HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2021-06-22Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
1
Planning and Development Board Minutes
June 22, 2021
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair;
Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass; Elisabete Godden; Emily
Petrina; C.J. Randall
Board Members Absent:
None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Nikki Cerra, Environmental and Landscape Planner, Division of
Planning and Economic Development
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Revision to Approved Subdivision, Carpenter Circle (Tax Parcel
36.-1-3.5)
Tony Votaw, Cayuga Medical Center
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design
Matt Newcomb, Passero Associates
Apartments (347 Units) & Parking, 401 E. State/MLK Jr. Street
(Gateway Property)
Jeff Githens, Peak Campus
James Trasher, CHA Companies
Tim Fish, Cooper Carey
815 S Aurora
Patrick Braga, Visum Development
Mixed-Use Building, 510 W State Street
Brandon Ebel, Stream Collaborative
Patrick Braga, Visum Development
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
2
Commercial Building (KFC), 405 Elmira Road
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering
Rich Wilkinson, KBP Investment
Student Housing (40 Units), 228 Dryden Road
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering
Heinrich Fischer, landscape architect
Cliff Street Retreat, 407 Cliff Street
Craig Modisher, Stream Collaborative
Linc Morse, developer
615-617 Cascadilla Street
Daniel Hirtler, architect
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
3
Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, this meeting was conducted remotely via
the online meeting platform Zoom. Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Godden
and Randall arrived late.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas said that the applicants for 815 S. Aurora might be appearing to
present proposed project changes.
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the February 23, 2021 and May 25, 2021 minutes
were approved with no modifications.
Record of vote
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Glass
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina,
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Godden, Randall
Vacancies: None
3. Public Comments
Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor.
Deputy Director Nicholas read into the record written comments received from Christine
O'Malley of Historic Ithaca:
Dear Planning Board Members:
Several proposed projects on the June agenda indicate that the applicants will
demolish existing buildings for their new projects. They are:
• 615‐617 Cascadilla Street – demolish one existing two‐story residential
house
• 228 Dryden Road – demolish the existing two‐story structure
• 510 W State/MLK Jr Blvd – remove the one‐story commercial building
fronting on State Street and two‐story wood frame house fronting on W
Seneca Street
As you know, the demolition and removal of these structures means the
considerable loss of embodied energy through existing building materials. To help
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
4
divert the volume of materials headed to landfills and keep items out of the waste
stream, Historic Ithaca and Significant Elements requests that the Planning and
Development Board question the applicants about their plans for any opportunities
for salvage of materials from the existing buildings or deconstruction of the
buildings. Will any of the applicants allow for local non‐profits such as Historic Ithaca
and our Significant Elements store to do a survey visit before the proposed
demolition in order to remove material such as doors, windows, fixtures, etc.? We
support the City of Ithaca's green building initiatives and hope that more sustainable
approaches can also be adopted when existing buildings are being replaced by new
construction.
Thank you very much for considering this request.
Christine O'Malley
Preservation Services Coordinator
Hector Chang of Bike Walk Tompkins spoke in favor of the project proposed for 510 W.
State Street. He said that the shortage of affordable housing has long been a challenge
for the City of Ithaca. He said he’s excited to see 58 families be able to live in the City,
especially those who might not be able to afford to do so currently, particularly in a
walkable, bikeable neighborhood with a variety of transit options so people don’t have
to own a car. He then thanked the Board for their time.
There being no other members of the public appearing to speak, nor any additional written
comments submitted to be read into the record, Chair Lewis closed the Public Comment period.
4. Board Response to Public Comment
5. Subdivision
A. Revision to Approved Subdivision, Carpenter Circle (Tax Parcel 36.-1-3.5) by Park Grove
Realty for Cayuga Medical Center. Approval of Revisions. The Planning Board approved the
subdivision for the property on November 24, 2020. The applicant now seeks revisions to the
approved subdivision in order to incorporate lands that are subject to a land transfer between the
property owner and the City that will result in the reconfiguration of a portion of the Ithaca
Community Gardens. The revised description is as follows: The applicant proposing to subdivide
tax parcel 36.‐1‐3.5 which measures 8.57 acres and contains the current road and a 7,000 SF
building into (3) lots. Lot 1 would measure 4.834 acres (210,563 SF); Lot 2 would measure 3.01
acres (131,116 SF); and lot 3 would measure .83 acres (36,198 SF). The property is in the Carpenter
Circle Planned Unit Development (CCPUD) adopted (with conditions) by Common Council on
November 4, 2020. The subdivision is needed to implement the approved site plan for the
Carpenter Circle Redevelopment Project. A cross‐property easement will be needed in order to
demonstrate access to all parcels, and this subdivision is part of a larger development project that
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
5
was classified as 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) ), for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on May 26,
2020 issue a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the entire project and all its
components.
Tony Votaw of Cayuga Medical Center, Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning and Design, and
Matt Newcomb of Passero Associates appeared in front of the Board. Newcomb presented the
revised subdivision proposal to include a land swap agreement, conveying lands to the City and
various improvements to the Public Gardens.
Godden joined during the presentation at 6:15 p.m.
Jones asked how involved the Community Gardens team was in the subdivision.
Newcomb said they were very closely involved from the beginning.
