HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-08-27 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
August 27, 2019
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair;
Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass; Emily Petrina
Board Members Absent:
Jack Elliott; Matthew Johnston
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, 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: Carpenter Circle
Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design
Jess Sudol, Passero Associates
Chain Works District
Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers
Student Housing – 815 S. Aurora Street
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering,
Todd Fox, Visum Development
Laura Matros, Visum Development
Jon Mancuso, counsel to the applicants
Immaculate Conception Redevelopment (Mixed Use Housing)
320 W Buffalo Street
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Visions Federal Credit Union – 410 Elmira Road
Mitch Leech, PW Campbell Contracting
Lisa Darling, Visions Federal Credit Union
Joe Liguori, Visions Federal Credit Union
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
2
Gary Winterkorn, Costich Engineering
Student Apartments – 238 Dryden Road
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Brandon Ebel, Stream Collaborative
Todd Fox, Visum Development
City Harbor – 101 Pier Road
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design
Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design
Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects
David Herrick, TG Miller, PC
Linc Morse, project sponsor
Jessica Edger-Hillman, project sponsor
Elizabeth Ambrose, project sponsor
Others Attending: Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson
Donna Fleming, Third Ward Alderperson
Bob Gearhart, Third Ward Alderperson
Laura Lewis, Fifth Ward Alderperson
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor.
Roger Dennis of 4 Hudson Place, spoke in opposition to the student apartment project at 815 S.
Aurora Street. He said that he worked in aviation for more than 40 years, and in aviation, safety
is non-negotiable. He said the project is very concerning to him because there are man y safety
issues being ignored: One is the parking lot within the fall zone and it seems like there will be a
lot of activity under the tower. He said it also seems like there will be many more vehicles in the
lot than the 67 spaces would allow. He asked how students get picked up and dropped off once
the 67 spaces are filled. He said the closest place would be Coddington or Grandview, but it
seems likely that people will just drive into the lot because there is no way to effectively police
it. He said that this situation will create problems for emergency vehicles accessing the lot. He
also said that in the event the tower collapses, all students would be trapped. He said that the 25-
year-old tower was originally 120’ tall but has since grown to 170’ and had additional equipment
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
3
added to it. He said that the effects of rock removal from the site on the tower’s stability are a
concern and that the project will negatively affect the whole South Hill Community and is not
safe.
Torrey Dennis of 4 Hudson Place spoke in opposition to the project at 815 S. Aurora Street.
She said she works with student services and their priority is to create a caring community,
which means that if you see something that isn’t right, you need to reach out and say something,
no matter how difficult it may be. She said she is surprised that the Board is okay with the
parking lot being located in the fall zone of the tower. She said she cannot imagine how anyone
in the room would feel should someone be injured simply for parking their car in an appropriate
parking space and happen to stop to talk to a neighbor before going into their building. She said
it is her understanding that the parking lot will not conform with zoning requirements. Further,
she said we know college students are constantly pushing limits, which is why dorms on campus
have RAs and other supports to ensure there are limits on students’ behaviors and resources on
hand when they are in distress. There are protocols for emergencies to allow staff to assist as
quickly as possible. She said she is curious as to what protocols will be put into place at this
apartment building, which is a multi-story dormitory-like development off campus. She said we
know at times students are known to over indulge and do unwise things, which can lead to
tragedy. She asked if there would be anyone on site to monitor behavior and prevent such an
event. She asked how the rooftop terrace would be monitored. She said she is concerned that
important issues surrounding this project have been ignored. She asked the Planning Board to
pause, take a close look at the project, and refrain from approving the plan.
James Rogan, owner of Rogan’s Corner, spoke about the proposed apartment building at 815
S. Aurora. He said traffic is his biggest concern, especially with the lane reduction on 96B
proposed for next year. He said that both foot traffic and auto traffic will increase in the area,
which will pose a safety concern, particularly if the State does not reduce the speed limit or
install a stop light at the corner of Coddington Road.
Cathy Crane of 108 Grandview Place spoke in opposition to the proposed apartment building
at 815 S. Aurora. She said she’s been attending meetings and commenting on the project since
April, and said that last month it seemed like a majority of the Board members have some
concerns about the proposed project, but there is the sense that your hands are tied due to the
zoning. She said that the Board has the power to put the brakes on the project. She said the
neighborhood residents have been asking for mitigations for the mass of the building, and it’s a
matter of public record that there has been push back against the size. She requested the Board
amend the Neg Dec requiring the developer to reduce the massing. She said that the
Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map of 2015 labels the parcel as medium density,
and thus, the proposed development is not in keeping with the City’s stated goals. She suggested
a halt on all development until zoning is brought into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.
Otherwise, the Plan means nothing.
Andre Gardiner of 306 E. State Street spoke about the sign variance case (BZA #3137) under
consideration by the BZA at its upcoming meeting. He said he is co-owner of and manager for
the building next door. He said they just want to make sure that any new signs will not be shining
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
4
light into their tenants’ windows, and that concern is shared by others at both the Travis-Hyde
property and City Centre building nearby.
Gardiner also spoke about the proposed 815 S. Aurora Street project. He said that he helps
manage 57 apartment rentals and commercial spaces as well, and that across the board costs to
rent are just way too high. He said businesses can’t get employees now without offering $20 per
hour or more and students can’t find housing they can afford. He said he often encounters
students who have moved into housing to discover that it’s completely unsatisfactory, lacking
Certificates of Occupancy, is over-occupied; or has other issues related to the fact that Ithaca’s
housing stock is very old. He said that new development is the only way to start to address these
problems. He said that a new building will have to have a certificate of occupancy from day one,
and it will be built to current standards. He said that he understands that there are concerns about
neighborhood character and about towers falling, but he has known people who have died in
fires, so at the end of the day, there are all sorts of risks associated with older housing, and safety
is a concern. He said affordability is also an issue. He said 15,000 people commute into
Tompkins County every day for work. Half say they want to live her, and the other half say they
don’t want to live in Tompkins County because it’s too expensive. He said that the only way to
address these issues is to build more housing. He concluded by saying that he too has a mortgage
and understands how terrifying to have someone come in and build something right next to your
property (which might represent a majority of your assets, but at the end of the day, our long-
term goal should be doing what’s in the public’s interest. He expressed support for the project
and thanked the Board for their time.
