HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2017-11-28Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
November 28, 2017
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Matthew Johnston;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis;
John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott
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
Applicants Attending: Duplex at 601 S. Aurora Street
Gary Bush, Engineer, SPEC Consulting;
David Putnam, Owner
Brindley Street Bridge Rebuilding and Relocation
Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Systems Engineer;
David Kennicutt, Delta Engineering;
Ryan Wright, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP
Duplexes at 209 Hudson Street (Sketch Plan)
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect
Mixed-Use Student Housing Building
at 311 College Avenue (The Nines) (Sketch Plan)
Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect;
Patrick Braga, Visum Development
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas alerted the Board to agenda revisions, noting that the 119 College Avenue Sketch
Plan has been postponed until next month’s meeting, and that a 311 College Avenue Sketch
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
2
Plan has been added to the agenda. She also alerted the Board to Megan Wilson’s absence,
and said that Cornish would be leading discussion in her stead.
Schroeder asked to add discussions of (1) Planning Board membership, and (2) of the
streetscape on E. Seneca Street in front of the Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and
the Hilton Garden Inn, to the agenda under the New / Old Business heading.
No Board members objected, and Blalock said that he had already planned to bring up both
issues.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, reiterated his support of
development and chain stores.
Steve Rogers, 152 Coddington Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision of 209
Hudson Street saying that it’s clearly an end run around the expressed will and intent of
Common Council in its recent implementation of the South Hill Overlay District. He said
that the Overlay District was intended to give South Hill residents and the City time to assess
the effects of increased density and the proliferation of rental units targeted to students, and
to assess in particular the detrimental effects of those trends on South Hill as a residential
neighborhood.
Elizabeth Martyn, 306 Ithaca Road, spoke against the proposed divestment of four pocket
parks as recommended in the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. She said she lives next
to one of the small parks and she disagrees with many of the assertions put forth in that
document. She said the park near her home lacks investment from the City, and has no
signage, trash cans or benches. She said there’s nothing to make it welcoming, yet people
still go there. She concluded her remarks by saying that the City should keep its green space.
Michael Ryzewic, 306 Ithaca Road, said he lives next door to Maple Grove Park in the
Bryant Park neighborhood. He also spoke against the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
recommendations to shut down smaller parks. He said he moved here from New York City,
met his wife here, and hopes to start a family here someday. He said that these smaller parks
provide environmental benefits and are one of the things that make the area attractive to
young people who are looking to start their careers and families here. He added that as the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan is reviewed and revised, he hopes that input will be sought
from residents in areas around these smaller parks to help identify ways to revitalize them,
instead of divesting of them for some minimal cost savings. He said that he and his neighbors
are getting organized and will continue to oppose elimination of Maple Grove Park with
whatever means are available.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, said that one reason why Common Council adopted
the Overlay Zone on South Hill was to give the City time to develop a neighborhood plan.
She noted that though the action is not a moratorium on all development, one of the priorities
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
3
for the community is to reestablish South Hill as a family-oriented neighborhood. She said
that many of the new duplexes there are not designed for families, but “really are modified
dorm rooms, and lack dining rooms, appropriate living spaces and storage space that one
would typically see in family-oriented housing.” She said that as the City moves forward
with the development of the neighborhood plan, the Planning Board will have an important
role to play in ensuring that the designs for new buildings on South Hill will appeal to a wide
variety of people and not just students.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, President of the South Hill Civic Association, spoke in
opposition to divesting of parks. He said that the City has never taken good care of the parks
on Hillview and Columbia streets. He said that the area residents have tried to pitch in but the
work is too much for a neighborhood group because the area is so wet, and there are
numerous dead trees that need to be taken down. Graves also spoke against the proposed
subdivision of 209 Hudson Street, saying it is an effort to “make an end run around” the
restrictions imposed by the South Hill Overlay District.
Sandra Greene, 209 Elmwood Avenue, also objected to divesting of Maple Grove Park. She
said she’s not sure of the source for the idea that the park is underutilized. She said she
doesn’t think any of the parks are well used during the working day, but residents do use
them. She said her children (now grown) used to play there and her neighbors’ children still
do. She said that it’s important to preserve green space, and she doesn’t see how the park is
costing the City a lot of money to maintain. She said Maple Grove Park is quite important to
its neighborhood.