Adopted Resolution for Revisions to the Final Subdivision Approval
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board granted final subdivision approval for a major subdivision at City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 36.-1-3.5 St by Park Grove Realty, owner, on November 24, 2020, and WHEREAS:, the proposal was to subdivide tax parcel 36.-1-3.5 which measures 8.57 acres and contains the current road and a 7,000 SF building into (3) lots. Lot 1 would measure 2.08 acres (90,625 SF); lot 2 would measure 5.66 acres (246,618 SF); and lot 3 would measure .83 acres (36,198 SF). The property is in the Carpenter Circle Planned Unit Development (CCPUD) adopted (with conditions) by Common Council on November 4, 2020. The subdivision is needed to implement the approved site plan for the Carpenter Circle Redevelopment Project. A cross-property easement will be needed in order to demonstrate access to
all parcels, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Major Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter
290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in the creation of two or more additional buildable lots, and
WHEREAS: this subdivision is part of a larger development project that was classified as 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) ), and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on May 26, 2020 issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the entire project and all its components, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
6
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed subdivision and any received
comments have been considered, WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 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 October 27, 2020, and WHEREAS: Subdivision Approval was subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission of executed cross-property easements – providing access to all proposed parcels to Third Street via the proposed internal road, and ii. Submission of three paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature
of a registered licensed surveyor, and WHEREAS: The applicant now seeks revisions to the approved subdivision in order to incorporate lands
that are subject to a land transfer between the property owner and the City that will result in the reconfiguration of a portion of the Ithaca Community Gardens. The revised description is as follows: The applicant proposing to subdivide tax parcel 36.-1-3.5 which measures 8.57 acres and contains the current road and a 7,000 SF building into (3) lots. Lot 1 would measure 4.834 acres (210,563 SF); Lot 2 would measure 3.01 acres (131,116 SF); and lot 3 would measure .83 acres (36,198 SF), and WHEREAS: The Planning Board has, on June 22, 2021, reviewed and accepted a s adequate a revised subdivision plat titled Proposed Subdivision, Carpenter Business Park, Third Street at New York State Route 13, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, prepared by Passero Associates and dated January 2021, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: The Planning Board has determined that the proposed revisions are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and no additional environmental review is required, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does herby grant approval to the proposed revisions subject to the following condition:
i. Submission of three paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock, Glass, Godden, Jones, Lewis, Petrina, Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None
6. Site Plan Approval
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
7
A. Apartments (347 Units), Parking & Major Subdivision 401 E State/MLK Jr Street
(Gateway Property) by Jeff Githens for McKinley Development Company. Updates &
Review of Site Plan Conditions. The applicant proposes to construct a seven‐story building
with a 267‐space internal parking garage and (347) apartments mixed between studio, one‐, two‐
and three‐bedroom units. Non‐vehicular building access will be provided off State/MLK Jr Street,
as well as internal to the site. The project includes other site improvements including the
extension of the Gateway Trail to the end of the site, landscaping, lighting, and other site
amenities. Project development will require the demolition of the existing one‐story building at
the eastern end of the property. The project is in the CDB‐60 Zoning District. It requires an area
variance for height and Design Review for compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. It
may also require actions by Common Council and/or the Board of Public Works related to
relocation of the existing utility easements on site. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176‐4 B.(1)(b), (h)[2] and [4], (k) and (n) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (5)(iii) and (9) for which the Lead Agency
made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 25, 2021.
Jeff Githens of Peak Campus, James Trasher of CHA Companies, and Tim Fish of Cooper Carey
appeared in front of the Board
Trasher presented landscape updates.
Fish presented further landscapes updates, façade changes (re‐addition of the Juliet balconies),
and updates to materials (brick size change).
Petrina expressed support for the additional balconies. She said the brick size seems
appropriate for the size of the building, and she said she likes the perspectives in the east and
west elevations provided. She asked about parking for the neighboring Gateway Property.
Githens said they wouldn’t take away the immediately adjacent parking (at least most of it),
and he said they were planning on providing off‐site parking at a nearby lot and providing a
shuttle.
Jones asked if they have any commitment to using local or union labor.
J. Githens said that in talking with the IDA recently in regards to the tax abatements applied for,
they set a goal of 35 percent local labor, although in practice, they would use many of the same
companies as City Centre, which came in close to 50 percent local.
Jones asked if they would include affordable units or payments in lieu of.
Githens said about $5,000 per unit, for a total of about $1.7 Mil in payments in lieu of
affordable units, payable in advance of approval of the tax abatements.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
8
Glass said he wanted to see the landscape plans developed in much greater detail, including
renderings and night views with lighting.
Godden said she thinks the elevations are heading in the right direction. She said the larger
brick is fine. She said she would favor the whole retaining wall being terraced, instead of a
single terrace. She asked about the rental price range.
Githens said they would be comparable to City Centre or Harold’s Square, with a studio at
around $1,750, a one‐bedroom at $2,000, a two‐bedroom at $2,500, and a three‐bedroom at
around $3,000 per month.
Deputy Director Nicholas said she is not in favor of the reduction of balconies, and she
preferred the larger and more numerous balconies shown previously.
Glass and Lewis expressed support for including more balconies.
Githens said that some of their considerations are programmatic, and some relate to materials
cost increases, and they are trying to weigh those and make smart decisions.
Jones asked about percent greenspace versus impermeable surfaces on site.
The Board next reviewed the draft of conditions.
Chair Lewis asked about next steps.
Deputy Director Nicholas said they had to return to the BZA, and if they receive the necessary
variances, they could return for preliminary (and possibly preliminary and final) approvals.
Board members asked for more information on maintenance of public spaces, more details on
the landscape plan and the pass‐through, a rendering of the building from State Street, and
more views of the balconies.
B. Student Housing 815 S. Aurora Street by Noah Demarest for Project Sponsors Todd
Fox & Charlie O’Connor. Consideration of Project Changes (Materials). The Planning
Board approved this project in September 2019. The applicant is now requesting a
change to the building materials that would allow the exterior walls to be assembled
off‐site.
Patrick Braga appeared in front of the Board to provide details on the materials revisions
proposed for the student housing apartment building proposed at 815 S. Aurora Street: brick
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
9
below, EIFS in the center sections, metal panels on the parapet closest to road, and metallic
painted EIFS panels farther back.
Board members expressed support for the reintroduction of the brick.
Petrina requested elevations for the record.
Chair Lewis asked the applicants to return with the drawings and asked staff to prepare an
updated resolution for the next month’s meeting.
Braga agreed.
C. Mixed-Use Building, 510 W State/MLK Jr Blvd by Visum Development. Review of FEAF
Part 3, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to the BZA.
The applicant has updated the project from an application previously submitted in 2019. The
applicant proposes to remove the one‐story commercial building fronting on State Street and two‐
story wood frame house fronting on W Seneca Street, and to construct a 60,953 SF, four‐ and five‐
story mixed‐use apartment building. The proposed building will contain 58 dwelling units which
will be affordable to households making 50‐ to 80‐percent AMI, community spaces, indoor bike
parking, and 942 SF of retail space fronting State Street. The .413‐acre project site comprises two
tax parcels and has frontage on W. State, N. Corn, and W. Seneca Streets and is in two zoning
districts: CBD‐52, in which the maximum height is 52 feet, and B‐2d, in which the maximum height
is 40 feet. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance §176‐4 B(1)(h)[4], (k) & (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). The project is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines and will
requires an area variance.
Patrick Braga of Visum Development and Brandon Ebel of Stream Collaborative appeared in
front of the Board.