Maria Gaige of 200 E. Buffalo Street spoke about the 238 Dryden Rd. project. She identified
herself as one of the attorneys for ENP Associates, and she submitted a letter from Ray
Schlather, also representing ENP, which is included as an addendum to these minutes. She said
that 238 Dryden Rd. is subject to pending litigation, which will determine if Summit Ave. is a
City street and establish rights of the neighboring property owners. She said that in addition to
the lawsuit, there are some significant issues with the site plan, namely that it doesn’t meet the
City’s fire lane requirements and proposes a stormwater management system that will require a
full environmental review. She said that the project is also contingent on Visum obtaining at least
three variances from the BZA. She said that for these reasons and others outlined in the letter,
they are requesting that the Board refrain from making any decisions on the application until the
matters in question are decided.
Beth Rubin of Ithaca spoke about the Carpenter Circle project. She said that she has heard that
the project will include low income housing and a clinic and said she’s curious if the retail stores
will appeal to the people who would be drawn there as a result.
Joe Allen, Attorney with offices at 417 N. Cayuga Street, said he’s representing the Dennis
family. He spoke in opposition to the development proposed at 815 S. Aurora. He said that he
thinks a few sections of the City Code have not been adequately addressed. In particular, Sec.
325-8 (14) (a) sets forth how to determine a rear yard setback when a lot has uneven sidelines,
and he presented a third-party analysis indicating where they think the line should be (which
differs from the Zoning Officer’s determination). He said this opens the question of whether the
proposed parking lot and the third building are encroaching upon that line. He said Sec. 276-7 is
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
5
another area that raises questions, adding that the plantings proposed don’t seem to meet the
requirements. He also suggested that they revisit Sec. 276-1, which speaks to the intent of the
Site Plan Review process, which is:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape
and similar environmental concerns.
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and the
overall visual and aesthetic quality of the City.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and long
term planning.
He said he thinks the developer has not focused on these concerns and has, in fact, run afoul of
almost all of them.
John Powers of 106 W. Buttermilk Falls Road spoke in opposition to the amphitheater
proposed as part of the Visions Federal Credit Union project at 410 Elmira Road. He said his
family has lived there since the 1930s, and he said it can be a rough place to live, with the Home
Depot and a four-lane highway nearby. He said they have a problem with light pollution and a
tremendous problem with sound pollution. He said that the proposed amphitheater is not just a
concrete pad, but is a professional stage with light and sound capabilities. He said that while they
say they are only planning one event per month during the warmer months, he is concerned that
once they get established, they will expand that to more frequent events. He said the
amphitheater is not necessary to their core business, and the applicants have not addressed
concerns such as noise and light pollution, crowd control, or hygiene, nor have they
demonstrated that they know how to develop or manage such a site. He said he’s had a musician
down to the site who thinks it’s a poorly though out plan due to the proximity of the highway. He
said that this area is his home, and that that should take precedent over the proposed as an
amphitheater. He said that if the amphitheater is really important to the applicant they should
provide the necessary funds to the City or NYS Parks and Recreation, and allow them to build it
in a more appropriate location and manage it properly.
Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, spoke about the student apartment project proposed
for 815 S. Aurora Street. She said she shares a lot of the concerns others have raised, specifically
with regards to the calculation of the side- and rear-yard setbacks, as well as the impacts of the
height and massing on the neighboring single-family homes. She said that due to its location on a
hill, the four stories of height appears even larger, and given the calculations for the rear- and
side-yards, the buildings are close to the property lines. She said she has asked the developers for
a step back on the sides facing the neighbors, but they have not provided such an
accommodation. She said that as a City, we try to be mindful when an R-1 zone abuts an R-3
zone to have transitions so that you don’t have what’s happening here (which is also being
exacerbated by the hillside). She asked the Board to work with the developer to reduce the size
of the buildings or move them farther away from the property lines.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of
the Floor.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
6
3. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones, the July 23, 2019 minutes were approved
unanimously with no modifications.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Carpenter Circle Project, Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove
Realty LLC. Presentation & Discussion of Site Plan & Parking. The project seeks to
develop the existing 8.7-acre vacant parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third
Street. The proposal includes a 64,000 SF medical office; two mixed-use buildings, which
will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking,
166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and a residential building
offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will
include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking, transit access for TCAT, open
green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project
includes 400 surface parking spaces and an internal road network with sidewalks and street
trees. The project sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access
road off of Route 13. The property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant
has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project will
require subdivision to separate each program element. This has been determined to be a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176 -
4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11).
Applicants Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design and Jess Sudol of Passero
Associates appeared in front of the Board to present an overview of the proposed development,
with a focus on the site plan layout and parking.
Chair Lewis asked about the table showing the parking calculations. He asked about how they
came to the ITE (Institution of Traffic Engineers) rate calculations.
Sudol explained that the ITE has very specific recommendations for the appropriate number of
parking spaces per building by size and use/industry, so they took the number of spaces ITE
recommends for a medical office building of the size proposed here and reduced the number by
15 percent.
Chair Lewis said it seems like they could reduce it further.
Sudol said it would take him a long time to explain exactly how ITE comes to their
recommendations, but they base their recommendations on a lot of research, and he doesn’t think
they can reduce it much further.