Zev Ross, who lives next to Maple Grove Park, former Chair of the Ithaca Natural Areas
Commission, said he grew up in the area and so has experienced Maple Grove and
Strawberry Fields parks as both child and parent. He said that having these small pocket
parks is extremely important to neighborhoods as a place for children and families to explore
and play, and that it is also important to retain pockets of green space around the City of
Ithaca.
Julie Schaeffer, 308 Ithaca Road, said she is a lifelong Ithaca resident, and that she has
enjoyed all the parks that the draft Parks Master Plan has suggested selling. She said she now
lives next to Maple Grove Park and that she has come to know and love it. She said it is used
by children, students and families, and is better enclosed than some other parks in the
neighborhood (away from the busy street in an area that’s getting more and more traffic). She
also said it is important as a green space.
Responding to the public, Schroeder agreed with retaining Maple Grove Park, saying it was
part of the original plat of the Bryant Park subdivision, and that the idea for it was ahead of
its time in terms of city planning. He said that the idea of a little pocket park surrounded by
residences became popular in progressive urban planning later in the 20th Century, and that
such a park is never intended to be a heavily used city park, but rather a quiet contemplative
space. He expressed his support for retaining the park, saying it would be wrong and ironic
for the City to divest of it because it is not heavily used.
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
4
3. Site Plan Review
A. Duplex, 601 S. Aurora Street, by Gary Bush, Engineer from SPEC Consulting and
applicant David Putnam. Public Hearing. The applicant is proposing to construct a
duplex on the .186 acre (8,114 SF) vacant lot. Site development includes parking for two
cars, walkways, landscaping, a continuous sidewalk along the property frontage, drainage
improvements and a trash enclosure. The applicant has designed curbing and on-street
parking on Hillview Place in cooperation with the City Engineering Division. The project
is in the R-2a Zoning district. This is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-5. (C.)(8) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.5 (c)(9) and is not subject to
environmental review.
Gary Bush of SPEC Consulting described the proposed duplex proposed for a currently
vacant lot at the corner of Hillview Place and S. Aurora Street. He said that the project
will result in new sidewalks and other site improvements, and that the City will also be
re-curbing along Hillview Place soon, which will result in five new parking spaces on the
street. Bush said that he has modified the plans slightly per comments from the Project
Review Committee, including showing some brackets on roof eaves, providing a trash
enclosure and adding some windows to the Aurora Street elevation.
The Board and the applicant reviewed the planting plan. Johnston noted that the recent
development on that block had left two or three neighboring parcels more or less clear
cut, and suggested that the applicant add some plantings to the front yard — some trees, a
hedge. Bush referred him to the planting plan drawing.
Jones-Rounds asked to see an elevation drawing showing trees and plantings out front for
the applicant’s next visit.
Johnston said there may be wear in the lawn from foot traffic if people approach the front
door from all angles, so the applicant might want to be strategic in front-yard plantings to
direct people to the front steps.
Schroeder said that the house looked too plain and its volume too unarticulated to fit in
with the traditional homes in the neighborhood. He mentioned a few specifics that were
raised at the Project Review Committee, such as adding brackets like those on the porch
to the roof eaves, adding window sills and creating a more traditional porch.
Bush said the applicant has added brackets and window sills, but not a porch, due to the
added cost.
Schroeder said that substantial porches are found on existing houses along Hillview Place
in both directions, and that therefore a more substantial porch volume is needed to make
the new building look like it fits into the streetscape.
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
5
Bush said the other concern with adding a porch is encroaching on setbacks required by
zoning. Jones-Rounds and Schroeder reviewed the plans and suggested that the setback
line would provide enough room (about four feet) for the applicant to include a more
substantial front porch in the design. Schroeder referenced a nearby new duplex at 607 S.
Aurora Street as one recently approved by the Board that had included a full front porch.
He also mentioned material selection.
