HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-02-26 Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
February 26, 2019
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch
Glass, Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair;
Emily Petrina
Board Members Absent:
None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning
and Economic Development
Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Anne Redmond, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan -- Review of Town
PDZ, Review of Draft Findings & FGEIS Notice of Completion
James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties
CJ Randall, Randall + West
NCRE Cornell University – Presentation & Public Hearing
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 Architects
Arvind Tikku, ikon.5 Architects
Harold’s Square – Review of Project Changes
Eric Ekman, McGuire Development
Scott Selin, CJS Architects
City Centre – Review of Proposed Signage
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design
Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Planning and Design
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
2
Jeff Smetana, Newman Development Group, LLC
Pat Boni, Saxton Signs
Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR
Development LLC – Review of New Material
Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Frost Travis, IFR Development
815-817 N. Aurora Street – Two New Two-Family Dwellings –
Determination of Environmental Significance & Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval
Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture
Stavros Stavropoulos, Property Owner
130 Cherry Street – Arthaus Declaration of Lead Agency &
Project Overview
Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design
James Gensel, Fagan Engineering
Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group
402 S. Cayuga Street Cayuga Street Townhomes
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
402 Wood Street Wood Street – Perdita Flats
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas noted the addition of the sign variance application for 301 E. State
Street (City Centre) under Planning Board Recommendations to the BZA.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
3
2. Privilege of the Floor
Chair Lewis then opened Privilege of the Floor.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed privilege of the
floor.
3. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the October 30, 2018 minutes were approved
unanimously with no modifications.
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Petrina, the December 18, 2018 and January 22, 2019
minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie
Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Review of Town PDZ, Review
of Draft Findings & FGEIS Notice of Completion. 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 for a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes
residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would
bridge South Hill and Downtown Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing
multiple intermodal access routes including a highly-desired trail connection. The
project will be completed in multiple phases over a period of several years with the
initial phases involving the redevelopment of the existing structures. Current
redevelopment of this property will focus on retrofitting existing buildings and
infrastructure for new uses. Using the existing structures, residential, commercial,
studio workspaces, and office development are proposed to be predominantly within
the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will be within both the Town and City of Ithaca.
Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers and CJ Randall of Randall + West appeared on behalf of
applicant David Lubin (Unchained Properties) to present the Findings Statement and completed
FGEIS.
Board Counsel Walters said the Board has in front of them a resolution to adopt the FGEIS. He
said this document has been in production since the end of the DGEIS public comment period on
May 25, 2016. He said that with few minor exceptions, the Board has seen every piece of this
document, some of them several times. He said the only thing they haven’t seen is the changes to
the FGEIS that came out of their drafting of the Findings Statement, collected in the errata
summary sheet. Several of these items relate to aspects of the project that have changed or
moved forward, necessitating updates to the language in the FGEIS. He said that you can’t have
anything in the Findings Statement that isn’t in the FGEIS.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
4
Gensel then reviewed all the proposed changes to the FGEIS outlined in the errata summary
sheet.
Walters then explained next steps, saying that if they adopt the Notice of Completion of the
FGEIS tonight they can consider the Findings at their next meeting. He said there needs to be a
minimum of 10 days between the issuance of the FGEIS and the adoption of the Findings
Statement. He said they did a very thorough review of all materials and made sure everything
related to impacts or mitigation in the FGEIS was captured in the draft Findings Statement. He
said that because this is a Generic EIS, the Planning Board, when reviewing future phases of the
project, will have to look at what’s before them and determine if it’s included in the GEIS, both
in terms of impact analysis and in terms of whether the proposed mitigation has been complied
with. The Findings Statement provides a comprehensive media by media summary of project
impacts and mitigations. It will be up to the applicant when they come back to demonstrate that
what they are doing falls within the impact review done for the EIS. Walters also referred them
to a checklist provided to help the Board determine if additional environmental impact analysis is
necessary.
Walters said that the mitigations absolutely require that the site be remediated before it is put
back into use. He said that that a central concern raised during the public comment period on the
DGEIS was how the Board would ensure that all required remediation has taken place. He said
that step one is for the Board to impose it as mitigation and that remediation must be completed
before site plan approvals are granted. The applicant, as they return with projects, will have to go
through each of the environmental mitigations to demonstrate compliance and explain to the
Board how they have met the criteria. He said the Board will be reviewing documents from the
DEC, as the DEC is responsible for the Record of Decision as the site is remediated.