Alderperson Laura Lewis asked if the total number of parking spaces (structured parking and
surface parking) is 542.
Applicant said yes.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
7
Alderperson Lewis asked about the formula used for the market rate apartments.
Sudol said 1.5 spaces per unit for the market rate and just under 1 space per unit for the
affordable apartments.
Alderperson Lewis asked why they used 1.5 for the market rate.
Sudol said that was because the majority of those apartments have two bedrooms with some
having three bedrooms; whereas, the affordable apartments are mostly one bedrooms with some
having two bedrooms. He said they tried to tie the parking spots to the number of bedrooms more
than to the number of units.
Alderperson Lewis said that she supports the project, but that because it is being promoted as
being walkable, 1.5 spaces per market rate unit still seems high.
Alderperson Brock agreed. She said she would like to see some views of the project as it would
appear to people coming into the City on NYS Route 13, and how it would impact views of West
Hill and the Waterfront. She said she is concerned with the massing and how it compares to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Sudol said it is his understanding that they will focus on architecture in a subsequent meeting.
Jones said she’s not sure that 1.5 spaces per unit is too high or not. She suggested that the
applicants might be able to incentivize residents not driving, such as offering carpool priority
parking, offering TCAT passes to residents and employees, and providing electric plug-in
stations. She said that ultimately they don’t want to meet the demand; they don’t want to
encourage the demand; they want to change people’s behavior around driving.
Sudol said absolutely they would be employing TDM strategies such as the ones she identified.
Jones asked why they are recommending against porous pavement.
Sudol said that pervious pavement and pervious concrete do have a record of success in
inclement climates, but that is driven by the underlying soils. He said we want the pavement to
act like it’s not even there, allowing water to flow downward into the groundwater. He said that
in this instance, the soils aren’t conducive to infiltration because there’s a fill layer on top and
underneath that is a very tightly packed clay, so what would happen is that the water would
infiltrate to that layer and then perch on top of the clay layer. He said that the clay layer still lies
within the four-foot frost depth, so the perched water would go through the freeze-thaw cycle,
resulting in pretty significant heaving. He said they are not against porous paving, but in this
particular application, he doesn’t think it would work as intended. He said that they are instead
collecting the runoff and directing the water into a number of bio retention areas throughout the
site.
Brock asked if they would have additional joint meetings on other aspects of the project.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
8
Chair Lewis said that they would see how it goes, and if it seems like it would be beneficial, they
would have additional joint meetings.
Chair Lewis reiterated his concerns about having the affordable housing isolated in one building
located nearest to the wastewater treatment plant. He also asked the applicant to document how
they had arrived at the estimated number of parking spaces required for the medical office
building.
Director Cornish asked the applicant to include a written explanation detailing why porous
pavement is not suitable for the site.
Sudol said that the affordable rate building is being proposed the way it is because of the funding
mechanism they want to use.
Jones said that she doesn’t see a major problem with the affordable building as proposed because
it is the only all residential building, and it’s the farthest away from the highway.
Chair Lewis asked if others had comments.
Glass said the greenspace in the upper left corner of the site plan layout seems quite remote and
seems like it might not be used by anyone. He asked if it could be moved towards the affordable
housing.
Sudol said they could look into it but the green space he referenced has encumbrances related to
the overhead wires, which is why they were using it as green space.
Petrina said she think they will need to look at trips generated and the impacts added traffic will
have on the two primary ways to enter the site. She said the light between Aldi’s and the
Farmers’ Market already has long wait times. She asked if there’s a light proposed for the Fifth
Street extension.
Sudol said they are proposing turn lanes and a light at that intersection.
Alderperson Lewis asked if DOT had approved that.
Sudol said they do not have final approvals yet, but they are in discussions, and DOT has
indicated that they think it’s appropriate. He said that they think that by putting in the light and a
pedestrian crosswalk, it will make the area feel much more urban and traffic will be slowed
considerably.
Blalock said he thinks the City needs both medical services and additional housing, and if you
were to attempt to provide each of those needs separately, you would end up with more parking
than is being proposed here with the two uses sharing some parking. He also suggested that they
look at improving the pedestrian connections at Third Street.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
9
Applicants agreed.
Chair Lewis asked if anyone had any additional comments.
Alterperson Brock asked the applicant to look at the parking for Building A to see if there are
any alternative arrangements because if residents can only enter and exit via Third Street, they
will have difficulty on the weekends.
Sudol said they had looked at having the driveway connect to the other road previously, but that
resulted in Building A being surrounded by pavement, so they moved it to the other side so
residents would be able to walk out to greenspace. He said they could take another look at it.
Jones said she would like to see an east-west pedestrian path through the site.
Fournier said that the reason they didn’t do that is that if you bring people along the westernmost
edge of the site, they end up hitting the railroad tracks, which is a really unsafe place for them to
go. She said there’s no way to connect to the Waterfront Trail without crossing the railroad
tracks. The safe way is to go out Third Street.
Glass asked if the project would feature green building technologies, or if they haven’t gotten
that far along yet.
Fournier said they would cover that during the architecture discussion, but that is something they
have been looking at internally.
The Board and Council members then discussed dates for possible future joint meetings. They
decided to hold another special joint meeting on September 17.
The Alderpersons then left the meeting.
B. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan, 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie Gensel for
David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval. 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
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
10
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 until May 10, 2016. The Lead Agency filed a Notice of Completion
for the FGEIS on March 5, 2019 and adopted findings on March 26, 2019. The applicant
is now proposing Phase 1 of the project which entails the rehabilitation of buildings 21 and
24.
Applicant Jamie Gensel appeared in front of the Board to present updates to the proposed Phase I
plan. He noted that the paring along Turner Place had been reconfigured.