Lewis asked about what materials the applicant is proposing. Bush answered, “It is vinyl
[siding].” Jones-Rounds and Schroeder observed that the Board had recently begun
requiring that street-facing projects utilize higher-quality materials.
Lewis said, “We are aware that all these things have budgetary impacts, but we don’t
want it to look cheap, and I think a simple, volumetric box, clad in vinyl, that is the only
house on the block without a front porch is going to look out of place … and I think it is
going to need some revision.”
Bush asked if the Board would prefer to see nothing at all on the site, pointing out the
significant site improvements the owner would be making (sidewalks) and once again
citing budget constraints.
Jones-Rounds said that everybody has to incorporate the development of sidewalks and
curbs into their projects, and that the applicant should have no trouble renting the place if
it looks nice.
Blalock said, “Just to be clear, the Board didn’t say it would prefer nothing to this. The
Board said that for a house on a prominent corner, it should be of high-quality materials
and in character with the neighborhood.”
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair
Blalock opened the Public Hearing.
Kenn Young, 228 Columbia Street, said the developers of the project at 601 S. Aurora
clearly have not paid any attention to the issues surrounding development on South Hill
over the past few months. He said that it is another “mini-dormitory,” strictly designed
for students. He said that there is no chance that the residences could be rented to a
family, as each has two bedrooms that can only legally be inhabited by one person, and
that the bathrooms are only accessible through the bedrooms. He said that the only
desirable thing about the building is its proximity to I.C., calling the design, “mean.” He
asked that the design be modified to include the possibility of renting to a family and that
greater consideration be given to the aesthetics.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, said that he loves the sidewalks, and that residents of
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
6
South Hill have been waiting for more sidewalks for many years. However, he said has
concerns regarding drainage. He said he has had to do extensive work on his own
property to mitigate the effects of storm water overflow. He said South Hill has a terrible
problem with storm water discharge, and that he has had to direct the water from his own
downspouts into the storm sewers to avoid dangerous conditions, a solution he said is
probably “not ideal from the City’s point of view” because the storm sewers are
inadequate. He went on to say that there are other solutions, and referenced Albany, N.Y.
where he said new buildings in sensitive areas are required to retain the first inch of
rainwater on-site, and direct rooftop runoff into one of the following: a tree in a well, a
drainage swale or rain garden, or an underground cistern. Or the developer can install a
green roof or a blue roof. Graves continued by saying that South Hill should be
considered a “sensitive area” — for which similar measures should be adopted —
because of the severity of the hill and because almost all of the storm water it receives is
funneled directly into Six Mile Creek, eventually reaching the Inlet, and Cayuga Lake.
He concluded by asking the developer to “be a good neighbor” and include a storm water
retention structure in the plans.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, said that Trump’s budget
might cause problems for everyone.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, said that with two bedrooms and two baths per
unit this project looks like the kind of development Common Council was seeking to
limit with the South Hill Overlay District. She said Council is looking to reestablish
South Hill as supportive of families and young professionals, so that it is not solely
oriented towards student housing. She said that she doesn’t think that the additional
sidewalk requirements of the corner lot are a good excuse to “value engineer” the
dwelling to be as cheap as possible. Because of the location of the parcel, she said the
property has a very significant presence in the neighborhood and care should be taken to
ensure it is consistent in architectural standing and in interior design. Brock also
expressed support for the storm water runoff concerns John Graves shared, but said that
she did not think there were any legal requirements for one and two-family home builders
to encapsulate runoff.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
Property owner David Putnam said he is a resident of Ithaca, not an outside investor, and
that he purchased the property in 2002 when he moved to Ithaca, with the intent of one
day building a duplex to fund his son’s education and to help support him in retirement.
He said that he has been saving his own money for the last 14 years, and is concerned
about the costs of the project increasing. He said that as a resident of the community, he
appreciates the concerns of residents of South Hill and will do his best to accommodate
them — within reason. He also said that he knows the project is in a prominent location,
and through conversations with the Board, thought they had arrived at an attractive
building design. He said he will respect the decision of the Board and follow its
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
7
recommendations, if he can afford to do so, and if not, he will explore other options.