The Board and applicants reviewed concerns about noise, vibration and other impacts on the
nearby properties, and driven piles versus CMC piles, while reviewing the Part III. Discussion
centered around mitigations to minimize impacts on the neighbors during construction.
Godden said that given the proximity to construction the neighbors are going to complain
either way, and it seems to her this is a Neg Dec.
Blalock said that as far as property concerns are involved, while the developer may have a right
to develop the site within the limits of what’s allowable by law, the neighbors also have the
right to quiet enjoyment. He said he would like more information about how much noise and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
10
vibration would be acceptable and/or see a mutually amenable agreement in place between
the neighbors and the developer. He said no one would argue that you can drive piles at 3 a.m.
Godden said this seems acceptable per industry standards.
Board members generally agreed that they want to see more information on what constitutes
an acceptable level of noise and vibration. Glass requested a comparison of the two types of
piles. Petrina shared a DEC document that provided guidance on acceptable levels of noise
during construction.
Resolution for a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance ~Tabled~
D. Commercial Building (KFC), 405 Elmira Road by Rich Wilkinson KBP Investment.
Updates. The applicant proposes to construct a new 2,200 SF drive‐through restaurant
on the vacant .74‐acre parcel. The project also includes 23 parking spaces, curbing,
dumpster enclosure, landscaping lighting, signage, and new pavement markings. Project
site currently serves as surface parking and vehicular circulation for the adjacent
commercial building. The project is in the SW‐2 zoning district and will require area
variances for front yard, building width, parking setback, and signage. The project includes
modifications to the pavement and markings on the adjacent property. This is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Adam Fishel from Marathon Engineering presented project updates, including an updated
planting plan, the addition of a railing around the patio, and other minor changes. He said they
had been in contact with State Parks in regards to connecting a sidewalk on site to the trail
behind, so that Board request was moving forward.
Rich Wilkinson of KPB Investments said he had submitted EIFS color samples to the City. He also
said that they would not be going with the stone and alternate color scheme suggested at the
PRC, as that design was several decades old and no longer in use.
Glass said that he had appreciated the design of the other store when he was in Cleveland, as
that location was also in an area with a focus on automobiles (like Elmira Road is), but many of
the buildings there adhered to a more traditional type of architecture. He said that that
downplays the primacy of cars there and lends it a nicer character.
Most Board members were appreciative of the suggestion to include higher quality materials,
but were also okay with the EIFS in bright, brand centric colors.
During design review, Petrina asked for windows to be recessed within the panels to provide
relief, high quality joints between panels and coping details at the cornice.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
11
Wilkinson said the EIFS system here will not be panelized. It will be field applied, and there will
be no breaks between surfaces. He said it will be serviceable and he will supply any design
details the Board requests.
The Board next formulated their recommendation to the BZA, which is included at the end of
these minutes.
E. Apartments (40 Units), 228 Dryden Road by 228 Dryden LLC. Public Hearing and Design
Review. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two‐story structure and to
construct an apartment building with 40 units on the .185‐acre project site. The building
will be four stories above average grade and one basement story below average grade for
a total of five stories. The project includes other site amenities such as landscaping,
walkways, and outdoor patios. The project site is in the CR‐4 zoning district and requires
an area variance for rear yard setback. It is also subject to Collegetown Design Guidelines.
This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176‐4 B.(1)(k) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (10)
and is subject to environmental review.
Nathan Brown and Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering, and
landscape architect Heinrich Fischer appeared in front of the Board.
Brown provided updates to the landscape and hardscape design.
The Board members expressed support for the proposal.
Blalock asked what variances they would be seeking from the BZA.
Brown said they would need a rear yard and a lot area variance, although the new building
would be farther back from the rear property line than is the current one, and would align with
the Lux next door.
Petrina asked for a site plan showing the building in context with the neighboring buildings.
Glass lost his internet connection, and Randall joined the meeting around 8:30.
Deputy Director Nicholas asked for more landscape details, and the inclusion of curbs around
the plantings out front to protect them. She also asked for an inventory of all trees to be
removed, noting the City Forester had said that one very large one was slated for removal.
At Godden’s request, the Board took a five‐minute recess in advance of the next project.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
12
F. Cliff Street Retreat, 407 Cliff Street by Linc Morse. Declaration of Lead Agency. The
applicant proposes to convert a 25,297 SF industrial building into a multi‐use building
which will include long and short‐term residential rentals, small conference and lounge
spaces office, and retail. The applicant applied for a rezoning through the PUD process as
the project is in the R‐3a zone, in which the past industrial use and proposed uses are
legally non‐conforming. The renovated building will comply with 2020 NYS building code
and the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Site improvements include new building
facades, more well‐defined parking areas, landscaping, dark‐sky compliant site lighting,
street facing entries, and garden/terrace spaces facing the hillside. This is a Type 1 Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176‐4 B.(1)(h)[3] and
is subject to environmental review.
Craig Modisher of Stream Collaborative and developer Linc Morse appeared in front of the
Board to discuss the proposal for a mixed‐use redevelopment of the former Incodema site. The
redevelopment will include office, retail, and short‐ and longer‐term rentals. The building will
be re‐skinned and made more energy efficient. The goal is to activate the street view and
increase air and light with the addition of many new windows. Applicants are also proposing a
public path connecting to the Children’s Garden below.
Jones had a positive response to the adaptive re‐use. She asked about the breakdown on the
shorter‐ and longer‐term residency. She expressed support for the trail connection, and she
asked for more detail on curb cuts, signage, and traffic patterns.
Godden reacted favorably as well, saying she likes the back decks.
Randall asked about how many tax parcels involved and about ownership of the land to the
east.
Modisher said there are six tax parcels involved in the project, and they have begun talks with
the City (owner of the land to the east) to make arrangements for the path.
Glass was also positive on the adaptive re‐use. He asked if there would be any views to the Inlet
fron the back, or if it’s too densely wooded. He also urged them to study the ingress and egress
issues in terms of safety with the curb cuts.
Petrina and Blalock also expressed support.