Gensel said that the remediation work has already begun and the documents have been updated
to reflect that.
The Board reviewed the Health and Safety and Traffic sections of the Findings Statement.
After some additional discussion, the Board considered the Notice of Completion.
Adopted Resolution for Notice of FGEIS Completion:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca has received applications to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board (City Planning Board) for Site Plan Approval and to the City of Ithaca Common Council (Common
Council) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Chain Works District (CWD) Project (Project) to be
located at 620 S. Aurora Street, by James Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties (Project Sponsor),
and
WHEREAS: the Project is a proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the 95-acre former Morse Chain/Emerson
Power Transmission facility (Site) that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The Site
is located along the New York State Route 96B corridor and where Turner Street and South Cayuga Street
meet the northern edge of South Hill. The Project involves the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the existing
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
5
architecture and landscape into a 1.7 million square foot (SF) mixed-use “live, work, play” district. The Project
consists of removing approximately 92,320 SF of the existing 821,200 SF buildings, constructing 86,600 SF
of vertical additions, and constructing 890,700 SF of new buildings. The Project is estimated to be completed
over a seven- to ten-year period. The first phase (Phase I) will consist of redeveloping four existing buildings
generally located at the northern and southern most ends of the Site. These first four buildings are
approximately 331,450 SF and will contain a mix of office, residential, and industrial uses. Subsequent phases
of development will be determined as the Project proceeds and will include new structures to complete a full
buildout of 1,706,150 SF consisting of approximately 915 residential dwelling units, 184,350 SF of
commercial space and 260,900 SF of industrial use, and
WHEREAS: infrastructure work related to the full development of the Project will include the following: (1)
removing select buildings to create public courtyard areas and a network of open spaces and roads; (2) creating
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections throughout the Site from South Hill to Downtown Ithaca; (3)
improving the existing roads within the Site while creating new access points into the Site; (4) mitigating
existing environmental impacts from historic uses; (5) fostering the development of a link, the Gateway Trail,
to the Black Diamond Trail network; and (6) installing stormwater management facilities, lighting, public
water and utilities, landscaping and other Site amenities, and
WHEREAS: development of the Site is fostered by a proposed rezoning of the City portion of the Site into a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the Town portion into a Planned Development Zone (PDZ). Design
Guidelines are set forth in the proposed PUD/PDZ Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS: the Project Sponsor has also applied for Site Plan Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board and PDZ approval from the Town Board, and
WHEREAS: the Site is listed on the New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Registry as a “Class 2
Site” which indicates the property contains contamination that constitutes a significant threat to public healt h
or the environment. Implementation of the proposed Project will require remediation of contaminated portions
of the Site to an acceptable standard for the intended use, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(CEQR), §176-4 B. (1) (d), (i), (j), (k) and (n), and (2), (3) and (6), and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA) (collectively, SEQR), §617.4 (b) (2), (3), (5)(iii) and (6)(ii) & (iv) and is subject to
environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Project requires approval from the City of Ithaca Common Council, the City Planning Board,
the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of
Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, all consented to the
City Planning Board being Lead Agency for this Project, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental
Significance on October 2, 2014, directing the applicant to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Project, in accordance with SEQR, and
WHEREAS: on October 18, 2014, the City Planning Board held a Public Scoping Session to identify issues
to be analyzed in the DGEIS, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
6
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, after advertising a public comment period on the proposed scope, also
solicited written comments from involved and interested agencies and the public regarding the issues to be
analyzed, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a Final Scoping Document, and
WHEREAS: on January 26, 2016 the Project Sponsor submitted a DGEIS to the City Planning Board, which
examined possible environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, did on March 8, 2016, review the DGEIS for completeness and
adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and did, with the assistance of City staff and the
City’s special counsel, Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content,
and adequacy, and
WHEREAS: a Notice of Completion of the DGEIS and Notice of Public Hearing appeared in The It haca
Journal on March 18, 2016 and the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) on March 23, 2016, and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, the City Planning Board held a public hearing to receive comments from the
public regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DGEIS, and
WHEREAS: due to extensive public interest in the Project and several requests made during the DGEIS public
hearing, the public comment period, originally scheduled to expire on May 10, 2016, was extended until May
25, 2016, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board has responded in the FGEIS to all substantive public comments received
on the DGEIS, and does on February 26, 2019 approve in substance the proposed responses to comments
received on the DGEIS, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Board hereby issues the FGEIS for the Project, having duly considered
the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR
617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Ordinance No. 90-13 of CEQR, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Board hereby directs the City of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of
Completeness of the FGEIS and issue the FGEIS as required under SEQR (6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and 617.21
and CEQR Part 36-10), and to distribute the FGEIS to all involved and interested agencies and the public.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston; Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
7
B. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Presentation & Public
Hearing. The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for
sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The
sophomore site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated
program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, dining facility. The
sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the Village of
Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the City. The freshman site will have
three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with a total of
401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of which is
in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two
and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U-
I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five stories and 55 feet are allowed;
the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows for the proposed
two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District
within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has been determined
to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii), for which the Lead Agency issued
a Negative Declaration on December 18, 2018.