Applicant suggested that the zoning to some extent determines the “somewhat strange”
aspect ratio of the building, by the limits it puts on the building envelope. Blalock and
other Board members suggested that if a zoning variance might help achieve a higher
quality building on that site, they might support him through the process of appealing to
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Johnston said that — though this project is getting a lot of criticism — he appreciates the
attempt to bring some formalization to this corner, which has been “ratty” for decades.
He suggested that the Site Plan Review process, though it might require some creativity,
and might add a little cost, has in the past resulted in major improvements to other
applicants’ projects.
After some additional discussion, Blalock reiterated that the Board would welcome the
improvements on the corner, but that the project needs some adjustments. He asked the
applicant to return with a full landscaping plan; to reconsider material selection for the
siding; to look into the possibility of including a full porch and some architectural details
to make the design better fit within the neighborhood; to consider including an additional
storm water catchment (bioswale or the like); and to evaluate other changes that might
expand the target market beyond college students.
B. Brindley Street Bridge Rebuilding and Relocation, Intersection of W. State Street
and Taughannock Boulevard, by Addisu Gebre for the City of Ithaca.
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. 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; David Kennicutt of Delta Engineering; and
Ryan Wright of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP presented the changes made to the
plans since the last meeting of the Board.
Kennicutt explained that since the last meeting the project team had modified the
approach railings in order to:
• Accommodate more plantings at the W. State Street entrance, by moving the
approach railings back, to be partially hidden by those plantings, per the request
from the Board;
• Regularize and express the ends of the bridge proper, make the approach railings
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
8
match on both sides of the road, and minimize odd railing angles and twists; and
• Have a consistent galvanized metal color for the approach railings, in contrast with
the dark green painted railings (and top silver round railings) on the bridge proper.
This is intended to give the bridge an architectural expression distinct from its
approaches. (For the same reason the bridge features one masonry pier with
lamppost at each bridge corner.)
He said that the metal posts on the bridge proper will be painted dark green to match the
dark green rails (as on the Lake Street bridge), and that the separation between the dark
green and galvanized metal finishes will be aligned vertically at each bridge corner, per
Schroeder’s request. The affected elevation will be resubmitted to document this change.
Regarding the retained pedestrian / bicycle bridge, Kennicutt said they had modified the
DOT standard pedestrian bridge railings to simulate the truss structure of the original
Brindley Street Bridge as shown in a historical photo. He also showed pictures of the
bollards proposed for the ends of the pedestrian pathway, of the solar powered lights
proposed for use along the path, and of the cedar fencing that will alternate forward and
backward to create an attractive barrier between the Airplane Factory parking lot and the
proposed path.
Finally, Wright explained that the proposed tree plantings had been diversified from 32
catalpas (and nothing else) to instead: London plane trees lining both sides of the new
street south of the new bridge; and — eastward from the new pedestrian / bicycle
pathway — a mixture of swamp white oak, American linden, river birches and some
caltalpas.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning
and Development Board for a replacement of the Brindley Street Bridge by Addisu
Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer for the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: the project will relocate the current Brindley Street Bridge to align with the
W. State / MLK St. and Taughannock Blvd. intersection through the construction of a
new single span structure extending Taughannock Blvd. 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, and
WHEREAS: 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,
and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
9
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
October 24, 2017, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on November 28, 2017 reviewed and accepted as
adequate the following drawings: “Preliminary Plan and Elevations (P-1)”, “Profile (P-
2)”, “Typical Bridge and Approach Sections (P-3)”, “Typical Roadway and Path Sections
(P-4)”, “Brindley Street Bridge Replacement (showing site plan)”, “Brindley Street
Bridge Replacement (showing sections)”, “Brindley Street Bridge Replacement
(elevation & photos)”, “ Bridge Railing Details”, “Transition Railing Details”, “Planting
Plan” and “Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge Railing” all hand-dated 11-28-17 and “Rendered
Site Plan” and “Basis of Design Materials Palette (three sheets)” all hand-dated 11-20-17
and all prepared by Delta Engineers 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 Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to the project, subject to the following condition:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised “Transition Railing Details”,
showing the dark green painted vertical posts will appear whenever the dark
green painted horizontal rails will appear, and showing the division points,
between dark green and galvanized steel finishes, in vertical alignment.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
C. 209 Hudson Street – Subdivision and Site Plan Review – Sketch Plan
Architect Jagat Sharma presented a previous version of this project to the Board at last
month’s meeting.
