HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-03-26 Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
March 26, 2019
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair;
Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass, Matthew Johnston;
Emily Petrina
Board Members Absent:
Jack Elliott
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
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 109-111 Homestead Road – Minor Subdivision
Katrina Morse, Owner
505 S Albany Street – Special Permit for a Home Occupation
Anke Hoffstaetter, Owner
City Centre 301 E. State/MLK St.
Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Planning and Design
Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan
James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties
NCRE Cornell University
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects
Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Arvind Tikku, ikon.5 Architects
Greenstar, 770 Cascadilla St.
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Linc Morse, Owner/Developer
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
2
402 S. Cayuga Street Cayuga Street Townhomes
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
130 Cherry Street, Arthaus
Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design
Fagan Molly Chiang, Vecino Group
Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group
Corey Olmstead, Vecino Group
Mike Willemsen, Vecino Group
Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineering
Umit Sirt, Taitem Engineering
224 Fair Street (Formerly 402 Wood Street) – Perdita Flats
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Umit Sirt, owner
Student Housing 815 S. Aurora Street
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle LLC
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas noted the addition under Old/New Business of discussion of possibly
holding a special meeting on Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Chair Lewis 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 Johnston, seconded by Petrina, the February 26, 2019 minutes were approved
unanimously with the following modifications:
Correction by staff of minor typographical errors.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
3
4. Minor Subdivision
A. 109-111 Homestead Road, Minor Subdivision of 111 Homestead Road by Katrina
Morse. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval . The applicant
proposes to subdivide a 0.58 acre property into two parcels: Parcel A measuring 0.33 acre
(14,148 square feet) with 73.28 feet of frontage on Homestead Road and containing an
existing residential structure, driveway, and other site features; and Parcel B measuring
0.26 acre (11,113 square feet) with 75.5 feet of frontage on Homestead Road with an
existing fenced-in vegetable garden. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has
the following minimum requirements: 10,000 SF lot size, 75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot
front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance for the existing
deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel A, measuring 24.5 feet instead of the required
25 feet. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
Applicant Katrina Morse appeared in front of the Board to explain she wants to subdivide the
property with the intent of selling the vacant lot.
Jones asked if both lots would be compliant with zoning.
Nicholas said that there is an existing deficiency on the lot with the house on it.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #86.-3-4, by owner/applicant
Katrina Morse, and
WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.58 acre property into two parcels: Parcel A measuring
0.33 acre (14,148 square feet) with 73.28 feet of frontage on Homestead Road and containing an existing
residential structure, driveway, and other site features; and Parcel B measuring 0.26 acre (11,113 square
feet) with 75.5 feet of frontage on Homestead Road with an existing fenced-in vegetable garden. The
property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has the following minimum requirements: 10,000 SF lot size,
75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project has received the required
area variance for an existing front yard deficiency on the proposed Parcel A, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter
290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum
of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require
environmental review, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
4
WHEREAS: the parcel to be subdivided has been properly posted and neighbors within 200 feet of the
subject property have been notified, in writing, of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Chapter
290, §290-9.C. (2) of the City Code, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e) of the City
of Ithaca Code, 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
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by owner/applicant Katrina
Morse, and a Part 2 prepared by Planning Staff, a “Subdivision Map of No. 111 Homestead Road,” dated
April 26, 2017, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 22, 2019 make a
Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for
this subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels have received a relief from the side yard setback
requirements of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-1a Zoning District,
now, therefore,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Final Subdivision Approval
for a 0.58 acre parcel, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #86.-3-4, located at 109-111 Homestead Road in the City
of Ithaca subject to submission of three original 11- by 17-inch copies with a raised seal and signature.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
5. Special Permit
A. Special Permit for a Home Occupation at 505 S. Albany Street by Anke Hoffstaetter.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Parking Variance,
and Consideration of Conditional Approval of Special Permit. The applicant proposes
to operate a massage therapy practice out of her home at 505 S Albany Street. The applicant
will use approximately 15% of the total square footage of her home and anticipates
approximately 12-15 clients per week. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District where
the use is allowed by Special Permit. The proposal requires a parking variance as the
property does not have any on-site parking. Issuance of a Special Permit is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act “(“SEQRA”).
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
5
Applicant Anke Hoffstaetter appeared in front of the Board and explained that she is applying for
a Special Permit to be allowed to operate a massage therapy practice out of her home.
Chair Lewis said that the need for a parking variance came up at Project Review Committee.
Applicant said that is correct and explained that she has no parking onsite, so she will need to
ensure both that her clients can find parking when they come for a massage as well as ensure that
they don’t interfere with her neighbors’ parking needs. She said that she observed the street and
noticed that there are a lot of spaces available on the street during weekdays 9 to 5 when she
would be conducting the majority of her business. She said also that she doesn’t think her
business would cause a tremendous increase on overall traffic on the road.
Jones asked if she would need a sign too.
Applicant said yes, there would be a sign by her front door with her name to help her clients find
her house.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of 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 a Special
Permit for home occupation at 505 S Albany St, by Anke Hoffstaetter, applicant and homeowner, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, home occupation is defined as follows: A subordinate use of a
nonresidential nature which is conducted within a dwelling unit or a building accessory thereto by a resident
of the dwelling unit, who maintains the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence, which is clearly
incidental and accessory or secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes and which meets
the following additional conditions:
(a) The occupation or activity is carried on wholly within the principal building or within a buil ding or
other structure accessory thereto. The purpose of the occupation or activity may be the administration
or management of a business that has no impact on the surrounding neighborhood other than that
permitted by the following criteria. (See the definition of “accessory building.”)
(b) Not more than two persons who are not residents of the household are employed or participate in
the occupation at the residence.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
6
(c) There are no exterior displays or signs, including those on vehicles parked outdoors, except as
permitted under Chapter 272, “Signs,” of this Code.
(d) No offensive odor, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, heat or glare is produced. (See § 325 -23 of this
chapter.)
(e) The home occupation does not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be
expected in the affected residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the occupation
is met, off the street and in accordance with the regulations of § 325-20 of this chapter.
(f) The occupation occupies no more than 25% of the dwelling unit and no more than a total of 500
indoor square feet, including accessory structures.
(g) There is no exterior storage of materials nor, in an R-1 Zone, more than a single marked or signed
vehicle used by or advertising the occupation that is not stored in a building and similarly no more than
two such vehicles in R-2 Zones and in R-3 and in all other zones no more than three such vehicles; and
there is no other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character
of the lot or of the surrounding neighborhood.
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to operate a massage therapy practice out of her home at 505 S Albany
Street. The applicant will use approximately 15% of the total square footage of her home and anticipates
approximately 12-15 clients per week. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District where the use is allowed
by Special Permit. The proposal requires a parking variance, as the property does not have any on-site
parking.