Adam Walters explained he had drafted a letter responding to comments from attorney Claudia
Braymer regarding the NCRE and asked if any Board members had any questions.
There being no questions for him from the Board, Walters then left the meeting.
Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects and Alan Chimacoff of
ikon.5 Architects then appeared in front of the board to present project updates. Wolf discussed
changes to site circulation and access as a result of the project, and Chimacoff discussed the
programmatic access and interplay between indoor and outdoor spaces and shared some
elevations with the Board.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing
on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones.
Jones asked the applicants if they had received a copy of the letter from the Cornell Heights
Neighborhood Association.
Applicants said they had.
Jones asked if they wanted to address the question of late night noise.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
8
Wolf said they would be scheduling a meeting with the Cornell Heights Neighborhood
Association to speak with them about their concerns.
Michaels said they had already met with them once and that they would have further meetings to
address their concerns. She said she thinks that part of the intent of the project is to develop a
stronger community on campus and to keep students close to their living locations. She said there
would also be adult residence hall directors and programming designed to build a sense of
community, including the greater community.
Wolf said that all the programs that Cornell has in place for managing their resident halls,
including Campus Police, will be in place here as well.
Director Cornish said it feels as if the service areas are really far apart, and the buildings are big.
She asked how they will get all the trash to the service areas.
Chimacoff said there are a series of trash chutes, and maintenance people would collect it and
move it to collection areas. He said it will all be done inside the buildings so the workers won’t
have to go outside to move it in inclement weather, etc.
Cornish said another concern is along Triphammer Road. She asked if the back-of-house
operations would be visible from the sororities there.
Wolf said they met with representatives from the sororities and the American Indian program
house in the previous week and that both were satisfied with the proposed fencing and
landscaping there. Wolf said that the grade of the loading dock had been lowered from previous
submittals, and the sunken dock will make it much easier to screen.
Petrina said that she likes the buildings, but they will result in very long interior hallways. She
asked if there is any way, any technology in place to help protect students from a gunman. She
asked if someone were to get in if they would have access to the entire quarter-mile-long floor,
or if there is technology in place to shut down parts of the buildings.
Chimacoff said they had not considered it. He said that the logistics of making environments that
are sociable at this scale has been their focus.
Petrina said it’s come to her mind because of the anniversary of the Parkland shooting. She asked
if the public will have access to the cafes or just students.
Chimacoff said the buildings will have electronic access control throughout, and to what extent
those are turned on or off is an administrative decision. He said in the dining areas, access will be
controlled for economic reasons because students pay for food plans.
Arvind Tikku said that all the entrances to the dorms are access controlled, so if you were a
member of the public coming into a lower level, you wouldn’t be able to rise up to the dorm
levels. Further, all the bedrooms are access controlled, not just with a card, but by a numerical
code, so there are layers of control in place.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
9
Johnston asked about a light that seemed to be missing from one version of the plan to the most
current.
Wolf said that seems to be an oversight, and the final lighting plan is still being developed.
Elliott said that he likes the buildings overall, but he said he thinks they can all agree that
buildings do communicate ideas. He said that when it comes to the North side, his first reaction
is: “Where’s the moat?” He said he is not sure if the building designs have already gone out to
tender, how fluid the designs are at this stage, but he wonders if there is an opportunity to break
the scale down, maybe step down to three stories towards the street so there is the same
expression you see on the East side. He said right now it’s monolithic, and he would not describe
the architecture as humane.
Chimacoff said he thinks it’s a good question, but he’s not sure if anything can be done at this
point. He said the subdivisions of the building, and the introductions of the glass study lounges
were meant to address that.