Director Cornish asked if the angled parking along Building 21 is absolutely necessary. She said
they don’t like to see angled parking on a City street. She explained that cars would be backing
out onto Turner Place, which is not good.
Gensel said he is not sure. He said that would be a question for the developer. He asked if
parallel parking would be an option.
Cornish said that would be more acceptable than the angled parking proposed.
Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Phase I)
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Blalock:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the Phase I of 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
WHEREAS: the overall 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
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
11
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 February 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), and
WHEREAS: on March 26, 2019, the Planning Board adopted the Findings Statement, which was a
“positive” findings statement, meaning that the proposed Project was potentially “approvable” (a relevant
term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has used the Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site
plan, and in considering conditions that should be applied to any approval thereof, and
WHEREAS: In accordance with the City of Code regarding PUDs: “When and if the Planning and
Development Board has completed its environmental review of the project to the extent required under
SEQRA and CEQRO and has issued a contingent site plan approval or in the case of a multiphase project
has issued a preliminary contingent site plan approval of multiple phases along with a final contingent site
plan approval of at least one phase, the project will return to the Common Council for final consideration
of the adoption of the PUD, which at Council's discretion may be authorized for one or all phases of a
multiphase project, and
WHEREAS: as this is a multiphase project, for which the Planning Board granted preliminary site plan
approval for the Conceptual Overall Site Layout Plan on May 28, 2019, with the condition t hat prior to
final site plan approval of Phase 1, the applicant must submit a full site plan review application that includes
all required materials and demonstrates compliance with the FGEIS, the approved conceptual site layout
plan and the proposed Chainworks District PUD and Design Guidelines, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is now seeking final site plan approval for Phase 1 of the project which involves
the redevelopment of the existing Buildings 21 and 24 and associated site work as outlined in the GEIS. As
stated in the GEIS, Building 21 is a four-story building with a total gross floor area (GFA) of 43,400 SF
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
12
and will be redeveloped as commercial/office space. As the original windows of Building 21 were removed
and infilled with panels, the Applicant proposes to remove the panels and install new windows. The concrete
façade will be restored and painted. New aluminum storefront entrances will be installed at the front and
rear main doors. Building 24 is an 117,450 SF, three-story building with a basement level that is partially
exposed. The proposal is to redevelop the basement level and first story as commercial/office space,
redevelop the second and third story as residential, and construct a new fourth story for residential use – for
a total space of 135,450 SF. The existing portion of the building is also concrete that will be restored and
painted. All windows will be replaced in compliance with the current building code. Associated site work
involves the sidewalk and parking area restoration, resurfacing of existing parking areas, pavement
reductions to define the access and parking areas, new sidewalks on Turner Place, landscaping, and limited
site prep for future buildings. Phase I will be accessed via Drives I and II on NYS Route 96B with a
connection through to Building 24. The access to Building 24 also includes access on Turner Place and
South Cayuga Street. Phase 1 is in the proposed CW3B Sub Area of the Chainworks District PUD, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board conducted Design Review on July 23, 2019. The Board determined that
Phase 1 of the project complies with the proposed Design Guidelines, except in the following case: the
roofs of the existing buildings to be renovated do not comply with the solar reflectivity index of 78 as
prescribed by the Design Guidelines (note that the roof of the proposed penthouse addition to building 24
will comply). As the roofs of the existing buildings are structurally sound and do not currently need
replacement, the applicant has requested, and the Board has agreed that this requirement be waived until
such time as the roofs are replaced, and
WHEREAS: the Board has, on August 27, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate the following plans:
“Conceptual Site Plan Layout (CSLP-1)”, “Existing Conditions (CS-2)”, “Demolition and Phasing Plan
(CS-3)”, “Site Plan (CS-4)”, “Building 21 Site Plan (CS-4.1)”, “Building 24 Site Plan (CS-4.2)”,
“Landscaping Plan (CS-5.1 & CS-5.2)”, “Grading Plan (CS-6)”, “Utility Plan (CS-7)”, “Civil Details (CS-
8)”, “E&S Plan (CS-9)”, and “E&S Details (CS-10)”, all with the latest revision date of 08-08-19 and
prepared by Fagan Engineering, and “Building 21 Elevations (A-1)”, “Building 24 Elevations (A-2)”,
“Building 21 Floor Plan (A-3)”, and “Building 24 Floor Plan (A-4)”, all with the latest revision date of 08-
08-19 and prepared by CJS Architects, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to Phases 1 of the proposed Chainworks District Project, subject to the following conditions:
i. Implementation of all mitigations as identified in the adopted Findings Statement and relevant to Phase
1 of the Project, including but not limited to, the following:
An amendment to the existing Record of Decision (ROD) must be approved by NYSDEC. The
amendment will facilitate development of the Site in a manner that protects public health and the
environment under a mixed-use redevelopment scenario with a residential component.
The Site must be: (1) remediated to restricted residential, commercial and/or industrial soil
management objectives (SOCs), as appropriate based on the proposed uses at the Site, or to
protection of groundwater standards if a particular area of the Site experiences impacts to
groundwater above relevant standards; (2) subject to groundwater treatment and/or monitoring in
those areas where groundwater impacts exceed applicable standards; (3) subject to appropriate
use restrictions consistent with the proposed uses at the Site; (4) subject to appropriate
prohibitions on the use of groundwater at the Site without approval from NYSDEC; (5) subject to
development and implementation of an appropriate Soil Management Plan (SMP) and (6) subject
to on-going monitoring that institutional arid/or engineering controls are being properly
implemented and/or maintained.
A Soil Management Plan (SMP) will be developed and implemented by the, property owner and
approved by NYSDEC after completion of the IRMs (Interim Remedial Measures) and issuance
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
13
of the amended ROD which will set forth engineering and institutional controls for that portion of
the Site north of the creek that remains on the IHWDS Registry.