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act “(“SEQRA”) 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, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, 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 Petrina, seconded by Jones.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
7
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Special
Permit for home occupation at 505 S Albany St, by Anke Hoffstaetter, applicant and homeowner, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, home occupation is defined as follows: A subordinate use of a
nonresidential nature which is conducted within a dwelling unit or a building accessory thereto by a resident
of the dwelling unit, who maintains the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence, which is clearly
incidental and accessory or secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes and which meets
the following additional conditions:
(a) The occupation or activity is carried on wholly within the principal building or within a building or
other structure accessory thereto. The purpose of the occupation or activity may be the administration
or management of a business that has no impact on the surrounding neighborhood other than that
permitted by the following criteria. (See the definition of “accessory building.”)
(b) Not more than two persons who are not residents of the household are employed or participate in
the occupation at the residence.
(c) There are no exterior displays or signs, including those on vehicles parked outdoors, except as
permitted under Chapter 272, Signs, of this Code.
(d) No offensive odor, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, heat or glare is produced. (See § 325 -23 of this
chapter.)
(e) The home occupation does not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be
expected in the affected residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the occupation
is met, off the street and in accordance with the regulations of § 325-20 of this chapter.
(f) The occupation occupies no more than 25% of the dwelling unit and no more than a tota l of 500
indoor square feet, including accessory structures.
(g) There is no exterior storage of materials nor, in an R-1 Zone, more than a single marked or signed
vehicle used by or advertising the occupation that is not stored in a building and similarly no more than
two such vehicles in R-2 Zones and in R-3 and in all other zones no more than three such vehicles; and
there is no other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character
of the lot or of the surrounding neighborhood.
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to operate a massage therapy practice out of her home at 505 S Albany
Street. The applicant will use approximately 15% of the total square footage of her home and anticipates
approximately 12-15 clients per week. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District where the use is allowed
by Special Permit. The proposal requires a parking variance, as the property does not have any on-site
parking.
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
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
8
WHEREAS: 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, has, on March 26, 2019,
declared itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as lead agency in environmental review, did on March 26, 2019,
review and accept as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff, and application materials provided by the applicant, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as lead agency in environmental review, has reviewed all the
information provided by the applicant and determined that the proposal meets all the criteria for home
occupations listed above and that the applicant has mitigated any potentially negative impacts, 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 the 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: Petrina
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Jones asked if applicant would only be giving massages during normal business hours, and not in
the evening.
Applicant said yes.
Johnston said that once she establishes her business, she can encourage her clients to walk or
bike, given her downtown location.
Jones asked if they would be approving a sign package.
Nicholas said it would have to comply with the sign regulations.
Cornish said that if it complies with the zoning, she will get the permit and won’t need to come
back.
Adopted Resolution for Conditional Approval of Special Permit
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Special
Permit for home occupation at 505 S Albany St, by Anke Hoffstaetter, applicant and homeowner, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
9
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, home occupation is defined as follows: A subordinate use of a
nonresidential nature which is conducted within a dwelling unit or a building accessory thereto by a resident
of the dwelling unit, who maintains the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence, which is clearly
incidental and accessory or secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes and which meets
the following additional conditions:
(a) The occupation or activity is carried on wholly within the principal building or within a building or
other structure accessory thereto. The purpose of the occupation or activity may be the administration
or management of a business that has no impact on the surrounding neighborhood other than that
permitted by the following criteria. (See the definition of “accessory building.”)
(b) Not more than two persons who are not residents of the household are employed or participate in
the occupation at the residence.
(c) There are no exterior displays or signs, including those on vehicles parked outdoors, except as
permitted under Chapter 272, “Signs,” of this Code.
(d) No offensive odor, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, heat or glare is produced. (See § 325 -23 of this
chapter.)
(e) The home occupation does not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be
expected in the affected residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the occupation
is met, off the street and in accordance with the regulations of § 325-20 of this chapter.
(f) The occupation occupies no more than 25% of the dwelling unit and no more than a total of 500
indoor square feet, including accessory structures.
(g) There is no exterior storage of materials nor, in an R-1 Zone, more than a single marked or signed
vehicle used by or advertising the occupation that is not stored in a building and similarly no more than
two such vehicles in R-2 Zones and in R-3 and in all other zones no more than three such vehicles; and
there is no other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character
of the lot or of the surrounding neighborhood.
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to operate a massage therapy practice out of her home at 505 S Albany
Street. The applicant will use approximately 15% of the total square footage of her home and anticipates
approximately 12-15 clients per week. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District where the use is allowed
by Special Permit. The proposal requires a parking variance as the property does not have any on-site
parking.
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: 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, has, on March 26, 2019,
declared itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e) of the City
of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: following proper notice to the public, a public hearing was held by the Board on March 26,
2019, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
10
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on March 26, 2019, reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff, and application materials prepared by the applicant, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as lead agency in environmental review, has reviewed all the
information provided by the applicant and determined that the proposal meets all the criteria for home
occupations listed above, and
WHEREAS: that the Planning Board did, on March 26, 2019, determine that the proposed project will
result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental
significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board after reviewing all relevant material, does make the following findings of fact in
accordance with §325-9 of the City Code:
1. The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it, and the location of the site with
respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it are such that the use will be in harmony
with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate
development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof, and
2. Operations in connection with the use will not be more objectionable to nearby property by reason
of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, vibration, or flashing lights that
would be the operations of any use permitted without a special permit, now, therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the subject application is APPROVED with the following conditions:
i. Granting of the required variance for parking by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Moved by: Johnston
Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
The Board then drafted language for its recommendation to the BZA.
6. Site Plan Review
A. City Centre Signage and Site Changes, 301 E. State/MLK Street by Jeff Smetana
for Newman Development Group, LLC. Satisfaction of Conditions & Approval of
Signage and Minor Site Changes. The project was approved by the Planning Board
on May 27, 2017. The applicant is now seeking approval of minor site changes, as well
as approval of 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.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
11
Gaelin Walsh of Whitham Planning and Design appeared to present project updates.
Chair Lewis said that some concerns had been raised about the gates to the residents’ patios and
the window film treatment proposed by Chase bank. He asked the Board members if anyone had
questions or concerns for the applicant.
Johnston asked if the fire pits would use natural gas and if there are regulations around them.
Walsh said that yes, they would be using natural gas and there are regulations. He said they have
been in contact with the Building Division and the Fire Chief to ensure they will meet code. He
said they are 3 feet tall, as required, with 2 feet of concrete and a one-foot high glass surround.
Johnston said it’s good that there’s a guard around them, as people will be gathering at tables in
close proximity to the fire pits. He also said that it’s wasteful to be constantly feeding gas to
something that’s essentially a visual additive, but it’s important that they have been reviewed and
determined to be safe.
Jones asked about how the window film will age. She asked if light will impact it and if it’s
going to look okay over time.