He said he is now returning to present revised drawings and a new plan for the proposed
development on the site, which now, due to the adoption of the South Hill Overlay
District by Common Council, will require subdividing the existing lot into three lots. This
will require at least two area variances: one for side yard requirements and another for
street frontage requirements. Sharma said there’s a right-of-way in the middle of the lot
that may affect the placement of the rearmost proposed building; this situation may
require a third variance for front yard requirements.
Sharma also revised the designs of the two proposed new buildings in an arts and crafts
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
10
mode, matching the style and some details of the existing house, and modified the layout
of the interiors as well.
Overall, the Board responded favorably to the changes Sharma had made to the designs.
Johnston said the overall appearance of the project would be improved if the back
building were not so visible from Hudson Street through the space between the front two
buildings. One possible solution would be to add some substantial evergreen plantings
screening the rear structure, and another would be moving the latter further back, into the
right-of-way area, if that is possible. (This might also eliminate the need for the third
variance.)
Jones-Rounds suggested some simple interior changes that could make the units more
desirable for families.
Schroeder suggested that Sharma look into using real stucco between the half-timber
façade “frames,” as opposed to Hardie board there. Schroeder pointed out how successful
the use of real stucco had been on some of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments buildings
facing E. State Street.
Then, the Board and staff discussed the procedural aspects of what Sharma needs to do to
proceed: applying to the BZA for the variances, going through the environmental review
and submitting the subdivision and site plan review applications.
D. 311 College Avenue (The Nines) – Revised Design – Sketch Plan
Architect Jagat Sharma and Patrick Braga of Visum Development presented some revised
drawings for a proposed new apartment building on the site presently occupied by the
Old No. 9 Fire Station. Braga discussed some of his research into the possibility of
relocating the old firehouse (which he said doesn’t seem feasible) and presented the
Board with a 30-page study entitled “Redeveloping 311 College With Contextual
Sensitivity,” which includes multiple sketches. Sharma also presented his new drawings,
which show a new six-story mixed-use apartment building, the lower portion of which
borrows design elements from the 1907 fire station currently fronting College Avenue on
the site.
After some questions and comments from the Board, Sharma noted the revised design has
come down in height to 66 feet. Some members of the Board noted that the design he has
submitted is lacking in details, to which he responded that “[details] will come,” if the
Board is supportive of the general approach he and Braga are describing tonight. They
are appearing in front of the Board, Sharma said, to determine if they should proceed
with developing this design further.
He also commented that when rebuilding on the site of historic buildings, it seems like
they are either recreated wholesale — replicating the form, the use and the footprint after,
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
11
for example, a fire — or the façade is saved and the interior is completely rebuilt. He
asked if the Board would be receptive to considering demolition and new construction on
the site if the design (replicating the look of the old) were right.
Schroeder said that only five architecturally significant late-nineteenth and early
twentieth-century mixed-use and institutional buildings still remain along College
Avenue:
• Sheldon Court (unprotected by any historic designation);
• The Chacona Block (now apparently headed for demolition, after Common
Council, in tie vote broken by the Mayor, failed to historically designate it earlier
this month);
• The Larkin Building (given historic landmark status in October);
• The 1894 No. 9 Fire Station (at the rear of the 311 College Avenue site, and
proposed for demolition by the project under discussion this evening); and
• The 1907 No. 9 Fire Station (at the front of the 311 College Avenue site, and also
proposed for demolition by the project under discussion this evening).
Schroeder said he could not, in good conscience, vote to demolish the latter two
buildings, when that action might result in only one of the above five historically
significant buildings being preserved (i.e., the Larkin Building, the only one of the five
with historic designation). He said he could, however, potentially support moving the two
historic fire stations to another location, in order to allow development of this site.