Filing and compliance with an environmental easement that (i) restricts the use of the portion of
the Site still on the IHWDS Registry to Restricted Residential, Commercial and Industrial uses
(as those terms are defined by the relevant NYSDEC regulations );(ii) restricts the use of
groundwater without NYSDEC approval; and (iii) requires the implementation of an SMP.
Relative to Phase I, NYSDOT has specified certain mitigation requirements relative to Route
96B. Specifically, NYSDOT will require the following Phase I mitigations:
o Changing the four-lane section of NY 96B south from the city/town line to past Bella
Vista Dr. by reconfiguring the two southbound lanes to one through lane and
incorporating left turn lanes for both directions at intersections, and hatching where
appropriate.
o Sidewalk will be required along the frontage of the Site on the western side of Route
96B, from the city/town line to the Coddington Rd. intersection.
o The proposed driveway, immediately south of city/town line, will be a one-way ingress
only; no traffic will be allowed to exit onto Route 96B at this location.
The Project Sponsor shall introduce and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips to and from the Site. The following
potential TDM strategies will be considered for Phase I implementation:
o Market-priced parking
o Preferential parking for ridesharing services
o Bicycle parking facilities
o Subsidized transit passes
o Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place)
o Dedicated shuttle service
o Transportation Alternatives Information
o Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca
o Connected and improved pedestrian network within the Phase I limits (i.e., improvements
to sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District No.4)
o Pedestrian oriented design within the Phase I limits
o Bicycle network facilities within the Phase I limits and provide easement to nearby
Gateway Trail
o Follow Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in all
design
o Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business Park
Coverage under the NYSDEC SPDES GC Permit (GP-0-015-002) for erosion and sediment control
will be obtained, and
Additional Conditions:
i. Submission of a revised site plan showing an increased planning area and parallel parking spaces on
Turner Place in front of Building 21, rather than nose-in spaces, and
ii. Adoption of the proposed PUD by Common Council, and
iii. Adoption of the Proposed PDZ by the Town of Ithaca, and
iv. Subdivision of the property shall be completed and shall include a dedicated easement for all portions
of the future Gateway Trial, and
v. The applicant shall notify and update the Board when the ROD Amendment and associated plans and
actions are accepted by NYSDEC and implemented by the applicant, and
vi. The applicant shall notify and update the Board when NYSDOT has issued final approval for
improvements to Route 96B
vii. Submission to the Planning Board of the Transportation Demand Management Plan
viii. Submission of construction management information to include number of contractors, hours of
operations, contractor parking and delivery and hauling routes
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
14
ix. Submission of information regarding bike parking, bike storage and rack type, and
x. Submission of a more detailed landscaping plan showing, among other things, planting specifications,
and
xi. Submission to the Board of a response to the Tompkins County Energy Guidelines, and
xii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of all project details including building materials,
site
xiii. furnishings, signage, lighting, etc., and
xiv. Submission of photometric demonstrating that there will be no light spillage to adjacent sites, and
xv. Approval in writing from the Ithaca Fire Department that all fire access requirements have been
satisfied, and
xvi. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the
sidewalk on private property, if any, and ·
xvii. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and
xviii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
xix. 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: Jones
Seconded by: Blalock
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott, Johnston
Vacancies: None
C. Student Housing, 815 S. Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest for
Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O’Connor. Landscape Compliance Discussion
& Potential Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval. The project applicant proposes
a new 66-unit student housing complex (approximately 17,900 SF footprint) comprised of
three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the
proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) one-bedroom
units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23) three-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 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 existing site
entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the
buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces,
as required by zoning. The property located in the R-3b zoning district. 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) for which the Planning Board as Lead Agency made a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance on July 23, 2019.
Applicants Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative, Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering,
Todd Fox and Laura Matros of Visum Development, and attorney Jon Mancuso appeared before
the Board to present project updates
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
15
Demarest said that they used the landscape compliance method to figure the rear yard setback
and they added a fence to shield the parking lot from Hudson Place, as well as adding a fence
along the north property line. They also updated the planting plans and submitted updated
renderings.
Jones asked how tall the fence is.
Demarest said 6 feet.
The Board then evaluated the proposal with respect to the landscape compliance method criteria.
Chair Lewis said the only strategy the applicants seem to be using is screening. He asked the
Board to consider if that meets the threshold of criteria for their discretionary approval.
Glass said he thinks they ought to address the public feedback they have received regarding the
massing of the project. He said he’s not afraid of density, and though there are adjacency issues
with neighbors, four stories is allowed by zoning. He said his concern is that the applicant has
not put forth alternatives to explore potential fixes to the massing. He said it feels like they have
been talking about it for months but the applicants keep proposing the same plan. He said the
question of the landscape compliance method seems like a small question when confronted with
some of the bigger issues with the project.
Chair Lewis invited comments from the rest of the Board.
Jones said she too is concerned with some of the comments from the public and not seeing
enough adjustments to the project from the applicants. She said she wants to respond to some of
the public comments indicating that the Board is not concerned with safety, or that they don’t
care. She said they very much do care, and that the last time they met they agreed to have a
discussion about the fall zone. She said she thinks the question of massing is related because if
the buildings were smaller or there were fewer buildings, they could locate the parking lot
outside of the fall zone. She said that in other discussions, neighbors on South Hill have
expressed a desire to get more families into the neighborhood increase the numbers of owner-
occupied houses, and this project would do that. It would pull a lot of students out of the
neighborhood. So though this project addresses that concern, people don’t like it for other
reasons.
She said that this is a desirable place to live, which is why we’re experiencing growth. She said
she doesn’t buy into the notion that those of us who have lived here a long time are entitled to it
not changing. She said she is on the fence about the project.