Walsh said he is not sure, but he can ask the architect.
Jones asked who would be responsible for taking care of it, should it fade, etc.
Walsh said Chase would maintain it. He said they use this treatment at a lot of their locations.
Jones asked if Chase moves out would the next tenants be able to remove it?
Walsh said yes.
Nicholas asked him to show them where on the façade the film would be applied.
Walsh referred to drawings and plans showing the locations of the windows where Chase wants
to install the film.
Jones said that these are ground level, ceiling height windows, and they approved the building
with a certain amount of visual access. She said obscuring these ground floor level windows
doesn’t make her happy.
Walsh explained that the treatments would be applied in areas where there are structural steel
columns. He said that the columns are being incorporated into walls, and that the treatment will
be applied where needed to hide the columns and walls.
Jones asked why the columns are placed right behind windows.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
12
Walsh said they had the same question and when they asked the architect, they said it’s actually
pretty common.
Jones thanked him for explaining.
Blalock asked if they could come up with any alternate solutions for the design of the gate, other
than using Plexiglas to prevent people from reaching through to the emergency exit crash bar.
Walsh said that they looked at using a wire mesh grid, but the client preferred this option. They
have used it before and from most vantage points, you won’t see it.
Chair Lewis asked if any other Board members had comments.
Jones asked about alternatives to the window film, public art or screens, for example, but said
she could defer to the others if they felt differently.
Chair Lewis asked the Board members to weigh in on the gate and the window film.
Johnston said that he thinks the gates could be designed differently, but he hopes that if the
Plexiglas degrades over time they will replace it. He agreed with Jones that art or screens might
be better options for the windows.
Petrina said that she is fine with the film and that the color matches some of the metal panels on
the building. She said it’s unfortunate that the columns and walls are there and need to be hidden,
but the film is removable, so she is okay with it. She said she thinks the Plexiglas will get tagged,
but if the owners maintain it, she is fine with it as well.
Glass said he’s fine with both as well. He said that he thinks the gates will be hidden behind a lot
of landscaping. He asked some questions about plantings, and applicant determined that there
was a discrepancy between the PDFs and the printed drawings.
Walsh referred to the PDF on the projector screen and explained there are six street trees on E.
State Street, three on Aurora, and the six sycamores along Green Street.
The Board next considered the resolution.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Project Changes and Conditions
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approved the City Centre Mixed Use
Project with conditions on January 24, 2017, and approved subsequent project changes on May 23, 2017,
and April 24, 2018, and the signage package presented on February 26, 2019, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is now requesting project changes, as a required condition of the original
approval, detailed in a March 4, 2019, submission from Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, on behalf of
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
13
the owner, that include site details, minor façade changes, and minor site plan modifications, additional
signage, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4], (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv) and (11), and is subject to Environmental Review for which the Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency made a negative determination of environmental significance on December
20, 2016, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has determined that the proposed updates are consistent with the above
referenced environmental determination and no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board granted approval on January 24, 2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Granting of the required area variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals before the applicant
can seek Final Site Plan Approval, and
ii. Approval specifically excludes all signage, which will be reviewed and approved at such time
as the applicant has prepared a full sign package, and
iii. Submission of a revised planting plan with removal of dotted line indicating underground
tree well,
iv. Submission to the Planning Board for review and approval of all site details including but not
limited to exterior furnishings, bollards, paving, railings, signage, lighting, etc., and
v. Submission of revised lighting plan showing all exterior lighting, and
vi. Submission of revised elevation showing façade facing Aurora St Bridge as shown in
drawing SK02 dated 1-11-17 showing 1) brick replacing gray panel on first floor and 2)
vertical ‘slot’ adjacent to tower as either all glass or a lighter gray panel, and
vii. Submission of revised elevations showing taller windows, row of transom windows, upper
glass block, or one differentiated upper cladding color on the eighth floor of the dark towers
facing E. State Street, and
viii. Submission of a plan showing addition of bollards at corner of Aurora and E State/MLK St.
such that bollards protect the pedestrian ramp, and
ix. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
x. Transformer, if needed, will be located such that it is not visible from the public right of way,
and
xi. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted.
xii. Submission of new northwest roof terrace plan to include more greenery that will be clearly
visible from the east end of the Commons, and
xiii. Submission of a revised roof pulling back rooftop utility screen from northwest corner of
building (so it will be unseen from the east end of the Commons), and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
14
xiv. Submission of revised large-scale drawing refining the proposed streetscape (and streetscape
furniture) plan to better accommodate pedestrian traffic flows near building entrances, and
xv. Submission of missing elevation showing the east side of the building’s Aurora Street wing,
and
xvi. Submission of material sample board sheet, showing all currently proposed materials, and
demonstrating that the Nichiha panels will display clear shadow-lines at all edges, and
xvii. Submission of responses to all other issues raised at the January 17, 2017 Project Review
Committee meeting, and
xviii. Noise at producing construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am and 7:30 pm,
Monday through Friday, and
xix. Staging Plan must be approved by the Building Division and Engineering before issuance of
a building permit, and
xx. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such
as sign permits, tree permits, street permits or in this case, a permit to occupy a portion of
city sidewalk for outdoor dining, and
WHEREAS: the BZA granted the required variance on February 7, 2017, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, did on May 23, 2017, review and accept as adequate the following revised
and retitled drawings: “Site Plan- Annotated (L000)”, “Site Layout L100)”, “Site Plan Corner Detail
(L101)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C102)”, “Demolition Plan (C103)”, “Grading Plan (C104)”,
“Utility Plan (C105)”, “Landscape Plan-Key (L00)”, “Landscape Plan-Plant List”, “Landscape Plan-Roof
Terrace (L01)”, “Landscape Details-Green Roof Details”, “Landscape Details- Typ Planting, Planters”,
“Landscape Details-Site Fixtures”, “Landscape Details-Site Furnishing Green Roof”, “Photometric Study-
Site (DD-E1)”, “Photometric Study-Roof Terrace”, “Landscape Lighting”, “Building Materials and
Elevations 01”, “Building Materials and Elevations 02”, “Building Materials and Elevations 03”, “Building
Materials and Elevations 04”, “Building Materials and Elevations 05”, “Building Materials and Elevations
06”, “Views- Fence, Stair, Generator”, “Roof Plan”, and “Views of Rooftop” all dated Revised 05 -09-17
and all prepared by Humphreys & Partners Architects L.P. et al; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board determined that the following conditions had been met: i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii,
x, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, did on April 24, 2018 review and accept as adequate the following new,
revised and retitled drawings: “Site Plan from SPA Conditions Submission”, “Changes to Site Plan”,
“Details for Site Plan Changes”, “Grading and Utility Changes”, “Current Landscape Plan” “Plant Schedule
Changes”, “SPA Conditions Submission”, “Current Lighting Plan and Fixtures”, “Changes made to
Basement Level”, “Changes made to 1st Floor Level”, “Unit Mix Changes”, “Changes to Elevations”,
“Current Building Materials”, and “Sample Images of Proposed Cladding”, all dated 4/4/18, and “Post PRC
meeting Site Plan Changes (3.1 & 8.1) and “Photo of metal panel mock-up (17.1)” dated 4/24/18, and all
prepared by Humphreys & Partners Architects L.P. et al; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board determined that the following conditions had been met: viii and xix, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
15
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, did on March 26, 2019, review and accept as adequate the following new,
revised and retitled drawings: “Locator Map,” “Awning Details,” “Ithaca Ale House Site Plan,” “Ithaca Ale
House Storefront Details,” “Ithaca Ale House Outdoor Furniture,” “Ithaca Ale House Ceiling Fan,” “Ithaca
Ale House Fire Pit Details,” “Ithaca Ale House Lights & Heat Lamp,” “Chase Storefront Details,” “Chase
Outdoor Furniture,” “CTB Storefront Details,” “Updated Plant Schedule,” “Current Planting Plan,”
“Pedestrian Gate Detail,” and “Revised Sign Mounting Detail,” submitted March 4, 2019, dated March 26,
2019, and unattributed, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve proposed changes as detailed in the latest
drawings referenced above, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the following conditions will be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and
any other project changes will be brought before the Planning Board for review:
ii. Approval specifically excludes all signage, which will be reviewed and approved at such time
as the applicant has prepared a full sign package, and
iv. Submission to the Planning Board for review and approval of all site details including but not
limited to exterior furnishings, bollards, paving, railings, signage, lighting, etc., and
xi. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
B. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie
Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Approval of FGEIS Findings.
