by the Planning
Board.
Board members have frequently mentioned the desirability of placing utility wires
underground in Ithaca's urban core areas, for safety and aesthetic reasons, and to remove
poles that obstruct usable sidewalk width for pedestrians.
(Elliott departed at 9:38 p.m.)
18
Approved by the Planning Board November 28, 2017
C. Seneca Street Update & Board Recommendation
Schroeder noted that construction on the new Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building
is proceeding rapidly, but there appears to be little progress on making the decisions
necessary to have the sidewalk on that side of Seneca Street substantially widened when
it is rebuilt, to provide more generous pedestrian width plus the planting of street trees
there (and perhaps in front of the adjacent hotel and DeWitt Mall, as well).
The Planning Board formally recommended the aforementioned improvements some
time ago.
It was suggested that Blalock and Schroeder address the Board of Public Works on this
matter.
D. Designation of Chacona Block—Discussion
Schroeder reported out on the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting
during which the committee agreed to move consideration of the Chacona Block
designation on to Council with a recommendation for disapproval. (This was preferable,
he said, to the alternative, advocated by some committee members, of rejecting the
designation and then not sending the issue on to Council.) Schroeder said some
committee members were focusing on style issues in isolation, and not considering the
full breadth of historic criteria cited by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
7. Reports
Due the lateness of the hour, there were no reports.
8. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, the revised draft September 26, 2017 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Lewis, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Elliott
Vacancies: One
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
19