Elliott said he’s talking about walls, not just articulation.
Chimacoff said that there are some aspects have been committed. He said each piece of terra
cotta has to be pre-ordered and prefabricated.
Chair Lewis said that if the design is already predetermined, they should not spend any more
time talking about it. He said that he agrees with Elliott’s point and that the North façade is by
far the least successful. It is institutional.
Elliott said if it’s already committed, he understands, but he asked, “If so, what’s the point of this
exchange?”
After some additional discussion, Chair Lewis asked from input from other Board members.
Jones said she shares Elliott’s concerns and would like to explore ways to make the North façade
more humane, but she isn’t sure what can be done, as it seems like the design is set.
Lewis asked how the rest of the Board feels about this façade, the design overall, and their role in
the process.
Johnston said he supports the design overall, but he supports the opinions of the architects on the
Board.
Petrina agreed she supports the project overall, but shares Elliott’s concerns about the North
façade. She said it feels frustrating if nothing can be done.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
10
Glass said he feels the project schedule is precluding the Board from having real input on the
project. He said that while he agrees with Elliott’s concerns about the monolithic quality of the
façade, the question of the Board’s input is perhaps the more important one.
Jones agreed that the schedule moving so quickly that they Board doesn’t get to have much input
on site plan review after SEQR feels frustrating. She said she is wondering how much input they
will have, although generally she is supportive of the project.
Blalock said that while he generally supports the project, and agrees with some of Elliott’s
concerns, that when it comes to how this project interfaces with the comprehensive plan and so
on, he would be more concerned if a row of houses were facing the North façade, but it’s his
understanding that all the property in that view shed is Cornell’s. He said that where he comes
down is that if that’s what Cornell wants and it’s not affecting other neighbors, it’s what they
want.
Blalock then asked for an inventory/ program list for the amenities in each building.
Applicants agreed to provide annotated drawings.
After some additional discussion, applicants agreed to bring material samples and discuss
lighting and landscape plan, signage, outdoor seating, and an updated view from the Historic
District to the next meeting.
Michaels said they were hoping to break ground in the spring and inquired about the possibility
of getting preliminary approval at the next meeting so they could begin earthwork and
foundation work.
Elliott said his concerns aren’t related to materiality, and he would feel better about the project if
there were architectural moves, formal moves made to bring down the scale.
Glass and Petrina agreed.
Johnston asked if this issue is similar (in terms of precedent) to other cases where they have been
asked to consider preliminary approval before other details of the project have been determined.
Director Cornish said that it comes down to what they are comfortable with, and for preliminary
approval, it means that the footprints are not going to change, that walkways won’t change, and
that what you see in the plans is set.
Jones asked about a reasonable timeframe between preliminary and final approvals (when
buildings would be going up).
Applicants said four to six months seems reasonable.
Petrina said that she thinks they need to do a really in-depth look at the hardscape and layouts
before granting preliminary approval.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
11
C. Harold’s Square, 123-127, 133, 135, and 137-139 E. State Street, The Commons,
by McGuire Development and CJS Architects. Project Changes. The applicant is
requesting building façade changes for the proposed Harold’s Square Mixed-Use
Project. The project was originally approved by the Board on August 27, 2013 and was
subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017.
The Board later approved building façade and materials changes on August 23, 2016,
and again on May 24, 2017. The applicant is now requesting additional façade changes,
primarily affecting the Commons façade.