Modisher said they are looking at (6) short‐term rentals, (6) longer‐term rentals, and about (6)
retail spaces that could possibly be combined, depending on the tenants. He said they are
currently looking at keeping the existing curb cuts (as DOT doesn’t usually like to add them), but
they are in talks with them. He said they are hoping that the traffic will actually be lessened and
safety enhanced, especially as tractor trailers will no longer be accessing the site. He said that
hoping as well to have views of the Inlet, as there are a lot of invasive species they will be
looking to remove.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
13
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency
On a motion by Godden seconded by Blalock:
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 approval for a conversion of a 25,297 SF industrial building into a multi-use building by Linc Morse, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to convert a 25,297-SF industrial building into a multi-use building which will include long- and short-term residential rentals, small conference and lounge spaces, office space, and retail. The applicant applied for a rezoning through the PUD process, as the project is in the R-
3a zone, in which the past industrial use and the proposed uses are legally non-conforming. The renovated building will comply with 2020 NYS building code and the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Site improvements include new building façades, more well-defined parking areas, landscaping, dark-sky
compliant site lighting, street-facing entries, and garden/terrace spaces facing the hillside, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176‐4 B.(1)(h)[3] and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: The Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency, Tompkins County Department of Health, NYS Department of Transportation and the City of Ithaca Common Council, all potentially Involved Agencies in environmental review have consented to the Board acting as Lead Agency, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Godden Seconded by: Blalock In favor: Blalock, Godden, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None
Absent: None Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
14
G. (4) Two-Family Dwellings at 615-617 Cascadilla Street by Stavros Stavropoulos.
Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to combine three
existing parcels, 615 and 617 Cascadilla Street zoned R‐2b, and 513 N Meadows St zoned
WEDZ‐1b to create a new parcel totaling .403 acres. The applicant proposes to demolish
one existing two‐story residential house and then construct four buildings each with two
3‐bedroom units, equaling 4,899 SF total building area in the R‐2b area of the parcel. The
required off‐street parking will occupy the WEDZ‐1b area of the parcel, extending into the
buildable area of the R‐2b parcel. The project includes other site amenities such as lighted
walks, covered bike parking, and landscaping. Automobile access will be on North
Meadow Street and existing curb cuts on Cascadilla Street will be removed. Pedestrian
and bike traffic will access the site from Cascadilla Street and North Meadow Street. This
is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Daniel Hirtler, architect, appeared in front of the Board to present a proposal to combine three
parcels and build (4) duplexes).
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Godden:
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
approval for construction of four apartment buildings with 8 units by Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to combine three existing parcels, 615 & 617 Cascadilla Street, zoned R-2b, and 513 N. Meadow Street, zoned WEDZ-1b, to create a new parcel totaling .403 acres. The applicant proposes to demolish (1) existing two-story residential house and then construct (4) buildings each with (2) three-bedroom units, equaling 4,899-SF total building area in the R-2b area of the parcel. The required off-
street parking will occupy the WEDZ-1b area of the parcel, extending into the buildable area of the R-2b parcel. The project includes other site amenities such as lighted walks, covered bike parking, and landscaping. Automobile access will be on North Meadow Street, and the existing curb cuts on Cascadilla
Street will be removed. Pedestrian and bike traffic will access the site from Cascadilla Street and North Meadow Street, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore be it
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
15
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Blalock Seconded by: Godden In Favor: Blalock, Godden, Glass, Jones, Lewis, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None
Board members expressed support.
7. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals
• BZA #3190 – Area Variance‐ 405 Elmira Road (area variance)
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this
appeal for the following reasons:
• Due to the existing vehicular access to the site, the applicant cannot comply with
the setback and frontage requirements.
• The Board supports the parking variance because there is ample parking on the
site as a whole and removal a few spaces allows for additional site improvements
such as an outdoor patio and tree planting – which his much needed in paved
areas.
8. Old/New Business
• Board Report on Proposal to Extend the East Hill Historic District
Deputy Director Nicholas shared the report to Planning Committee she had drafted, which is
attached as an addendum to these minutes.
• Site Plan Review Process Improvements – Nikki Cerrra
Cerra said she is working on suggestions for streamlining the SPR process, including lists of
preferred landscaping plants and a list of non‐natives not to use. She said she is also working
with City Forester Jeanne Grace on a tree ordinance.
Cerra asked for additional suggestions. Board members suggested checklists of items they will
ask for (for example, dumpster enclosures and bike racks); communicating with neighbors early
on; requirements to replace large DBH trees with substantial trees (not, for example, with 2‐
inch DBH trees); additional information on building affordable housing; and gathering
additional information on the Green Building policy.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October 26, 2021
16
9. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
C. Director of Planning & Development
No report.
10. Adjournment:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent
at 9:34 p.m.
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210614002.07 1/2
Project at 510 W. State St.
josh@ithacajosh.com <josh@ithacajosh.com>
Tue 6/22/2021 8:13 AM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Good morning Anya,
I hope you are well. I am in Maine enjoying a bit of me at the family cabin. It’s beau ful, but I always miss Ithaca
a er three or four days.
I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this email, and share it this morning, in its en rety, with
both the City of Ithaca Planning Board and the City of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals.
I own the property at 505 W. Seneca St, which will be the most affected by the large building project that is
proposed project by Visum Development at 510 W. State Street. The proposed project will dwarf and wrap around
two sides of my property. I’m wri ng with a quick update on the lack of progress made to date on resolving any of
my concerns, with which I have been very forthcoming throughout the process.
To summarize: I have been reliably doing research, expressing my concerns, wri ng emails, and asking my
ques ons since the day I learned of the poten al project. Since that me I have had no resolu ons, no answers,
no plans for ameliora on or compensa on, and virtually no ac on from the developers, although there has been
ample me for the developers to come up with a plan for purchasing my property or other reasonable resolu on.
I have spoken at a Planning Board mee ng of my concerns, and proac vely corresponded with both Todd Fox and
Patrick Braga throughout this process. In short, it appears that the developer has absolutely no interest in
resolving neighbors’ concerns, but is set on doing only the least possible to effect the approval of the project and
its associated zoning variances. While I wholeheartedly support the crea on of affordable op ons for residence
in Ithaca, (providing affordable op ons is my primary reason for being in the landlording business), I am very
much opposed to the approval of any zoning variances, or the project in general, un l a reasonable and
demonstrable effort has been made to resolve my and my neighbors’ concerns. I urge the Planning Board to delay
any more approvals of this project, and I urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to reject any variances for which Visum
Development applies, un l such me as the developer deals in good faith with the surrounding property owners,
and there has been ample me for considera on of plans to resolve the myriad concerns.