Blalock agreed that the City is growing and we need more housing. He said that means we can
either build housing in the City or outside of it and people then have to drive in. He said that he
thinks that when and if it’s built, people will recognize that it is providing safe housing near
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
16
campus and relieving pressure on the existing housing in the South Hill neighborhood. He said
that on the whole, he thinks it’s a good project.
Petrina said that she has also been on the fence, but she thinks that ultimately, the positives
outweigh the negatives. She said that she thinks the location is good. This is the right place for a
higher density development on South Hill.
Chair Lewis agreed. He said there aren’t a lot of places that would work for a project with this
kind of density. The need for housing is desperate. He said that process-wise the project has been
difficult for reasons that go beyond public sentiment. He then asked if the Board agrees with
Glass’ analysis that the proposal meets the requirements of the landscape compliance method.
Board members agreed.
The Board then discussed the language proposed for the lease and for the signage in the parking
lot warning residents that they are within the fall zone. Board and applicants agreed that the
applicant would submit the lease language once finalized. They also agreed that the language of
the signs would be something like “Tower fall zone no assembly,” and final language and
placement locations would be submitted to the Board as a condition for final approval.
The Board then considered final approval for the project, but Glass and Jones wanted to request
changes. Vote split 3-2.
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Jones, and approved unanimously,
~ VOTE RESCINDED ~
Chair Lewis asked Glass and Jones to inform the applicant of what they would like to see
changed.
Jones said she would like them to consider changes to the materials and colors. She requested
higher quality materials. She also said that the design doesn’t feel either residential or urban to
her, but rather like a suburban hotel. She also suggested they consider step backs and more
articulation.
Glass requested materials changes and revisions to the architecture.
The Board asked applicants to return to with revised designs and materials.
Chair Lewis called a five-minute recess at 8:33 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
17
D. Immaculate Conception Redevelopment Project (Mixed Use Housing), 320 W
Buffalo Street by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Review of FEAF Part 3
& Board Comments on PUD to Council. The project involves the
renovation/conversion of the existing two-story former school building into a mixed-
use building, a new four-story apartment building, (2) three unit townhome buildings,
(1) four-unit townhome building, the renovation/conversion of a single-family home
into a two-family home, and the renovation of the “Catholic Charities” Building. The
overall project will contain 79 dwelling units with 130 bedrooms. Total increase in
square footage on the site will be 49,389 SF, from 62,358 to 111,747. 9,274 SF of new
and existing space in the former school will be commercial use. Site development will
require demolition of one wing of the existing school building and one single-family
home. The project also includes greenspace areas, 48 surface parking spaces and other
site amenities. The property is located in the R-2b zoning district; however, the
applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
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)(6), and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11).
Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative appeared in front of the Board to present project
updates.
The Board prepared a memo to Common Council recommending they approve the PUD proposal
for the project.
Text of the memo is included below:
Memorandum
To: Common Council
From: Planning & Development Board
Date: September 3, 2019
RE: Planning Board Comments on the Proposal for Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning for the
INHS project to be located at 320-324 and 330 W Buffalo St and 309 N Plain Street.
At their August 27, 2019 meeting, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the above referenced
proposal and agreed to provide the following comments:
The Planning Board has been working with the applicant for several months through the site
plan review process. The Board anticipates completing environmental review at their
September 24, 2019 meeting.
The Board supports residential use in this location, proximate to an elementary school, parks,
recreation facilities, services, shopping and public transportation.
The Board feels that the position of the buildings on the site, their heights and the proposed
uses as allowed under the proposed PUD, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
fabric.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
18
The Board feels that the proposed PUD is an appropriate response to the City’s long-term
planning goals and needs as outlined in the comprehensive plan.
The Board supports the adaptive reuse of buildings with historical importance to the
community.
The Board supports the future creation of a mural facing Beverly J Martin Elementary School to
further integrate the project into the fabric of the neighborhood.
E. Commercial Building – 3,450 SF, 410 Elmira Road by PW Campbell for Visions
Credit Union. Recommendation to BZA & Potential Consideration of Final Site
Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 SF commercial building
with a drive-through, parking area for 20 cars, a 940 SF amphitheater, and associated
site improvements on the 1.56 acre project site. The site is currently vacant. The project
site is in the SW-3 Zoning district and has received the required area variances. The
project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. This has been determined
to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(11) for which the Planning Board as Lead Agency made a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance on July 23, 2019.
Applicants Mitch Leech of PW Campbell Contracting, Lisa Darling and Joe Liguori of Visions
Federal Credit Union, and Garth Winterkorn of Costich Engineering appeared in front of the
Board to present project updates.
Chair Lewis asked the applicant to respond to comments from the public made during the
Privilege of the Floor.
Leech said it appeared that the individual who had spoken about the project had not seen the
letter of intent Visions had issued related to the amphitheater, nor the trip gen report. He said that
he thinks that those two documents address his concerns.
Chair Lewis urged them to reach out to the neighbor who had concerns.
Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for the construction of a 3,450 SF commercial building and associated site
improvements located at 410 Elmira Road by PW Campbell for Visions Credit Union, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 SF commercial building with a drive-through,
parking area for 20 cars, a 940 SF amphitheater, and associated site improvements on the 1.56 acre project
site. The site is currently vacant. The project site is in the SW-3 Zoning district and requires area variances.