Scott Selin of CJS Architects, and Eric Ekman of McGuire Development Group appeared to
present project revisions. After discussion, applicants agreed to include a green screen and green
roof elements on the roof of the shorter, Commons-facing buildings. Applicants also agreed to
revert to the Commons-facing façade color patterning depicted in the elevations dated October
24, 2018. Board members expressed appreciation of the addition of balconies on the corners of
the taller buildings. Applicants also agreed to submit additional elevations showing the interior
elevations of the Commons-facing courtyard.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Project Changes
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials and building façade changes for the proposed
Harold’s Square Mixed-Use Project. The project was originally approved by the Board on August 27, 2013,
and for which the Board subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27,
2017. The Board later approved building façade and materials changes on August 23, 2016, and on May
23, 2017, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and
Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-
opening the review, but not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is now requesting the following changes: replacement of precast concrete
elements on the first floor north and west facades with Terra Cotta, as previously approved for the 2nd to 5th
floors; replacement of precast concrete copings on the 5th story roof at the north and west facades with
aluminum composite panel copings; the addition of residential balconies to the NW, SE and SW corners of
the building; elimination of two windows per floor on the south façade of the building to comply with the
percent openings allowed by the 2015 International Building Code as adopted by New York State;
redistribution of the windows on the five-story portion of the west façade, retaining the same number of
windows; removal of 30 micro-units from the 2nd to 5th floors to accommodate 10,000 SF of commercial
space; increasing the Terra Cotta cladding on the east elevation of the 2nd to 5th floors to cover the entire
façade facing the courtyard (replacing insulated metal panel on this portion of the façade); and introducing
Terra Cotta cladding on the 1st floor of the Sage Building west elevation facing the courtyard, and other
façade changes, and other façade changes, and
WHEREAS: the Board has on February 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised plans entitled
“Proposed Building Materials, North Elevation,” “Proposed North Elevation,” “Comparative Partial North
Elevation,” and “Comparative North Elevation Perspectives,” dated February 15, 2019, and all prepared by
CJS Architects, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
12
WHEREAS: the Board has, on February 26, 2019, determined that the proposed changes are consistent
with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on June 25, 2013, therefore, no further
Environmental Review is required, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approves the changes proposed by
the applicant, subject to the following conditions:
Unmet Agreed Upon Mitigations as Per FEAF, Part 3, Adopted on June 25, 2013
i. Noise‐producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 7:30
a.m. and 7:30 p.m., and
ii. Rehabilitation of the Sage Block will include the following:
a. Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the
building, and
b. Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls, and
c. Repair and/or replacement of the existing roof, and
d. New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the
building. When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated
to the point of requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color,
texture, and perhaps material construction, and
e. Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided‐light
pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block
building, and
f. The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space, and
g. The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with
additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants,
and
iii. Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), using the same standards it uses to evaluate
proposed work on locally‐designated buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of
the entire cornice; (2) evaluation of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with
significant experience in restoring wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing
and repairing the existing exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where
brickwork is interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street, and
iv. The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123‐127 E. State Street shall be salvaged
and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the salvaged
carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square project, if the
applicant so desires, and
Additional Unmet Conditions Identified in Site Plan Review:
v. Submission to Planning Board of site details, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, site
furnishings and paving materials, and
vi. Submission to the Project Review Committee of the final 4th floor roof plan (now 5th floor); this
plan shall incorporate a light-colored roofing material and, if feasible, some areas of green roof,
and
vii. Tower roof shall also be of light-colored roofing material, and
viii. Bicycle storage for retail, office and residential tenants shall be provided within the building, and
ix. Approval from the Planning Board of the proposed bridge connection to the Green Street Parking
Garage, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
13
x. Bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage requires approval from the Board of Public
Works, and
xi. Applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for any portion of the project, including door
swings, that impacts City property, and
xii. Any changes to the design of the building that affects the exterior appearance, including rooftop
mechanicals, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, and
xiii. Approval in writing from the Fire Department confirming the project complies with all life safety
needs, and
xiv. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer.
New Conditions Related to the Approved Changes
i. Submission to Planning Board of a site plan and elevations for the courtyard entry area, and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised fifth floor rooftop plan and relevant elevations,
showing partial screening of the rooftop mechanicals to include a potential a green screen, and
iii. Applicant will revise the Commons façade elevation of the building section with the fifth floor
terrace to remove horizontal banding - consistent with proposed elevations dated October 24,
2018.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancy: None
D. City Centre Signage, 301 E. State/MLK St. Gaelin Walsh of Whitham Planning
and Design on behalf of Jeff Smetana for Newman Development Group, LLC.
Review of Proposed Signage. The project was approved by the Planning Board on
May 27, 2017. The applicant is now seeking approval of the proposed signage, as
conditioned in its original site plan approval. The project has received approval for one
sign. The proposed additional signage requires variances as it exceeds regulations for
the CBD Zoning Districts. New signage is subject to Design Review.
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design; Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Planning and Design;
Jeff Smetana, Newman Development Group, LLC; and Pat Boni, Saxton Signs, appeared to
present an updated signage package.
Jones asked how the large City Centre sign would not disturb residents
Walsh said they are using a lower lumen LED and that it is located in front of the elevator shaft.
Elliott said that there are new LEDs out now that include purple, creating a true full-spectrum LED
and said he would send them information on those so they could look into using them.