My concerns: This should be obvious. I have listed the most major of them as bullet points below
Extreme disrup on during the construc on period, including but not limited to:
Dust and dirt in my apartments.
Danger to my building and tenants from demoli on, falling debris, and other building-related
ac vity.
Asbestos contamina on, par cularly concerning because there are young children living in my
property.
Other chemical and par culate contamina on of the surrounding air.
Total elimina on of the public parking spaces in front of my property—the primary spaces my
tenants use for parking.
Noise and vibra on from pile driving and other demoli on- and construc on-related ac vi es,
which will adversely affect tenants’ lives and may affect the integrity of my property.
Effect of this proposed building on quality of life of my tenants:
The building will completely dwarf my property, and eliminate all direct sunlight to the property.
The foot traffic past my property and to the west side of my property will increase drama cally,
causing possible safety and security issues.
Ques ons asked: I have asked Mr. Braga and/or Mr. Fox for informa on and specific plans regarding the
demoli on and construc on of the proposed project. I have not received answers to most of these ques ons.
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210614002.07 2/2
Some items that s ll remain unanswered are as follows:
What, specifically, will be considered “affordable” rent in a one- or two-bedroom apartment in the
proposed building (I want to be able to judge whether my rents are compe ve, and learn how I will stand
in the rental market, should the project receive approval)?
What accommoda on will be made for the disrup on and mess that will be caused during demo?
What specific measures are being taken for asbestos remedia on before demo? (I ask this par cularly in
regard to state and federal requirements)
What accommoda on or compensa on to me and my tenants will be made for the elimina on of the
public parking spaces in front of 505?
Can you give me assurance that no ac vity whatsoever will occur on or in front of 505 and that the
sidewalk will remain ac ve during all phases of the project?
Summary: I have been a City of Ithaca Resident, Landlord, and Business Owner for over 40 years. I have my
posi on clear in this ma er. I have been vocal and have asked ques ons. I have spoken at a Planning Board
mee ng. I have sa sfied the developers’ requests every me they have been made. I even employed the use of a
Realtor® to prepare a Compara ve Market Analysis to come up with a reasonable and fair purchase price for my
property, and provided the details to the developer, with my acceptable and reasonable offering price. And I
con nue to be willing to talk with anyone regarding this ma er! Throughout the process I have been met by the
developer with diffidence, distrac on, and vague, “friendly” promises. As of this date, I have received no
suggested remedia on, sa sfac on, assurances, or plans to address my concerns.
Please demand that the developer resolve these issues before any variance approval or any other general
project approval is granted.
Thank you in advance!
Sincerely,
Josh Adams
511 Cliff Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQABF6cFzbO%2FZEh%2FdjN5tN…1/2
510 W State Construction comments
Fred Piccirilli <fredpiccirilli@gmail.com>
Tue 6/22/2021 3:30 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: JoAnn Cornish <JCornish@cityofithaca.org>; Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org>
2 attachments (1 MB)
503 W Seneca-Piccirilli-property lines.pdf; 503 W Seneca-Piccirilli-street view.pdf;
Good afternoon Anya,
I would like to provide additional comments regarding the proposed development at 510 W. State
Street by Visum Development. I own 503 W. Seneca Street which is a single family home and my
year-round primary residence (see attached site plan which highlights my property’s proximity to the
proposed development). Since learning of the project in early March, I’ve expressed concerns and
submitted a variety of questions to the City of Ithaca Planning Board and the applicant. The purpose
of my message today is to inform the Board that over the past 3 ½ months, the applicant has not
addressed concerns nor has a plan to minimize impact to the adjacent property owners been
presented.
I first learned of the development project from the Ithaca Planning Board’s notification, dated March 3,
2021. The developer never reached out to me prior to this public announcement. Since then, I’ve met
only once with Todd Fox from Visum Development on April 23, 2021. Mr. Fox listened to my concerns
but made it clear that he had no intention of modifying this project. He also said he did not have a firm
plan to minimize the impact to existing property owners. Since Mr. Fox did not have a plan, he asked
me to provide him with a list of my accommodation requests. I have since provided this in several
emails, including an extensive mitigation list and a purchase price for my property since Mr. Fox
expressed some interest in acquiring it. I have done everything Mr. Fox and members of his team
have asked but communication back from Visum has been quite cryptic at best and no official plan
has been presented.
On June 8, 2021 I received a blanket email to “neighbors” from Patrick Braga at Visum which provided
additional information about the construction process. This email was only informational and did not
address any of my specific concerns. Rather than ease concerns, Mr. Braga’s message actually
increased them. Further details of the construction plan were disclosed and from this I learned to
minimize impact to businesses on State Street, all project staging is planned on Corn and Seneca
Street. It was also disclosed that approximately 186 steel piles would be driven to support the
foundation. My home will have heavy construction right on the back property line and construction
staging directly in front and on the side of my property. The noise, disruption and environmental
hazards will be intolerable along with very valid health and safety concerns. I don’t see how my home
will be habitable during this time.
Post-construction concerns have also not been addressed or acknowledged. This development has a
long lasting, permanent effect on my property; potential property damage from the construction, loss
of sunlight, lack of privacy, added noise, impact on property value and limited options for future resale
are all known factors. My home is 121 years-old so I’m very concerned about it being irreparably
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQABF6cFzbO%2FZEh%2FdjN5tN…2/2
damaged. Visum has not provided assurance that my property will not be damaged or a guarantee to
cover repair costs.
I’m sure the developer is busy but my time is also of value. I have provided a great deal of information
and mitigation options to Mr. Fox and Mr. Braga over the past few months. To be candid, I’m tired of
doing all the work. I attended the Ithaca Planning Board meeting on the evening of May 25, 2021. At
the end of the Visum session, the Board specifically asked Visum to work with the neighbors and
address concerns. This has not happened. Ignoring concerns and expecting existing property owners
to just accept this as a minor inconvenience is a terrible representation of the actual impact of the
project. Visum must now present a viable plan to me and the other property owners so heavily
impacted. As previously stated, I support the project and how it benefits the community. Based on the
scope of the project however, I find it difficult to believe that Visum does not have a plan in place to
address the obvious concerns of neighbors.
Until the applicant makes some type of meaningful attempt to address these issues, I respectfully
request that the Ithaca Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals delay all approvals for this
project. Please acknowledge receipt of this message and forward my comments to the members of
the Ithaca Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeal and the applicant.
Thank you very much for your time.