The proposed Chain Works District is located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City
and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. It is a proposed mixed-use development
consisting of residential, office, commercial, retail, restaurant/café,
warehousing/distribution, manufacturing, and open space. Completion of the Project is
estimated to be over a seven-to-ten year period and will involve renovation of existing
structures as well as new structures to complete a full buildout of 1,706,150 SF. The
applicant applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-
use district, and site plan review for Phase 1 of the development in 2014. The project
also involves a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) in the Town and subdivision. This
project is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §174- 6 (B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), for which
the Lead Agency issued a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on
October 28, 2014. The Lead Agency held subsequently Public Scoping on November
18, 2014. The Lead Agency deemed the Draft GEIS adequate for public review on
March 8, 2016, held the public hearing on March 29, 2016 and accepted comments
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
16
until May 10, 2016. The Lead Agency filed a Notice of Completion for the FGEIS on
March 5, 2019. The FGEIS includes the original DGEIS, all comments and responses
on the DGEIS, revised information resulting from those comments, and updated
information since the publication of the DEIS.
Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers appeared on behalf of applicant David Lubin (Unchained
Properties). Gensel said that they had incorporated the comments made previously and were
hoping that the Board would adopt the Findings statement at this meeting.
Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP was also present to answer any questions Board members
might have. He said that the Findings Statement is culmination of the EIS process. He said they
have completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact
Statement, and there is no environmental issue associated with this project that has not been fully
analyzed, and mitigations have been developed for each. He said the Findings Statement is a
summary of all the analysis of the impacts and mitigations. He said that for a phased project like
Chainworks, the Board members will return to the Findings repeatedly as new phases come in to
ensure that new phases of the project are consistent with the analysis done previously. He said
that new impacts would trigger additional environmental review.
Walters urged them all to refer to the Certification on page 47 that reads: “Consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available,
the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the
maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures that were identified as practicable.” He said that the Certification statement sums up
the point of the EIS process. Now they have done a detailed analysis of all the reasonable
alternatives and developed a mitigation plan that maximizes mitigations to the greatest extent
practicable (capable of being achieved).
After a few additional comments, the Board adopted the Findings Statement.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Findings Statement:
Findings –Chainworks District Redevelopment Project
City of Ithaca
Tompkins County, New York
— Moved by Blalock, seconded by Glass, and approved by Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones,
Lewis, and Petrina at the March 26, 2019 meeting of City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board —
(Elliott absent, no vacancies)
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project (CWD) to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street
by Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors PC, for David Lubin, Project Sponsor, Unchained
Properties (UP), and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
17
WHEREAS: the proposed CWD seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse
Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of
Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, manufacturing
and a natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing
buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future
development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and
(4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. The project also requires a subdivision approval
and approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone and site plan approval, and
WHEREAS: The proposed project exceeds the thresholds defined for Type I projects in both the State and
City Environmental Quality Review Law. Type I actions carry with them the presumption that it is likely
to have a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, this project exceeds the Type I thresholds as
defined in Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §174- 6
(B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4
(b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 2, 2014, directing the Project Sponsor to prepare a
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed
project, and
WHEREAS: on October 18, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an
Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a
Scoping Document, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of
environmental review, did on March 8, 2016 review the DGEIS submitted by the Project Sponsor for
completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the assistance of City
Staff and the City’s consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory
with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to
obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated
in the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May 25, 2016, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on March 26, 2019 accept the
Final GEIS for the CWD as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental
impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA regulations)
and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
CEQRO), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the
reasonable alternatives available, the action to be carried out minimizes or avoids, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental impacts disclosed in the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statements, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board makes the following Findings supporting this determination:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
18
This document is a Findings Statement prepared by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,
as Lead Agency relating to the Chainworks Redevelopment Project, pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the regulations
promulgated thereto at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (collectively referred to as “SEQRA”) and Chapter 176 of the
City of Ithaca Code, City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”). This Findings Statement
draws upon the matters set forth in the SEQRA/CEQRO record, including the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (“GEIS”), consisting of the DGEIS and the FGEIS, as well as the public comments on
the DGEIS received at a public hearing and during the public comment period.
As stated above, a DGEIS and FGEIS have been prepared on behalf of the Lead Agency. The purpose of
the DGEIS and FGEIS was to identify and evaluate the potential significant adverse environmental impacts
of the proposed project and, where applicable, to identify reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures
that would reduce the effect of those impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
This document represents the conclusion of the environmental review of the proposed project by the Lead
Agency. Under SEQRA and CEQRO, this Findings Statement must:
1. Consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the GEIS;
2. Weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations;
3. Provide a rationale for the Planning Board’s pending decision (regarding site plan review for the
Project);
4. Certify that the requirements of SEQRA have been met;
5. Certify whether, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among
the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and whether any such adverse
environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by
incorporating as conditions to any site plan approval those mitigation measures that were identified,
in the GEIS, as practicable.
This is a “positive” findings statement, which means that the proposed Project is potentially “approvable”
(a relevant term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan. The
Planning Board will use this Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site plan, and in
considering conditions that could be applied to any approval thereof.