Applicants agreed to explore putting signage on a timer to shut off at midnight.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
14
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Signage
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board granted final site plan approval for the
project on January 24, 2017, subject to submission for approval by Planning Board of project details,
including signage, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with sign regulations, the applicant is requesting variances to exceed the
allowed square footage of 50 SF per sign, as permitted in the CBD-120 zoning district, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §160 Design Review – Applicability of the City Code, all signage in the
Central Business District (CBD) is subject to mandatory non-binding design review and the Downtown
Design Guidelines, adopted March 2018, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on February 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate the
following undated and unattributed drawings pertaining to signage: “Sign Locator Map,” “Sign #1 Detail
& Elevation,” “Rendering Looking East on E. State Street,” “Rendering Looking West on E. State Street,”
“Sign #2 Details” (four sheets), and “Sign #3 Details,” illustrating a City Centre projection sign measuring
200 SF vertically oriented on the building façade, a Chase logo sign measuring 20.7 SF mounted on the
radial canopy at the corner of E. State Street and S. Aurora Street, and an Ithaca Ale House sign measuring
21 SF to be secured to an aluminum raceway on the radial canopy at the corner of E. State Street and S.
Aurora Street, and
WHEREAS: the Board has, on February 26, 2019, conducted design review, and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve building signage for the City Centre project to
be located at 301 E. State Street subject to the following conditions:
i. Any future signage other than that approved in this resolution, is subject to Design Review and
Site Plan approval by the Planning Board, and
ii. The applicant will explore the possibility of connecting the blade sign to a timer that would dim or
turn off its illumination during late night/early morning hours, and
iii. Granting of the required variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Moved by: Johnston
Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
15
E. Falls Park Apartments (74 Units), 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC.
Review of New Materials. The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four-story
apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory
site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one- and two-
bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20
surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements include
an eight-foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent
City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the
property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project
site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before
site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil
cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was
recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The
project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)
§176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11).
Applicants Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects and Frost
Travis, IFR Development, appeared in front of the Board to clarify what next steps would need
to be taken before the Board can complete the environmental review.
Nicholas said that they will need to get approval of the re-development agreement from Common
Council, and materials recently revised will have to be incorporated into the Part III of the EAF
before SEQR can be completed.
Applicants agreed to return once the re-development agreement is revised and approved by
Common Council.
F. New Two-Family Dwellings, 815-817 N Aurora by Daniel Hirtler for Stavros
Stavropoulos. Determination of Environmental Significance & Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family
residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590
SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a
side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The proposed
redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments.
The applicant is requesting the Board’s approval to use the landscaping compliance
method for parking arrangement. The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District
and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. This is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture, and Stavros Stavropoulos, property owner, appeared
in front of the Board. Hirtler submitted a revised planting plan.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
16
The Board reviewed Part III of the EAF.
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for two new two-family residences at 815-817 N Aurora, by Daniel Hirtler on behalf of the owner,
and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct
two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally
non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The project
site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements.
The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces, including two exterior parking spaces and
two parking spaces in a detached garage for the four three-bedroom apartments, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility
for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018 declare itself the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 26,
2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning
Board; and a site plan review application including the following drawings: “Context Map” and “Survey
Map” (Figure A0, 1 of 9) revised February 5, 2019; “General Site Plan” (Figure A1a, 2 of 9); “Utility and
Drainage Plan” (Figure A1b, 3 of 9); “Landscaping Plan” (Figure A1c, 4 of 9); elevation drawings (Figure
A2, 5 of 9) all revised February 5, 2019; floor plans (Figure A3, 6 of 9) revised and dated January 15, 2019;
“Site Plan showing Context,” “Site Plan Showing built area, pavement and green space,” “Demolition
Plan,” and “Construction Fencing and Tree Protection Plan” (Figure A4, 7 of 9) revised and dated February
5, 2019; construction details (Figure A5, 8 of 9) revised and dated January 5, 2019; “Typical Tree Planting
in Site Soil” and “Typical Shrub Planting in Site Soil” (Figure A6, 9 of 9); and a completed Residential
Infill Neighborhood Compatibility Worksheet and associated materials, dated December 13, 2018, all
prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler, Architect, on behalf of the owner, and
WHEREAS: the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, the Tompkins County Department
of Planning and Sustainability, and any interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly explained in Part
3, that the applicant has mitigated any potential negative impacts of the project to the maximum extent
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
17
practicable, and any future changes to the site plan may require further environmental review, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article
8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Johnston
Seconded by: Petrina
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for two new two-family dwellings located at 815-817 North Aurora Street by Daniel
Hirtler, on behalf of the owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct
two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally
non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The project
site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements.