Fred Piccirilli
Owner, 503 W. Seneca Street
Trevor J. DeSane, Esq.
61A Plymouth Street
Norwich, NY 13815
June 22, 2021
VIA EMAIL AT dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Joann Cornish, Director
City of Ithaca, Department of Planning and Development
108 East Green Street - Third Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: 228 Dryden Project – Public Hearing Comment
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
I am contacting you on behalf of my client 222 Dryden Road, LLC with regard to the
proposed student housing development project at 228 Dryden Road, which is currently under
review by this Board. My client is the owner of properties adjacent to the project at 216, 222
and 224 Dryden Road. Last month I submitted a letter to the Board concerning a retaining
wall between 228 Dryden Road and my client’s property and my request that any Board
approval of the 228 Dryden project be conditioned on the applicant’s implementation of
measures to prevent any damage to my client’s building, retaining wall and other property. I
request that you please read this letter and my earlier letter into the record at the public
hearing and I thank you in advance. I have attached a copy of my May 24 letter for your
convenience.
While I have expressed concern about protecting my client’s property, I have not explicitly
raised the issue of vibration from construction activities. As part of the applicant’s plan to
protect my client’s student apartment building near the property line, I would ask that
vibration monitoring devices be placed in the building and that they be set to automatically
stop construction if excessive vibrations are detected. Again, I appreciate your time and
attention to this matter and I am happy to answer any questions you or the applicant may
have.
Sincerely,
Trevor J. DeSane, Esq.
cc: Lisa Nicholas (lnicholas@cityofithaca.org)
Anya Harris (aharris@cityofithaca.org)
Trevor J. DeSane, Esq.
61A Plymouth Street
Norwich, NY 13815
May 24, 2021
VIA EMAIL AT dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Joann Cornish, Director
City of Ithaca, Department of Planning and Development
108 East Green Street - Third Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: 228 Dryden Project - Comment for Environmental Review Phase
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
I am contacting you on behalf of my client 222 Dryden Road, LLC with regard to the
proposed student housing development project at 228 Dryden Road, which is currently under
review by this Board. My client is the owner of properties adjacent to the project at 216, 222
and 224 Dryden Road and these properties also consist of student housing. My client is in
support of infill development in Collegetown and is pleased to see that the applicant has
submitted a proposal to improve the property at 228 Dryden while increasing the city’s tax
base.
There is one matter that my client encourages the applicant and the Board to consider as they
navigate the municipal approval process and state environmental review. 216, 222, and 224
Dryden Road share a boundary with 228 Dryden Rd and are located downhill from that
property. As such there is a series of stone and block retaining walls which hold back the
applicant’s property which is located at a higher elevation. Please see the enclosed photo
showing my client’s apartment building on the left and the site of the proposed development
on the right with retaining walls in between.
Although these walls may be vulnerable to deterioration or collapse during the proposed site
work next door, my client has not yet been contacted by the applicant with regard to any plan
to preserve or protect these retaining walls or otherwise prevent the walls from collapsing into
the side of the building next door or the windows of the ground floor tenants in that building.
Therefore, I am alerting the Board to this condition and requesting on behalf of 222 Dryden
Road, LLC that the Board ensure that, as a condition of project approval, the applicant and
its design professionals develop, submit to the Board and my client for prior approval, and
implement, a plan to prevent and/or remedy at the applicant’s sole expense, any potential
adverse impact on my client’s building, the retaining walls, or any structures or accessories
connected to the walls or the building resulting from applicant’s removal of soil and/or the
construction of the proposed project. Please contact my office if you have any questions. I can
be reached at 617-230-8278 or tjdlaw@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration of this
matter.
Sincerely,
Trevor J. DeSane, Esq.
cc: Lisa Nicholas (lnicholas@cityofithaca.org)
Anya Harris (aharris@cityofithaca.org)
To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development
From: James Hedlund
Treasurer, St. Luke Lutheran Church, 109 Oak Ave.
Re: Site plan approval application for 228 Dryden Road
St. Luke Lutheran Church is within 200 feet of the proposed construction at 228 Dryden Road.
St. Luke has no objection to the construction. St. Luke requests that vibration monitors be
installed in St. Luke during the foundation work for 228 Dryden to assure that the work does not
damage St. Luke.
As background, vibration from the foundation work at Visum’s 114 Summit Ave. construction
produced cracks in St. Luke walls. To guard against this during the 411-415 College Ave.
construction immediately adjacent to St. Luke, vibration monitors were installed and set so that
any excessive vibration would stop foundation work immediately. Fortunately, no excessive
vibrations were detected and the construction produced no damage to St. Luke. We requested the
same for the next nearby construction, at 121 Oak Ave., and the project team agreed. We make
the same request for the 228 Dryden Road construction: install vibration monitors in St. Luke
during the foundation work and provide that work will stop immediately if excessive vibration
occurs.
6/15/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAFDqh3CXwoJOi1aR6dTfJvM%3D 1/2
Comments for Planning and Development Board
Christine O'Malley <christine@historicithaca.org>
Fri 6/11/2021 12:05 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Susan Holland <sholland@historicithaca.org>; Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org>
Dear Anya:
Could you please share the message below with the Planning and Development
Board members for their upcoming June meeting and please have it read into the
record? This message comes from Historic Ithaca and Significant Elements.
Dear Planning Board Members:
Several proposed projects on the June agenda indicate that the applicants will
demolish existing buildings for their new projects. They are:
615‐617 Cascadilla Street - demolish one existing two‐story residential house
228 Dryden Road - demolish the existing two‐story structure
510 W State/MLK Jr Blvd - remove the one‐story commercial building fronting
on State Street and two‐story wood frame house fronting on W Seneca Street
As you know, the demolition and removal of these structures means the considerable
loss of embodied energy through existing building materials. To help divert the
volume of materials headed to landfills and keep items out of the waste stream,
Historic Ithaca and Significant Elements requests that the Planning and Development
Board question the applicants about their plans for any opportunities for salvage of
materials from the existing buildings or deconstruction of the buildings. Will any of
the applicants allow for local non-profits such as Historic Ithaca and our Significant
Elements store to do a survey visit before the proposed demolition in order to
remove material such as doors, windows, fixtures, etc.? We support the City of
Ithaca's green building initiatives and hope that more sustainable approaches can
also be adopted when existing buildings are being replaced by new construction.
Thank you very much for considering this request.