All involved agencies, as listed in the FGEIS, should prepare their own SEQRA findings before making
their own decisions.
Moved by: Blalock
Seconded by: Glass
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
C. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Consideration of Preliminary
Approval. The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for
sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
19
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 Qualit y 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.
Kathryn Wolf and Kimberly Michaels of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects and
Arvind Tikku of ikon.5 Architects appeared in front of the Board to present project updates and
answer questions.
Tikku addressed comments made at the previous month’s meeting asking about introducing step-
backs or similar interventions to the elevation along Jessup Road. He said that they understand
the concerns, but it is their professional opinion that the design as is addresses them based on the
location along Jessup Road. He said that the North Campus character and the arrangement of
buildings already humanize the massing of the proposed building. He said the overall goal for the
project is to create a great living and learning experience for the freshmen and sophomores and
recreate the residential quadrangles historically typical on North Campus.
He said that the building façade is approximately 120 feet back from Jessup Road at the eastern
edge and 50 feet back from the western edge, and across Jessup from the project site are open
fields. He said the large distances, descending topography, and curving roadway, he said the
building façade is appropriately an edge building to North Campus. He said that façade setbacks
are one method for creating appropriate massing in an urban environment (given minimal
setback requirements and limited width of a particular right of way). He cited College Avenue as
an example of where setbacks have been used to allow sunlight to reach the pedestrian walkways
below, but aren’t necessary here both because of its openness and its location in a campus
environment. He said that the interaction between pedestrians and façades is different on a
campus than in an urban environment. He said that they do not believe façade setbacks are
appropriate to this edge of the proposed building.
Tikku reviewed the building in context to other neighboring buildings on North Campus to
explain why they thing the building is appropriate for the location.
Wolf next reviewed the updated site plan documents distributed prior to the meeting and noted
the formal approval for the fire access plan they had received from the Fire Chief. She said they
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
20
are seeking preliminary site plan approval so the applicant can mobilize and begin site
preparation and earthwork, utility work, and work on foundations (at the applicant’s risk). She
said that final decisions on building materials, façades, and landscape plantings.
The Board next discussed the proposed resolution.
Glass expressed concerns about the stand of trees at the location for the proposed new entrance
to Akwe:kon, the American Indian program house. He said that some of those are large trees and
if there’s a way to make the entry smaller, move it south or soften it to preserve as many trees as
possible.
Wolf said they would use a short retaining wall there to minimize the need for grading and
impacts on the trees.
Michaels said that the traffic engineer recommended that they open up the sight lines there, so
they need to push the grade back a little. After reviewing the demolition plan, she said only two
of those trees would be removed and the other eight would remain.
Wolf said they would be widening an existing sidewalk (from 6 feet to 20 feet) for the driveway.
Michaels said that it has to be 20 feet because it is also a fire access road.
Glass asked for a drawing of the retaining wall.
Jones asked about impacts to wetlands ads identified in a memo from the County.
Michaels said a group had looked at Google Earth and located some areas of potential wetlands
in the vicinity of an area being considered for use as contractor parking. The County was doing
their UNA work and put it on their drawing as a potential wetland, but Michaels said it hasn’t
been delineated as such. She said they have since pulled back their proposed parking area from
the areas that might be wet, so she said she’s not sure the potential issue is still relevant given the
new layout being proposed, but she said they are working through it with the Village of Cayuga
Heights.
Jones said that it should be fine then if the Village approves the revised parking plan.
Johnston asked Tikku if there had been a life cycle cost analysis performed regarding how the
buildings are sited, their elevations, etc. regarding maintenance costs and so forth.
Tikku said there has been a great deal of discussion around energy, and they are 30 percent
below what’s requied by code.
Johnston asked if they had estimates of maintenance costs over time.
Tikku said the materiality is very robust and that the buildings will be long-lasting and be among
the best performing buildings on campus.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
21
Blalock asked if they could integrate Llenroc into accents (benches, planters, etc.) for this
project.
Tikku said the grey color selected was meant to be evocative of Llenroc.
Blalock next spoke about accessibility issues. He asked about an egress plan for people who
require an elevator (or door opener) in the event power is lost. He also asked about what will be
used for opening doors and noted that the door openers currently in use around campus fail
incessantly. He also said that if door openers fail, they need some sort of automatic signaling to
call maintenance. He said it’s important door openings be sufficiently wide to accommodate
sophisticated chairs. He said it’s also important that snow and ice be removed from in front of
automatic doors and in general in order to allow for wheelchairs to operate. Finally he said that
he wants them to consider how CU Lift can pick up and drop off someone without requiring the
removal of bollards, saying that currently they have to remove and reinstall bollards every time
they pick someone up and that’s a real hinderance. He also suggested that they reach out to CU
Disability services to have them look at the placement of all ADA rooms.
Finally, Blalock said that currently hallway kitchenettes are the source of a lot of false fire
alarms for the University and suggested that they ensure the hallway kitchens have external
ventilation so the City doesn’t have to spend thousands dispatching firetrucks every time a
student burns a bag of microwave popcorn.