The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility
for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018, declare itself the 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 December 18,
2018, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, the Tompkins
County Department of Planning and Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
18
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 26,
2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning
Board; and a site plan review application including the following drawings: “Context Map” and “Survey
Map” (Figure A0) revised February 5, 2019; “General Site Plan” (Figure A1a); “Utility and Drainage Plan”
(Figure A1b); “Landscaping Plan” (Figure A1c); elevation drawings (Figure A2) all revised February 5,
2019; floor plans (Figure A3) revised and dated January 15, 2019; “Site Plan showing Context,” “Site Plan
Showing built area, pavement and green space,” “Demolition Plan,” and “Construction Fencing and Tree
Protection Plan” (Figure A4) revised and dated February 5, 2019; construction details (Figure A5) revised
and dated January 5, 2019; “Typical Tree Planting in Site Soil” and “Typical Shrub Planting in Site Soil”
(Figure A6) dated February 25, 2019; colored elevations and materials key (Figure SK-1) dated January
22, 2019; and a completed Residential Infill Neighborhood Compatibility Worksheet and associated
materials, dated December 13, 2018, all prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler, Architect, on behalf of the owner,
and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on February 26, 2019 make a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance for the proposed project, and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the
project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to lighting, signage,
exterior furnishings, bike racks, residential style canopies etc., and
ii. Applicant will work with City staff to further develop the landscape plan to include more
plantings, and
iii. Tree protection for street trees to be in conformance with recommendations of the City Forester
before issuance of a street permit, as communicated in a February 13, 2019 correspondence, and
iv. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, 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.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
19
G. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design
Declaration of Lead Agency & Project Overview. The applicant proposes a five-
story building approximately 63 feet in height with gallery, office and affordable
residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The site is
currently the location of AJ Foreign Auto. The program includes ground floor covered
parking for approximately 52 vehicles, plus 7,000 SF of potential retail/office and
amenity space geared towards artists’ needs. Building levels two through five will
house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The
total building square footage is 97,500 SF. All residential rental units will be restricted
to renters earning 50 to 80 percent of the Area Median Income. The building will be
set back from Cherry Street approximately 23 feet to create a linear parklet. The north
edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path leading to an inlet overlook.
This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance § 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11).
Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design; James Gensel, Fagan Engineering; and
Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group; appeared to present project changes resulting from an artists’
charrette, and meetings with City engineering staff and the Fire Chief Tom Parsons, which
occurred since the last Board meeting.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a mixed-use development located at 130 Cherry Street, by Whitham Planning & Design,
applicant for owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story building approximately 63 feet in height with
gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet.
The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 52 vehicles, plus 7,000 SF of
potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists’ needs. Building levels two through five
will house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building
square footage is 97,500 SF. The building will be set back from Cherry Street approximately 23 feet to
create a linear parklet. The north edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path leading to an
inlet overlook, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
20
WHEREAS: This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§ 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11),
both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability Tompkins County Department
of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, have all been identified as potentially Involved Agencies in
Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS:, the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, Tompkins County Department
of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, have all consented to the City Planning Board being Lead
Agency for this Project, now therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Glass
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
After the presentation, Elliott cautioned against using Corten near the waterfront due to its
tendency to shed oxides.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
21
H. Cayuga Street Townhomes, 402 S. Cayuga Street by Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services. Public Hearing & Recommendation to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. The applicant proposes to construct four (4) for-sale townhomes that will
target moderate-income, first-time home buyers. The application and site plan was
previously submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Development Board and
approved on March 24, 2015; however, after two years passed, the approvals lapsed,
necessitating resubmission of the application, as required by §276-10 of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code. The applicant proposes the buildings to be two stories with
parking below to take advantage of the sloped site. Architectural features include front
porches, rear decks, shifting roof planes, and a varied color palette. Site development
includes a common asphalt driveway in the rear, walkways connecting each unit to the
existing sidewalk on Cayuga Street, and landscaping. The project site is in the R-3b
Zoning District and requires an Area Variance for a front yard setback. This is a Type
I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4
(h)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11). The Planning
Board, as Lead Agency, has determined that the project is consistent with the Negative
Declaration of environmental significance issued on January 27, 2015, and therefore,
no additional review is required.