--
Christine O'Malley
Preservation Services Coordinator
6/15/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAFDqh3CXwoJOi1aR6dTfJvM%3D 2/2
Historic Ithaca, Inc.
212 Center St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.273.6633
christine@historicithaca.org
she/her/hers
Protecting Tompkins County’s historic places since 1966
www.historicithaca.org
21 June 2021
To: Members of the Planning and Development Board
From: Mary Raddant Tomlan
I am writing to support the expansion of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District with the addition of the nineteen
specified properties. My remarks are made as an architectural historian who has long been involved in local
research (lectures, walking tours, exhibits); a past member of the Board of Historic Ithaca (1980-86); a past
member of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (Dec. 1991-Mar. 2003) and a current alternate
member; and current City of Ithaca Historian. I would note that I served as a paid consultant for Historic Ithaca
in the preparation of the histories (not the descriptions) of eight of the subject nineteen properties.
I have always been perplexed by and dissatisfied with the current northwestern boundary of the East Hill
Historic District, as the buildings northward from the Calvin D. Stowell house/William Henry Miller Inn seemed
consistent in architectural character and history with designated historic district buildings up East Hill from that
corner property. My subsequent research and that of others has confirmed for me the logic of the proposed
expansion.
The text proposing this expansion presents the stylistic significance of the additional buildings and the inclusion
of work by several of Ithaca’s prominent architects during the period of significance.* In addition, and as with
buildings in the current East Hill Historic District, many of these nineteen dwellings were associated with
persons who made contributions to Ithaca’s history in commercial, industrial and professional fields. These
included Miles Clinton (who with his brother ran an East Hill foundry and machine shop); Joseph Lyons (partner
in booksellers Andrus, McChain & Co.); John E. Van Natta (contractor and millwright, noted for his mill on Six
Mile Creek); Thomas B. Campbell (Richardson & Campbell, contractors for many Cornell and other Ithaca
buildings, and brickyard owners); Frank J. Enz (Enz & Miller, paper dealers and manufacturers); and George and
Paul S. Livermore (Ithaca Gun Company).**
Some of these and others were noteworthy as elected officials. Those active in government included John E. Van
Natta (village trustee, city alderman, county supervisor); Thomas B. Campbell (city alderman); Frank J. Enz
(New York State Assemblyman); and Paul S. Livermore (county supervisor). Livermore’s civic contributions
included the willing of the family home to the Ithaca Community Chest; it now serves the United Way of
Tompkins County.
While these properties did not generally include Cornell faculty, the impact of the new university and its students
was substantial. Among the households with student renters was that of Henry Schuyler at 407 North Aurora,
where the 1870 census listed five Cornell students, including William H. Miller, while the 1880 census recorded
seven students living with the Ralph Shepard family of three at 315-317 East Court.) One owner of 316 East
Court advertised boarding facilities in the Cornell Daily Sun during the early twentieth century, noting at one
time that seventy-five could be accommodated at one time. Other University associations came with the Cornell
enrollment of family members such as Charles Van Cleef of 315-317 East Court, one of the first class of
students.
In summary, I find the specified nineteen properties to be consistent in architectural character and history with
the existing East Hill Historic District, and a logical addition for the future of the district.
*With regard to architectural style, the house at 316 East Court is not Victorian Gothic in either its original or present fo rm;
its remaining detailing is Queen Anne in style, while the house originally had an expansive porch and a balcony with broad
oval- and round-arched openings more akin to the Romanesque Revival.
**Of note among the residents of the properties I researched were four persons whose endeavors included the acquisition of
patents in conjunction with their businesses—Miles Clinton and his brother Charles for a sewing machine; Thomas B.
Campbell for a kiln for drying bricks; Chester A. Sage for a heel plate; and optometrist Frank G. Wilson for a lens edging
machine.
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAJt%2F5WMv5j1BtrEfVh1Ptek%…1/2
319 N. Aurora St.
Joch & Kirby <jochnkirby@aol.com>
Tue 6/22/2021 4:12 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Dear Ms. Harris:
I completely understand that I have sent emails to you before on the subject of including 319 N. Aurora
Street in a historic district. I know that they did not have any impact at all on the ILPC and expected the
same because I was asking them to give up power. I understand the Planning Board is meeting tonight
and I would like my information passed onto them, but if you no longer have my letters, I would ask that
the following be sent to the members:
I am one of the owners of 319 N. Aurora Street, one of the buildings that Historic Ithaca wants to take
over or better said, included in a historic district. The buildings in this wedge are primarily owned by
landlords that reside in nice homes elsewhere. The point of owning the buildings is to make money from
the rents. The least amount of money possible is going into repairs since there is no need to look
"sharp". This is a hot area because of its location near the City center. I believe that the appearance of
the neighborhood, which right now looks nice because of relatively recent changes in ownership and
really nice paint jobs, is not going to be getting any better than it is now. From here on out, unless the
properties change hands, the landlords will let things slide because of money. Add an additional layer of
bureaucracy to making any changes and the landlords are further discouraged from doing anything to the
properties.
The argument that we have historically significant elements is laughable upon reading the descriptions of
all the structures. We are mutts to be kind. The buildings are a mishmash of architectural styles and none
were designed by any important architect, no matter what they have to say about William Henry Miller.
He is the only architect mentioned if I recall correctly and it was noted that he had no important style, so
why do we have to preserve anything that has his name on it. For instance, why is it important to
preserve the house three further away from mine simply because William Henry Miller lived there in
college? Its so nonsensical that I am not wrong that this is about power rather a true interest in
preserving important architectural structures or perhaps blocking the approval of more modern
replacement structures.
We have been working on repairing the mud hole of a parking lot behind our building which we share
with one of the Johnson Apartment buildings (I do believe they just changed hands by inheritance).
Perhaps keeping it a mud hole is historically correct, but I won't do anything if I have to ask Historic
Ithaca for permission to make an improvement. I am not going to make it historically aesthetically
pleasing for Historic Ithaca if its going to cost more than having it just paved but we will never know as I
am not going to seek their permission if we are finally added to the district. I would have to presume they
would want bricks or pavers to be historically correct. After I watched Historic Ithaca (and I am sorry I
am not using their official name) make the Moosewood add powder coating to the metal framework of an
awning on the very verge of everyone of them approving it, I am not going to go beg them to let me
pave. If I am not going to do it, I just don't think anyone will bother either. Johnson Apartments are
certainly not interested because they have never broached the subject.