The project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines, and
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
19
WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(11),
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving
and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on June 25, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental
review of the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and
176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on June 25, 2019, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on July 23, 2019
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff and the following drawings: “Existing Features
/Demolition Plan (CA100)”, “Site and Pavements Marking Plan (CA110)”, “Utility Plan (CA120)”,
“Grading and Erosion Control Plan (CA130)”, “Lighting Plan (EA100)” and all dated 7/10/19 and “Detail
Sheet (CA500 & 501)” dated 5/17/19 and “Landscape Plan (LA100)” dated 7/18/19 and “Exhibit A
(CE100)” dated 7/17/19 and all prepared by Costich Engineering, and “Proposed Building Elevations
(A201 202 & 203), and “Proposed Site Plan (A101)” dated 7/12/19 and “Proposed Amphitheater Floor Plan
(A102)” and “Proposed Amphitheater Elevations (A204)” dated 5/17/19 and all prepared by PW Campbell,
and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County
Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered,
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated
in the FEAF, that the applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment,
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on July 23, 2019 determine the
proposed project would will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board has, on August 27, 2019 reviewed and accepted the following revised and
drawings: “Existing Features /Demolition Plan (CA100)”, “Grading and Erosion Control Plan (CA130)”,
“Lighting Plan (EA100)”, 7/18/19; “Landscape Plan (LA100)” dated 8/16/19; “Site and Pavements
Marking Plan (CA110)”, “Utility Plan (CA120)” and “Detail Sheet (CA500 & 501)” dated 8/20/19 all
prepared by Costich Engineering, and “Proposed Building Elevations (A203) dated 8/20 -19 prepared by
PW Campbell, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary & final subdivision
approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Granting of the required area variance by the Boards of Zoning Appeals, and
ii. Submission of revised keyed and colored east elevation showing more interest and/or submission
of a revised landscape plan showing more planting, and
iii. Submission of final sign package for staff-level review, and
iv. Staff level verification that lighting and signage do not cause light spillage to nearby natural areas,
and
v. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
20
vi. SWPPP must be approved before issuance of Building permit, and
vii. Bike racks must be installed before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and
viii. 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., and
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott, Johnston
Vacancies: None
F. Student Apartments, 238 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development.
Design Review. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 SF commercial building
with a drive-through, parking area for 20 cars, a 940 SF amphitheater, and associated
site improvements on the 1.56 acre project site. The site is currently vacant. The
project site is in the SW-3 Zoning district and will likely require an area variance. The
project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. This has been determined
to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(11).
Noah Demarest and Brandon Ebel of STREAM Collaborative, and Todd Fox of Visum
Development appeared in front of the Board to present project updates.
The Board did a brief design review and reviewed materials samples.
Director Cornish noted that it’s true that the property is currently subject to legal action, but that
the Board can continue its review on a separate track.
G. City Harbor, 101 Pier Road by Jessica Edger-Hillman. Project Presentation &
Declaration of Lead Agency. The 11.09-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of
privately-owned land and 2.76 acres of adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The
applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and make improvements to
2.76 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned tax
parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF
medical office building, (2) five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF
and 111 housing units, (1) five-story mixed use building with 77,800 GFA with 45
housing units, 15,743 SF of ground floor commercial (expected to be a restaurant), and
(1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating and other recreational
activities associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course.
Improvements on City property in Phase 1 of the plan include the rebuilding of Pier
Road to include sidewalks, street trees, a fire engine turnaround, and additional and
reorganized parking. After Phase I, the applicant proposes to realign the end of Pier
Road, extend it to a new clubhouse and add parking. Site improvements on private
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
21
property to include a 1,570-foot publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla
Creek, including construction of a new seawall and replacement of existing docks,
waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal circulation streets, bus stops, surface parking
for 400 cars, and landscaping. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2),
(i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v).
Scott Whitham and Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design, Steven Hugo of HOLT
Architects, David Herrick of TG Miller, PC, and project sponsors Linc Morse, Elizabeth
Ambrose, and Jessica Edger-Hillman appeared in front of the Board to present project updates.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for the construction of mixed use development and associated site improvements to be
located at 101 Pier Road, and
WHEREAS: The 11.09-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of privately-owned land and 2.76 acres of
adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and
make improvements to 2.76 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned
tax parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF medical office
building, (2) five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF and 111 housing units, (1) five-
story mixed use building with 77,800 GFA with 45 housing units, 15,743 SF of ground floor commercial
(expected to be a restaurant), and (1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating and other
recreational activities associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course. Improvements on
City property in Phase 1 of the plan include the rebuilding of Pier Road to include sidewalks, street trees,
a fire engine turnaround, and additional and reorganized parking. After Phase I, the applicant proposes to
realign the end of Pier Road, extend it to a new clubhouse and add parking. Site improvements on private
property to include a 1,570-foot publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla Creek, including
construction of a new seawall and replacement of existing docks, waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal
circulation streets, bus stops, surface parking for 400 cars, and landscaping, and
WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2), (i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v), and
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
22
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council, Ithaca Board of Public Works, Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency, Tompkins County Department of Health, NYS Department of
Transportation, and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 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.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Petrina
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott, Johnston
Vacancies: None
5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals
# 3134 – 410 Elmira Road, Area Variance
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal
for several reason. First, in regard to street frontage deficiency, the site is large and essential bordered
by three streets. The Board feels that the position and size of the building are appropriate and that the
amphitheater and proposed fence mitigate the deficiency in building frontage and are in keeping with
the intentions of the SW Design Guidelines. In regard to the setback deficiency, the proposed building is
correctly positioned on the site and is in line with the building to the north. Finally, in regard to the
loading deficiency, the Board appreciates the applicant’s thoughtful design of the parking area and
agrees that this type of business does not require a dedicated loading area.
# 3135 – 215 Wood Street, Area Variance
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and finds the proposal
reasonable.
# 3131 – 115 Seneca Way – Area Variance
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
Board has reviewed the signage package on multiple occasions and the applicant has made design changes to
address any concerns. The sign package is appropriate in scale and position and fits the character of
downtown.
6. Old/New Business
Inclusionary Zoning/Zoning to Promote Affordable Housing
Staff will prepare a report and send it out before October.