Blalock conducted a straw poll asking, “If the design is right would you be willing to
consider tearing down the existing building and redeveloping the site?” Jones-Rounds,
Johnston, and Lewis gave a qualified “Yes.” Blalock said he is a maybe, and Schroeder is
a “No,” for the reasons he stated above. Elliott was not present.
Schroeder related the story of how in the 1960s, an era when Victorian architecture fell
out of fashion, the downtown Cornell Public Library, commemorated on the City of
Ithaca Seal, was torn down to build a bank parking lot. He characterized this as a major
urban planning error. He said that the City officials and leaders at that time just stood by,
and allowed this mistake to happen. Schroeder said he cannot allow himself to be like one
of those people.
Schroeder said he continues to support the transformation of Collegetown with new
development, but that all this new construction must be balanced by the preservation of
key historic resources. And, he said, the two historic fire stations at 311 College Avenue
are uniquely tied to the creation of Collegetown as a special place with its own distinct
identity.
After a short recess, the meeting was called to order again at 8:40 p.m.
4. Old / New Business
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
12
Because members of the audience interested in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
were still in attendance, it was decided to discuss this Plan before considering the
Collegetown Design Guidelines.
A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan
In Megan Wilson’s absence, Planning Director Cornish provided an overview of the draft
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, explaining that it is a data-driven plan. She said it was
developed by a small group of people with the assistance of PROS Consulting, and is
more of a structural than a physical master plan, mainly focusing on Cass and Stewart
parks.
Cornish said that she’s aware that many small parks have no amenities or signage — no
identifying features at all. She also noted that despite the suggestion in the draft Plan to
consider divesting of some of the smaller, less used park lands, actually doing so would
be a lengthy and complicated procedure. She also thanked the members of the public for
sharing their comments, saying it’s good to hear the value people are placing on the parks
and how people are using them.
Cornish continued that when preparing the Plan, the consultants did statistically valid
surveys of both the City and the County, and that many of the conclusions drawn came
from those surveys. Much of the data collected on the City parks was also weighed
against national data on measures such as usership, green space per capita, community
demographics, and how different groups use the parks.
Cornish said the desired outcome was to determine level of service standards, what
financial and operational considerations need to be made, and to develop a strategic
action plan. She said they were also looking for options for cost sharing with the County
and / or the Town to help the City maintain the waterfront parks. She noted that Cass
Park, for example, is a regional park, with about one-third of users coming from the
County, one-third from the Town, and one-third from the City, but the City pays for all of
the operations of Cass Park, which has a huge infrastructure and is in need of major
investment.
Cornish explained that Phase Two of the Plan (provided funding can be obtained to move
forward with it) is a Physical Master Plan to determine how to make Cass Park, Stewart
Park, the Waterfront Trail, and Newman Golf Course act as one unit, to look at them
holistically, and look at their governance model and at their financial support structure.
Cornish urged members of the public to put their comments in writing and submit them
to both the Planning and Development Board and the Planning and Economic
Development Committee before their upcoming December meetings. She said these
bodies will be discussing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in December and January.
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
13
Chair Blalock asked Cornish to explain the process for adoption. Cornish explained that
currently public comment is being gathered, then these comments will be shared with the
Planning Board and the PEDC, and some changes might be made in response to the
comments, and ultimately, Common Council will vote on adopting the Plan as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, which will probably be in February.
Schroeder clarified that the Planning Board’s role is to recommend a version of the Plan
to Common Council, and that this recommended version may include changes from the
current draft. Formal Common Council review would then begin at the PEDC.
After further discussion, Cornish and Chair Blalock urged members of the public to
submit their comments to both the Planning Board and PEDC.
Members of the public asked some questions (procedural and / or hypothetical) and
Board members and staff members answered them.
B. Planning Board Recommendation on Draft Design Guidelines for Collegetown
The Board went through the August, 2017 draft Collegetown 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, upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, the
Board agreed to recommend the Collegetown Design Guidelines, as revised this evening,
to Common Council for adoption.