I know the building next to us on Aurora just also changed hands. I did speak to the new owner about
this inclusion in the wedge and she thought it was a great little bonus to be in a historic district until I told
her that she would have to seek permission from Historic Ithaca to make changes. She said that had not
been told to her and that was upsetting. If you read the information that was sent, no where is it
mentioned that inclusion in the wedge would require their permission to just work on our buildings.
6/22/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAJt%2F5WMv5j1BtrEfVh1Ptek%…2/2
Historic Ithaca clearly did not include this in the materials because it would have caused upset as it
caused me.
I look at all the buildings in the historic district sought to be expanded and they really have been let go.
Its primarily student housing, just like this wedge except there are no first floor offices, and I see no one
fixing them up. I blame the City and Historic Ithaca. They aren't painted unless its peeling badly and
that is not even in Historic Ithaca's purview. But you just never see much repair work done. Eventually
they go to such disrepair they will be need to be torn down and new apartment buildings will go up.
Maybe if the owner had been allowed to make repairs without seeking permission from everyone that
doesn't own their property, it might have ended up adding that historical element that we are all trying to
preserve. I point to State Street. I don't imagine that any of the houses heading to Cornell will still be
standing in the the next five years.
I have to presume that the reason to include us in a historic district is to prevent us from selling out to
another high rise. Too much work has gone on downtown and I know you want Ithaca to look like a City,
but it is now bumping up against history lovers and locals that don't want change. The result, old
neighborhoods go into disrepair because of bureaucracy and eventually get replaced with high rises. If
you want to increase the tax base and make Ithaca more commercial, let Historic Ithaca continue to make
poor decisions about existing structures that will ultimately not be done because of the added financial
burdens. If you want to keep a historical element alive, you do not need Historic Ithaca having such
aesthetic control over properties that are owned by people that bought them originally because of their
character and financial benefit. Money trumps character, which meant they will fall into disrepair, be
torn down or fall down, and replaced with something much more modern.
I have been hearing from landlords outside the district hoping that we (this wedge) can block the
expansion. Historic Ithaca is not a welcome parasite. I will leave it to them to take up their fight when
the time comes.
Susan C. Kirby, Esq.
Joch & Kirby
319 N. Aurora St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-272-7279
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email message may be legally
privileged and contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (607-272-
7279), by fax (607-272-9976), or by return email, delete this message, and destroy any copies
of print-outs of this message. Thank you.
If you have not formally retained this firm for legal services, then we are not your attorneys and
neither this communication nor any attachments hereto constitute the provision of legal services
or the establishment or confirmation of an attorney-client relationship.
City of Ithaca Planning Board
Proposed Expansion of the East Hill Historic District
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held June 22, 2021
At the regular monthly meeting on June 15, 2021 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission by unanimous vote recommended a proposal to expand the existing East Hill
Historic District to include 19 properties along North Aurora, East Court, and Linn Streets that
are not currently included within the district. A map showing the proposed expansion and a
summary of its historic and architectural significance are attached.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
“The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of
such designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public
improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
1. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan
Plan Ithaca, the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015 includes the following
recommendation pertaining to Historic Preservation:
Continue to designate resources identified as historically or architecturally significant
Expansion of the East Hill Historic District is therefore consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Relation to Zoning Laws
The properties within the proposed expansion are is located in the B-1A, R-2B and R-3A
zoning districts (see attached map). The purpose and intent of the districts is as follows:
R-2B is the most restrictive district within the expansion. This is a residential district
that allows single and two-family homes, churches, libraries fire stations, public utilities
and cemeteries and the following uses by special permit: nursery schools, neighborhood
commercial and bed and breakfast homes.
R3A is less restrictive than R2B. It allows all uses in R2b as well as multifamily dwellings,
rooming houses, cooperative living, sororities, fraternities, dormitories and nursing
homes and the following uses by special permit: all those allowed in R2b as well as
hospitals and bed and breakfast inns.
B-1A is a restricted business district in which business type is limited to office and
profession, government, bed and breakfast, schools, banks and funeral homes as well
las all uses allowed in R3A.
Expansion of the Historic District will not affect building uses currently permitted under
the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed exterior alterations or additions to building within the
expanded district would be subject to the area requirements in the B1A, R3A & R2B
zoning districts, the applicability thresholds of the Site Plan Review Ordinance and
Commission review and approval.
3. Relation to Projected Public Improvements
There are no planned public improvements currently scheduled for the expansion area.
Typical future improvements would include sidewalk replacement and repaving. Local
landmark designation means that any future public improvements in the immediate
area may require review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission before work commences.
4. Relations to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area
There are no plans in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program or by the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this area. Local landmark designation
requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or
site undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
before work commences.
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012Data Source: City of Ithaca GISMap Prepared by: City of Ithaca Planning DivisionFebruary 8, 2018
313
309
407
309
405 310
101
316
315-17
319313
403401
108
321
106
319
308
315-17N TIOGA STE BUFFALO ST N AURORA STE COURT ST LINN STCASCADILLA AVE
TERRACE PLFOUNTAIN PLCASCADILLA PARK RD
PARKER ST0 200 400100 Feet
1:2,130±
Proposed Historic Resource Survey Area
Legend
Building
Parcels
Proposed Survey Area
Dewitt Park Historic District
East Hill Historic District
Legend
City Address
Tax Parcels
CPOZ (Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone)
Zoning District
Road Name
Parking Pay Station
Parking Lots and Garages
Buildings
Railroad
Border
CommonsPoly
Bench
Bernie Milton Pavilion
Planter
Playground
Tree Pit
Trolley Circle
Impervious Surfaces
Paved Drive, Walk or Surface; Private Road
Paved Parking
Paved Roadway; Public Road
Unpaved Drive, Walk or Surface
Park
Waterway
City of Ithaca, NY 2021
1,4096/21/2021Printed: Data contained on this map was provided or derived from data developed or compiled by the
City of Ithaca, and is the best available to date. The originators do not warrant the accuracy
or completeness of the information portrayed by the data. The originators do not accept any
responsibility for any errors, omissions, or positional accuracy.
1:
This map was printed by a member of the public using the City of Ithaca Interactive Web Viewer on
Tompkins-Ithaca Geoportal at http://geo.tompkins-co.org/html/?viewer=City_Public_Mobile
117.4