Approved by the Planning & Development Board on October 22, 2019
23
Sexual Harassment Training
Board members need to complete training by mid-September.
Green Building Code – September 24 Agenda
Sustainability Planner Nick Goldsmith will present at the September meeting.
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
Blalock reported that projects recently completed include the sanitary sewer on College Ave., the
Aurora Street bridge, and the Dryden Road garage. Phase two of the Inclusive Playground in
Stewart Park is going to begin soon. Also, Santec has been hired to do a parking study.
C. Director of Planning & Development
Director Cornish said the Board would get a memo within a week or so for comment on the
proposed amendments to the W. State Street zoning revisions being considered by Common
Council.
8. Adjournment:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Glass, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
SCHLATHER, STUMBAR, PARKS & SALK, LLP
RAYMOND M. SCHLATHER
JAMES A. SALK
ArroRNEYS AT LAw DIANE v. BRUNs
JEFFREY D. WALKER
Associates
EUZABETH M. ALDRIDGE
JACOB P. McNAMARA
SUJATA S. GIBSON
MARIA v. FERNANDEZ-GAIGE
HAND DELIVERY
200 EAsT BUFFALO STREET
P.O.BOX353
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851
TELEPHONE (607) 273-2202
FACSIMILE (607) 273-4436 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS)
www.ithacalaw.com
August 27, 2019
City of Ithaca, Planning & Development Board
c/o JoAnne Cornish, Director
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, New York
14850
Re: 238 Dryden Road, Site Plan Review
Dear Members of the Planning and Development Board:
L. RICHARD STUMBAR, OF COUNSEL
DARIUS K. LIND, OF COUNSEL
MARTIN A. LUSTER, RETIRED
MICHAEL LoPINTO (1915-1987)
DAVID MAKOTO PARKS (1969-2016)
This firm represents ENP Associates, LP. This is a follow-up to our letter of
July 26, 2019 concerning the Planning and Development review of this project.
Our concerns about the pace and substance of this project persist.
As discussed in our 7/26/19 letter, Summit Avenue, including the southern
bed and the location at which this project is proposed to occur, is the subject of
pending litigation (EPG Associates, LP and ENP Associates, LP v Cascadilla School,
eta/. -Index# EF2017-0025). The purpose of this litigation is to establish the
rights of adjacent landowners, the City of Ithaca and the public with respect to the
use and ownership of Summit Avenue, historically extending from Oak Avenue to
Dryden Road. As proposed, the 238 Dryden Road project will unreasonably impede
--if not totally extinguish --the existing rights of the public, including the long-time
pedestrian public, the neighboring landowners --some of whom have deeded
easements --and the City, in the southern bed of Summit Avenue as a
thoroughfare to Dryden Road (see 238 Dryden Road Site Plan Review Materials,
initial submission, pp 23-24). Notably, Visum's claim to the Summit Avenue
corridor part of the property is by quitclaim deed only. Indeed, even Visum's
attorney concedes that the "exact scope of what could be built in those areas ["Area
A" and "Area B" as shown in the 238 Site Plan], is (and probably will remain)
unclear, as those areas are subject to easements benefitting the owners of the
parcels abutting Summit Avenue" (see 1/17/2019 email from Seth Hiland, Esq, to
Brandon Ebel at STREAM Collaborative, attached). Moreover, in an early design of
this project, STREAM Collaborative identified a concern about a 10-foot "easement,"
which extends through the corridor of Summit Avenue southerly to Dryden Road
(see attached highlighted preliminary design, dated September 19, 2018)
Historically, pedestrians have had unobstructed accesss along that pathway from
Oak Avenue to Dryden Road.
Significant additional problems exist in the proposal, including, among other
things, that:
(1) By revised site plan submitted to this Board by the same architect in
June 2018, the developer represented to this Board that this very same
site (south end of Summit Avenue) would be a "pocket park," including
a bioretention green space; no mention was made of any other
development of this site, even though it now appears from sworn
testimony that the developer already had been planning this 238
Project building;
(2) The building location and design will impede City fire apparatus aerial
access (fire lane), which has not yet been evaluated or approved by the
City of Ithaca Fire Chief (Tom Parsons);
(3) The new stormwater drainage management improvements, which will
replace the bioretention system that had been approved for the 232-
236 Project, with a buried sand filter in the bed of Summit Avenue,
require full environmental quality review (SEQR), and evaluation of
structural integrity (e.g., in relation to the 75,000 lb weight capacity
requirement for the fire apparatus access road);
( 4) The Plan is contingent on the Board of Zoning Appeals' approval of at
least 3 variances, including variances for: (a) a 10-foot rear yard
setback; (b) a deficiency in lot coverage; and (c) a deficiency in
landscaped area; and
(5) The proposed construction of descending stairs which lead to the 238
subfloor, on the east side of the building totally obstructs the 10-foot
pedestrian right of way referenced above, extending in the corridor of
Summit Street to Dryden Road.
Finally, as outlined in our previous letter, the Planning Board has historically
refrained from passing on a particular proposal for Site Plan Review until
outstanding disputes with respect to that property are resolved (see e.g., Board of
Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes, 9/4/18 [209 Hudson Street, LLC Proposal], citing
Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes, 7/24/18 and 8/28/18). Here, it
is a waste of municipal resources to consider this proposal.
2
We respectfully ask that the Board refrain from further action concerning the
238 Dryden Road project at this time.
Respectfully yours,
RMS/mvf
cc: ENP Associates, LP.
3
--I ~ STREAM COLLABORATNE
· architecture+ landscape architecture dpc
'
1 108 W. State St., 2nd Floor
i Ithaca, NY 14850
. office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707
'
; email: Brandon@streamcolab.com
: www.streamcolab.com
Virus-free. www.avast.com
Statement of Confidentiality
This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system and advise the sender.