The Board next discussed conditions on the resolution.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (“City Planning Board”) has one pending
application for site plan approval for the North Campus Residential Expansion (“Project”), located on
Cornell University Campus by Cornell University though its agent Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP
(“Applicant”), and
WHEREAS: the Applicant is proposing to construct two residential complexes, one for sophomores
(“Sophomore Site”) and the other for freshmen (“Freshman Site”) on two areas on North Campus (“Project
Site”). The Sophomore Site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program
space totaling 299,900 SF, and a 1,200 seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. All buildings in the Sophomore Site
are in the City of Ithaca (“City”); the small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights (“Village”) contains
landscape improvements. The Freshman Site will have three new residential buildings, each spanning the
City and Town of Ithaca (“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 5 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 the Village in which no buildings are proposed.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
22
WHEREAS: 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), and
WHEREAS: pursuant to CEQRO/SEQRA, on July 25, 2018 the City Planning Board distributed to all
potentially Involved and Interested Agencies a Notice of Intent to Act as Lead Agency, a copy of the Project
Application, and a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, and
WHEREAS: the Town Planning Board, Village Planning Board, the NYS Dormitory Authority, NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health are all
potentially involved agencies in this action and have all consented to the City Planning Board acting as
Lead Agency for this Project, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on August 28, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for
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 a required Public Hearing on September 25,
2018. The public hearing was held open and the Planning Board continued and closed the public hearing
at their October 23rd, 2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did, on December
18, 2018 review and accept as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board,
and the following environmental information: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for
Foundation Design for Site #1- CC Lot Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 8,
2018, John P. Stopen Engineering LLP; Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation
Design for Site 2- Appel Fields Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 7, 2018,
John P. Stopen Engineering LLP; Public Archeology Facility Report, Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey,
Cornell University North Campus Project, City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York, MCDs
10940, 10906, Andrea Zlotucha Kozub, Binghamton University, State University of New York, April 11,
2018; Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion, City of Ithaca, Town of
Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County New York, June 2108, SRF Associates, Rochester
NY; North Campus Residential Expansion, Circulation Study, April 2018, Kimley Horn of New York P.C.;
Energy and Emission Impact Assessment of the North Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University,
7/6/18 Taitem Engineering, PC, Ithaca, New York; North Campus Residential Expansion, Review
Application Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY July 12, 2018; Memo dated September 17, 2018, from
Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights;
Memos dated October 12, 2018 and September 17, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge
Wolf Michaels LLP to Chris Balestra, Planner, Town of Ithaca, and Memos dated November 14, 2018,
October 12, 2018 and September 5, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels
LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission, Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability, and all other interested parties have been given the opportunity
to comment on the proposed Project and all received comments have been considered, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
23
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, determined, as more clearly elaborated in
the FEAF, that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board did, on December 18, 2018, determine that, for the reasons detailed
in Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF, which are incorporated herein by reference, that the proposed Project will
result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and did issue a Negative Determination of
environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: due to project changes, a second Public Hearing was held at the February 26, 2019 Planning
Board meeting. Legal notice for the public hearing 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 Board, has on March 26, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate: the following
updated and revised drawings: “Fire Access Plan’ dated 2-18-19 and signed by Ithaca Fire Chief, Parsons
on 3-4-19, “Rendered Plan (L0.01)”, “Demolition Plan – Site 1 (L1.01, L1.02 & L1.04)”, “Demolition Plan
– Site 2 -L1.03, L1.06 L1.07 & L1.08”, “Layout Plan – Site 1 L2.01, L2.02, L2.03 & L2.04”, “Layout Plan-
Site Connector L2.05” “Layout Plan – Site 2 L2.06, L2.07 & L2.08”, “Enlarged Layout Plan –Site 1 L2.12”
“Enlarged Layout Plan-Site 2 L2.13 & L2.14”, “Grading Plan-Site 1 L3.01, L3.02 & L3.04”, “Grading
Plan-Site 2 L3.03, L3.06 L3.07 & L3.08” and “Grading Plan-Connector L3.05” all prepared by ikon5 et.
al. and dated 2-08-19 and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does herby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project. Such
approval applies to the major elements of the site layout including building placement and footprints,
location and design of major routes of site circulation pertaining to emergency access, personal, commercial
and service vehicles, and pedestrians and bikes, grading and demolition, and placement of major hardscape
features such as walls, patios, stairways, etc. Preliminary approval does not apply to the placement and
arrangement of building façade features, building and hardscape materials and colors, planting plans,
lighting, signage, site furnishings and other site details,
and be it further
RESOLVED: Preliminary Approval for this project is subject to the following conditions:
A. Before Final Site Plan Approval:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of colored building elevations of all facades in the City of
Ithaca, keyed to building materials, and
ii. Submission of written documentation from the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca Fire
Chiefs, confirming that the proposed fire access plan shown on Sheet L0.03 and fire access-truck
turning plan shown on Sheet L0.04 are both adequate for emergency response purposes, and that
the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca have coordinated emergency responses to the
project site,
iii. Full execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ithaca and
Cornell University to facilitate and fund a project to replace and upgrade the Jointly Owned
(City and Town of Ithaca) Thurston Avenue Sewer Interceptor, as specified in the memo written
by Erik Whitney, P.E., City of Ithaca Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, Water and
Sewer Division to Kim Michaels, RLA, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, dated 10/12/18, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
24
iv. Full execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ithaca and
Town of Ithaca specifying responsibility for all building permits, certificates of occupancy,
certificates of compliance, and all code-related inspections, and
v. Full execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ithaca and
Cornell University memorializing a joint commitment to develop and approve a reasonable
pedestrian improvement plan for the intersections of Thurston Avenue (City owned) and Cradit
Farm Drive and Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue (City owned) that contains schedule
milestones for Cornell, at its own expense, to:
a) Hire consultants to oversee the project
b) Develop preliminary and final project design documents in coordination with involved
parties
c) Prepare construction documents
d) Construct project, and
vi. The Planning Board encourages Cornell work with the City of Ithaca to make the additional
sidewalk improvements recommended by the transportation engineer in an email dated 9-12-18,
and
vii. Documentation that TCAT will add two buses to the North Campus routes to accommodate the
increase in student population, and
viii. Submission of final exterior lighting plans, details and photometrics demonstrating dark sky
compliance and showing that no spillage occurs onto adjacent properties, and that nighttime
lighting of buildings does not impact adjacent city neighborhoods, and
ix. Submission of locations, designs, and details of any proposed signage associated with the project,
and
x. Receipt of preliminary site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights
for the elements of the project located within those mu nicipalities, and Documentation of
progress for the following transportation improvements in the Town of Ithaca:
Provide a larger bus pull-off on Jessup Road (Cornell owned) in front of RPCC. The bus
pull-off as currently shown accommodates only one bus at a time. The Applicant will work
with TCAT to add two buses to the North Campus routes to accommodate the increase in
student population.
Provide improved crosswalks along Jessup Road between the Project Site and the
Townhouses to the north.
Widen Cradit Farm Drive (a Cornell-owned road) in front of Appel Commons and Helen
Newman Hall to provide bicycle lanes, bus pull-offs on both sides and improve pedestrian
crossings. This section of Cradit Farm Drive is the only section without bicycle lanes.
Cradit Farm Drive is along major bus routes and has heavy pedestrian traffic.
xi. Review and approval by the City Stormwater Management Officer of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
25
xii. Identification on the site plans of the limits of the water/sewer main and/or roadway dedications
(if applicable). All applicable dedicated infrastructure must be in conformance with City of
Ithaca rules and regulations and standards, and
B. Prior to issuance of building permits:
i. Submission to Planning Staff of monitoring plan for Deep Dynamic Compaction, and
ii. Approval by the City of the concept and locations of any applicable water and sanitary sewer
mains and related infrastructure to be conveyed to the City, and
iii. Obtaining coverage under the SPDES General Permit (GP-0-15-002) for demolition and/or
earthwork activities (approval must be obtained from the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Village
of Cayuga Heights, and Village of Lansing [staging area] prior to submission of the NYSDEC
Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage), and
xiii. In accordance with City Code noise producing construction activities will be limited to Monday
through Friday 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. In addition, the University will work closely with the
contractor to implement Best Management Practices (“BMP”) for noise reduction to the extent
possible. BMP mitigation measures listed by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation include:
Source reduction by using mufflers, dampers and electric motors instead of air compressors.
Duration and impact reduction by limiting times worked.
Use of equipment inside the building to reduce noise.
C. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Buildings 1 and 2:
i. Formalization of improved processes to address emergency access issues during move in/move out
days to the satisfaction of the Ithaca Fire Department, including improved scheduling, staffing and
communications, etc, and
ii. Completion in accord with previously-executed MOU of, and approval from City for, required
upgrades to the Jointly Owned (City and Town of Ithaca) Thurston Avenue Sewer Interceptor,
and
iii. Submission, approval by the City, full execution and filing of sanitary sewer and water easements
and agreements, satisfactory to the City of Ithaca Public Works Department, and
D. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Buildings 3, 4 and 5 that are under the jurisdiction
of the City of Ithaca:
i. Completion at Cornell’s expense, and acceptance by the City of Ithaca, of pedestrian
improvements at the intersections of Thurston Avenue (City owned) and Cradit Farm Drive and
Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue (City owned), and
ii. Completion of all stormwater facilities and required utilities, to the satisfaction of the City of
Ithaca.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
26
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
D. Greenstar Project Changes, 770 Cascadilla Street, Noah Demarest, Stream
Collaborative (for owner). Approval of Project Changes. This project was approved
by the Planning Board on June 26, 2018. The applicant is now requesting changes to
the site layout, site amenities and building materials.
Architect Noah Demarest and owner/developer Linc Morse appeared in front of the Board to
present project changes for consideration.
Demarest walked through the changes which include: modifications to exterior doors and
awnings due to changes in the interior plans, movement of the dumpster due to NYSEG’s
concerns about proximity to overhead wires, removal of the canopy in the back and reduction of
the canopy on one side, removal of the proposed forklift shed, and removal of the “farm stand”
element by the front driveway. He said they would returned with a revised signage and planting
plan for that area. He said that they are also choosing a different material for the corrugated
metal siding (one with integrated insulation), so the profile of the siding would differ slightly
from what was approved previously. He also said that they are proposing to remove all the
windows from the upper portion of the wall facing Route 13.
Director Cornish said the façade looks stark and they need to see that elevation in context.
Applicants said Cayuga Medical Center would ultimately be built between Greenstar and 13,
which would obscure views of that façade.
After additional discussion, applicants agreed to return with revised drawings showing some
options for adding back some of the windows and/or putting a large graphic of the façade.
Board members asked if they might revisit the farmstand in the future.
Applicants said that they wanted to preserve the dramatic timber frame entrance to the store, and
the cost of the farmstand (also timber framed) was too high. Demarest said they had not had any
programming planned for it anyway, that it was more of a concept that he had suggested that
they liked. He said they might revisit the idea in the future if they test out the idea and it proves
successful.
Nicholas said they would have to return with a plan for signage and landscaping at that location.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Project Changes
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
27
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approved the Greenstar Cooperative
Market relocation Project with conditions on June 26, 2018, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is now requesting project changes detailed in a February 8, 2019, submission
from Stream Collaborative, on behalf of the owner, that include removal of the farm stand and forklift shed,
modifications to the planting plan, minor site plan modifications, and minor changes to the exterior of the
building (including fenestration), and
WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(d) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review, for which the Planning Board, acting
as Lead Agency made a negative determination of environmental significance on June 26, 2018, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has determined that the proposed updates are consistent with the above
referenced environmental determination and no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board granted approval on June 26, 2018, subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to building
materials, lighting, signage, etc., and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of updated information regarding off-site improvements that
are under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT and the adjacent property owner, and
iii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
iv. Transformer, if needed, will be located such that it is not visible from the public right of way,
and
v. Bike racks must be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, and
vi. A Staging Plan must be approved by Building and Engineering before issuance of a building
permit, and
vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such
as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc.
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on March 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate the
following new, revised drawings: “Layout Plan (L101),” “Planting Plan (L102),” “Site Elevations
(L201),” “Site Elevations (L202),” “Site Details (L501),” “Perspectives (L901),” and “Perspectives
(L902),” all revised and dated March 5, 2019, and all prepared by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the
Owner, and other application materials, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve proposed changes as detailed in the latest
drawings referenced above, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the following conditions will either be met before construction or a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued, and any other project changes will be brought before the Planning Board for review:
i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to building
materials, lighting, signage, etc., and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised landscape and signage plan for the area formerly
occupied by the farm stand, and
iii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised north elevation showing an architectural or
decorative intervention to improve the look of the blank facade, and ,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
28
iv. Submission to the Planning Board of updated information regarding off-site improvements that
are under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT and the adjacent property owner, and
v. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
vi. Transformer, if needed, will be located such that it is not visible from the public right of way,
and
vii. Bike racks must be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, and
vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such
as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc.
Moved by: Johnston
Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
E. G. Cayuga Street Townhomes, 402 S. Cayuga Street by Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. : 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 changes since the last meeting.
Trowbridge said they modified the second-story left-hand window slightly, added screening
between the rear porches to provide privacy between the units, and modified the colors slightly.
Truame said that for the windows they are looking at the most traditional design out of the
options available to them, but she said she was unable to bring a product sample to the meeting.
She asked if the Board would be okay with approving the selection conditioned on final approval
from staff. Board members agreed that was acceptable.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
29
Nicholas asked that they also include as a condition of approval submission to staff of colored
elevations keyed to the materials. Board agreed.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for four townhomes to be located at 402 S. Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca, by
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and
WHEREAS: this project was approved by the Planning Board on March 24, 2015 and received the required
variances on April 7, 2015. Due to funding constraints, the applicant did not apply for a building permit,
and, therefore, both the site plan approval and variances expired. The applicant now wishes to pursue the
project as previously approved with some changes to the building elevations, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct four (4) for-sale townhomes that will target moderate-
income, first-time home buyers. The buildings will 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 has received the required area variance for a front yard setback, and
WHEREAS: 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), and is subject to
environmental review for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance on January 27, 2015, and
WHEREAS: as there are no significant changes to the originally approved project , nor new information
about the project, the Lead Agency has determined that the project, as currently proposed, is consistent with
the Negative Declaration of September 23, 2014 and no further environmental review is required, 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 February 26,
2019, and
WHEREAS: the City of Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and other interested parties
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been
considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on March 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate: the following
drawings: “Survey Map, No. 402 South Cayuga Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated
1October 15, 2012, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; Layout Plan (L201)”, “Site Protection and Grading
Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401)”, “Utility Plan (C101),” and “Details (C101)” all dated December 14,
2018 and prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects; and “East Elevation(A2.0),”
“West elevation (A2.1),” “South Elevation (A2.3),” and “North Elevation (A2.4),” all unattributed and
dated March 6, 2019; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
30
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 applicable project details, including but not limited to
lighting, signage, exterior furnishings, bike racks, and
ii. Submission to staff of building materials and colored elevations keyed to the materials, and
iii. 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.
iv. Before the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, the public sidewalk contiguous to the site must
be in compliance with the City of Ithaca standards for public sidewalks and in a condition
satisfactory to the City Sidewalk Program Manager.