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services; and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge, Wolf,
Michaels, Landscape Architects, appeared to present project updates.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the public hearing.
Judy Wood of 119 S. Titus Avenue spoke about the project. She said it’s nice to see progress
on this corner. She said she remembered when there was an apartment house there and after it
burned, it was an eyesore. She said that the porches seem very close to the road. She said that
there used to be two trees on the corner, but after an accident there several years ago, one had to
be removed, and that is a consideration. She said that the decks in the back are wide open, and
that seems like it won’t provide a lot of privacy for the residents. She said that the houses seem
very boxy overall as well, and that the neighborhood is full of stucco houses with interesting
details like bay windows and a lot of character, and that these seem to be somewhat lacking in
that.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public
hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott.
Chair Lewis asked the applicants if they had any response.
Truame said that she agreed that they are boxy. She said that the project was previously planned
as stick built and included bay windows on the end. The project was previously stalled out due to
cost. The project now is planned as modular, which limits them some.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
22
Trowbridge said that regarding the front porches, they are set back 20-plus feet from the
sidewalk, which is greater than some other houses along Cayuga Street. However, he
acknowledged that it is a tight site (which is why they need a variance for the project).
Some additional discussion followed, and applicants agreed to look into ways to make the upper
windows more centered on the front façade.
Staff asked they ensure the windows have sills.
I. Wood Street – Perdita Flats, 402 Wood Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah
Demarest. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes
to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the Southside
Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market
rate: (1) three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The
first-floor unit will meet ADA requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in
the R-3b Zoning District and will require variances for off-street parking requirements
and rear yard setback. This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require environmental review.
Noah Demarest and Matt Cooper from Stream Collaborative, and owners Umit Sirt and Courtney
Royal appeared to present the project to the Board.
Board expressed support for removing the driveway and moving the house farther to the south to
avoid crowding and shading the smaller house to the north.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for construction of a three-story residential building located at 402 Wood Street, by Noah Demarest,
applicant for owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the
Southside Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market rate: (1)
three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The first-floor unit will meet ADA
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
23
requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and will require variances
for off-street parking requirements and rear 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 (“SEQRA”), both of which require environmental review,
now therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the public hearing.
Tom Smith of 404 Wood Street introduced himself as a neighbor to the immediate west. He
expressed concerns that the rest of the block drains to his lot and the one where the applicants are
proposing to build. He cautioned them that flooding is a problem.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public
hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott.
J. Immaculate Conception Site-Sketch Plan
Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and Lynn Truame presented a sketch plan for
redevelopment of the site.
5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals
# 3118, Area Variance, 504 Meadow Street
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The applicant has included many design features that enhance pedestrian accessibility.
# 3119, Area Variance, 402 S. Cayuga Street
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board supports appropriate new housing in the City. This project is on a prominent vacant corner and
aligns with neighborhood goals for new housing. The applicant has incorporated design features, such as
Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019
24
porches and a varied roof line that make it compatible with other residential development in the
neighborhood.
# 3121, Sign Package, 301 E. State Street
The Planning Board considers this sign package appropriate in scale and design in the downtown core.
The Board does not anticipate any negative impacts and supports this appeal.
# 3121,Special Permit, 1101 E. State Street
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The project does not alter the appearance to the house and the Board welcomes new housing units in the
city.
6. Old/New Business
Blalock had sent out a memo in regards to the need for a covered bus shelter for intracity busses.
Board members expressed support.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Lewis said he would welcome suggestions for limiting presentations to the Board at the
start of each presentation to keep the meetings moving along. Board members expressed support.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
Blalock said water main breaks are at record highs. The City is trying to hire new crews but is
having trouble filling the vacancies.
The traffic light at Floral Ave. and Route 79 inbound is now operational.
The Town has received funding to connect the pedestrian bridge over Route 13 near Home
Depot to the trail network there.
The Brindley Street Bridge project is moving forward and replacement of the Cecil A. Malone
Bridge has been funded.
C. Director of Planning & Development
Deputy Director Nicholas said that members whose terms are expiring will be reappointed in
March.
8. Adjournment:
On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Petrina, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.