C. E. Seneca Street Streetscape
Chair Blalock distributed a draft memo to the Board of Public Works for the Board’s
review regarding improvements to the E. Seneca Street streetscape in front of the new
Tompkins Financial Headquarters building and the Hilton Garden Inn. This is a follow-
up to the resolution regarding the same block’s streetscape that the Board addressed to
Common Council and the Board of Public Works on January 26, 2016.
The Board also discussed contacting the above two property owners to secure their
support. (Tompkins Financial Corporation had supported the improved streetscape idea
during Site Plan Review of their current project.)
Adopted Memo to BPW Regarding Seneca Street Streetscape:
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
To: Board of Public Works
From: Planning and Development Board
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
14
Date: November 28, 2017
Re: Seneca Street Sidewalk
The Planning and Development Board has for years been promoting a widening of
the sidewalk on the north side of the 100-block of East Seneca Street using the six
feet of extra Seneca Street width east of Cayuga Street (versus west of Cayuga
Street). This is the block housing the Hilton Garden Inn, the under-construction
Tompkins Financial Corporation building, and Dewitt Mall. To date, the Planning and
Development Board is unaware of actions to bring sidewalk widening to fruition,
providing space for wider sidewalks and a continuous row of street trees.
The construction of the Tompkins Financial Corporation building on this block, and
the resulting demolition of the existing sidewalk, presents a unique but soon-to-
expire opportunity to widen the sidewalk. In brief, the arguments for widening are:
• The 100-block of East Seneca Street is about six feet wider than blocks west
of Cayuga Street;
• The 100-block is far wider than the width needed to support two lanes of
traffic;
• The north-side sidewalk is insufficient in width, particularly at the entrance
to the Hilton Garden Inn and the Tompkins Financial Corporation building;
• The parking lane on the north side of East Seneca only provides for parking
for a few cars;
• The cost of widening the sidewalk now, while the block is under
construction, is far less than it will be in the future.
The Planning and Development Board strongly urges the Board of Public Works to
consider this issue urgently and take appropriate action.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
D. Planning Board Membership
The Board also discussed Board membership, as five of the six members’ terms will have
expired as of January 1, 2018, and the seventh membership slot is vacant. Chair Blalock
also volunteered to serve as the liaison to the BPW, if that is desired.
Cornish agreed to speak to the Mayor regarding renewing the appointments.
E. Hillview Place as a Trail Network Connector
The Board also reviewed a draft memo to alert the BPW of the role of the 400 block of
Hillview Place as a future connector between the existing South Hill Recreationway and
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
15
the future Gateway Trail. (The City is considering Hillview Place curb placement and on-
street parking space construction in conjunction with the 601 S. Aurora Street project that
appeared earlier on tonight’s agenda.)
Adopted Memo to BPW Regarding Hillview Place as a Trail Connector:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
To: Board of Public Works
From: Planning and Development Board
Date: November 28, 2017
Re: Hillview Place — Trail Connector
The Planning and Development Board’s recent review of a project at 601 S. Aurora
St. (at the corner of Hillview Place and S. Aurora St.) brought to light the importance
of Hillview Place as a connector between trail networks.
At the completion of the Gateway Trail, this short span of Hillview Place will link it to
the South Hill Recreationway. This, in turn, will effectively link the 10+ miles of trails
within the Six Mile Creek watershed to the Black Diamond Trail stretching from
Robert H. Treman to Taughannock Falls State parks and connecting to all the trail
systems within those parks as well as those at Buttermilk Falls State Park and the
City’s six-mile Cayuga Waterfront Trail.
The Planning Board urges the Board of Public Works to initiate the design of street
improvements for Hillview Place that are consistent with its importance as a trail
network connector — and that emphasize bikes and pedestrians over motorized
vehicles.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
5. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Blalock thanked Schroeder for a talk he gave recently at Cornell’s Flora Rose
House on the history of Collegetown housing.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
Cornish reported that Nicholas has been promoted to Deputy Director of Planning, Tom
Knipe hired as Deputy Director of Development, and two new entry-level planning
positions will be advertised soon.
Approved by the Planning Board December 19, 2017
16
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report (liaison position vacant).
6. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, the revised draft October 24, 2017 meeting
minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
7. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.