Moved by: Glass
Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
F. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design
Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story
building approximately 63 feet of 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 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).
Nicholas noted that the new information included on the applicant’s March 20 submission had
not been included on the draft Part III.
Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design; Molly Chiang, Rebecca Cudney, Corey
Olmstead and Mike Willemsen of the Vecino Group; Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineering; and
Umit Sirt of Taitem Engineering appeared to provide project updates. Applicants reviewed
façade changes and then Sirt discussed the energy and mechanical systems proposed for the
building. They are attempting to meet NYSERDA Tier 2 standards, coming in 30 percent better
than required by energy code. It will be an all-electric building and will utilize heat pumps and
other efficient systems. They also discussed logistical concerns related to construction.
After a brief question and answer period, the Board reviewed Part II.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
31
G. Wood Street – Perdita Flats, 402 Wood Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah
Demarest. Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to
the Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 from Stream Collaborative, and owner Umit Sirt appeared to present project
updates to the Board. They made changes to the porch, exterior siding, and they moved the location
of the building footprint by eliminating parking on-site (for which they will request a variance
from the BZA).
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina:
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 224 Fair 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
requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and will require a variance
for off-street parking requirements, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQR”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require
environmental review, 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 February 26, 2019, 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 March 26, 2019
reviewed and accepted as adequate: A Short Environmental Assessment Form (“SEAF”), Part 1, submitted
by the applicant, and a Part 2, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board; and the
following drawings: “Vicinity Ithaca City Zoning Map,” “Vicinity Map w/ TCAT Stops,” “Existing
Multifamily Housing,” “Land Use Categories,” “Floodplains,” “Site Context,” “Demolition Plan,”
“Construction Plan,” “Utilities Plan,” “Site Plan,” “Planting Plan,” “Perspective Views” all dated February
5, 2019, and “Boundary and Topographic Map,” dated October 19, 2018, and L101 “Site Layout and
Planting,” A202 “Elevations,” A101 “First Floor Plan,” A102 “Second Floor Plan,” A103 “Third Floor
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
32
Plan,” revised and dated March 5, 2019 and other application materials prepared by Stream Collaborative,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, now, therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the 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: Jones
Seconded by: Petrina
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
The Board next drafted its recommendation to the BZA.
H. Student Housing, 815 S. Aurora Street, Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest for
Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O’Connor. Declaration of Lead Agency.
The project applicant proposes a new 49-unit student housing complex (16,700 SF
footprint) comprised of three buildings constructed on a hillside on the east side of
Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings
will contain (2) efficiency units, (3) one-bedroom units, (10) two-bedroom units, (20)
three-bedroom units and (14) four-bedroom units. Amenities will include a gym and
media room, with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of Building B,
and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of Building B. The project site shares
the 2.85 acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office and a one -
bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied
into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at
the existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be
constructed in front of the ends of buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The
project will include 68 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property located in
the R-3b zoning district. A variance will likely be required for a rear yard setback
deficiency. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(2), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11).
Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative appeared to present the project to the Board. He
explained that they would be seeking a variance from the BZA for rear yard setback, and that
they are working with the Fire Chief to ensure compliance with fire regulations.
Cornish said that they also need a storm water management plan.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
33
Demarest said yes, and unfortunately, the Fire Chief was not in favor of a green roof, which was
one of the ways they were trying to meet the greenspace requirements. He said they are working
on the issues.
Cornish asked if they were aware of the sidewalk plans for Aurora Street.
Demarest said yes, they are and have plans to tie into them.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Blalock, 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 new 49-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings, located at 815 South
Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the owner, and
WHEREAS: The project applicant proposes a new 49-unit student housing complex (16,700 SF footprint)
comprised of three buildings constructed on a hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the
proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) efficiency units, (3) one-bedroom
units, (10) two-bedroom units, (20) three-bedroom units, and (14) four-bedroom units. Amenities will
include a gym and media room, with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of Building B,
and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of Building B. The project site shares the 2.85 -acre site
with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an offi ce, and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements
will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire
truck access is proposed at the existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be
constructed in front of the ends of buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include
68 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property located in the R-3b zoning district. A variance will
likely be required for a rear yard setback deficiency, and
WHEREAS: this is Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11),
and
WHEREAS: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County
Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Transportation, all potentially involved
agencies in this action have all consented to the Planning Board acting as 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.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
34
Moved by: Blalock
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
7. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals
# 3114, Area Variance (parking), 224 Fair Street
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and enthusiastically
supports this appeal. The applicant’s original proposal located the building much closer to the side yard
and would have required variances for both parking and side yard deficiencies. The Board was
concerned that the original proposal could negatively impact the neighboring properties- particularly the
one to the north. The current proposal locates the building at a comfortable distance from the northern
property and improves the overall fit with the neighborhood. Though it does not allow for the required
on-site parking, the applicant has demonstrated that there is ample on-street parking in close proximity
to the project. The current layout also means that there will be no curbcuts to access driveways
(accommodating the required parking on-site would have required two driveways) which creates a safer
pedestrian and more child-friendly environment. The Board feels that this net zero projects is further
enhanced by the potential to reduce automobile use.
# 3122, Area Variance, 112 Fayette Street
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board finds that the proposed changes are minor in scope and improve the overall appearance of the
property and the character of the neighborhood. The Board feels that the project allows a family to stay
in the neighborhood in which they are established, and as such, has a positive impact on the city’s goals
of retaining owner- occupied housing and affordability.
# 3123, Area Variance, 527 N Aurora Street
The Planning Board does not anticipate any negative impacts and supports this appeal. There is no
change to existing conditions and there is sufficient on-street parking for those clients that arrive by car.
# 3124, Area Variance (Parking), 505 S Albany Street
The Planning Board does not anticipate any negative impacts and supports this appeal. The applicant
has demonstrated that the lack of parking will not negatively impact the neighborhood because there is
sufficient on-street parking for those of her clients that arrive by car. The Board supports compatible
home-based businesses, such as the one proposed, because they contribute to an environment where
people can live, work and access services within walking distance and positively impact housing
affordability.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board April 23, 2019
35
8. Old/New Business
Nicholas suggested they hold a special meeting on April 30 to do a training on the Downtown
Design Guidelines. Board members agreed.
9. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Lewis suggested the idea of having a retreat/debrief session to look at their performance as
a Board.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
Blalock said water main breaks continue to be a major problem.
Solutions are being sought for the Five-Corners intersection.
Blalock also said that they should anticipate lower speed limits (goring from 30 to 25 MPH)
sometime in the near future.
C. Director of Planning & Development
Director Cornish said the Carpenter Business Park team is still negotiating a MOU with the
Public Gardens (Project Growing Hope) group.
She said the Planning Department is also working with the DIA to develop a Phase II comp plan
for Downtown.
10. Adjournment:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones, the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m.