HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2021-07-27Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
1
Planning and Development Board Minutes
July 27, 2021
Board Members
Attending:
McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Mitch Glass; Emily Petrina; C.J.
Randall
Board Members Absent:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Elisabete
Godden
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Nikki Cerra, Landscape and Environmental Planner, Division of
Planning and Economic Development
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 201 E. Tompkins Street, Special Permit Application
Jana Leyden, applicant
Andy Lonsky, applicant
Tony Serviente, building owner
Student Apartments (347 Units) 401 E. State/MLK Jr. Street
(Gateway Property)
Brian Bouchard, CHA Companies
Carpenter Circle Project, Approval of Community Gardens Plan
Marty Hillerman, Ithaca Community Gardens
Student Housing 815 S. Aurora Street
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Patrick Braga, Visum Development
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
2
Mixed-Use Building, 510 W State Street
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Patrick Braga, Visum Development
Commercial Building (KFC), 405 Elmira Road
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering
Ken Shaw, KBP Investments
Cliff Street Retreat, 407 Cliff Street
Craig Modisher, Stream Collaborative
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Apartments (40 Units), 228 Dryden Road
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects
(4) Two Family Dwellings, 615-617 Cascadilla Street.
Dan Hirtler, architect
Stavros Stavropoulos, developer
Apartments (13 Units), 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue
Declaration
Jason Demarest, architect
Greg Mezey, Red Door Rentals and
Chris Petrillose, AdBro Development
Vice Chair Jones called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Public Comment
Vice Chair Jones opened Privilege of the Floor.
There being no members of the public appearing in order to speak, nor any written comments
submitted to be read into the record, Vice Chair Jones closed the Public Comment period.
3. Special Permits
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
3
A. Special Permit for Neighborhood Commercial (Fitness Studio) in the R-2 District. 201
East Tompkins Street by Jana Leyden & Andy Lonsky. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Approval.
The applicant is proposing to use the ground floor of the building for a fitness studio. The
current use of the ground floor is an artisanal glass studio. Additional changes may include
the addition of signage. The project is in the R-2B Zoning District, in which neighborhood
commercial is allowed by special permit. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 and is subject to environmental review.
Applicants Jana Leyden and Andy Lonsky appeared in front of the Board to present their
proposal to open a fitness facility at 201 E. Tompkins Street, which as a neighborhood
commercial use in an R-2 district, requires a special permit. Tony Serviente, building owner, had
operated a stained glass studio there for many years, but he has decided to downsize his
business and relocate.
Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Randall:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law, and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Special
Permit for a Neighborhood Commercial Use in an R-2B Zoning District at 201 E Tompkins Street Jan Leyden for owner Tony Serviente, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, §329-9 (B) (f), Standards for Special Conditions and Special
Permits- Applicability, a special use permit is required for “Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2, R-3, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4 Districts”, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to use the ground floor of the building for a fitness studio. The current use of the ground floor is an artisanal glass studio. Additional changes may include the addition of signage. There are eight parking spaces on site, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore be it,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
4
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: Petrina Seconded by: Randall In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, Vice Chair Jones opened the Public Hearing.
Neighbor Fernanado de Aragón said his primary concerns are increased traffic, parking, and
potentially noise. He said Utica Street is very quiet and said that he thinks impacts in this area
will be disproportionate. He said that neighbors are also concerned about the potential for
growth in the applicants’ business increasing impacts on the neighborhood.
Deputy Director Nicholas next read into the record written comments submitted by Tom
Blecher, included below:
My wife and I have been residents of the 300 block of Utica Street for over 30 years. We
love the peace and quiet of Utica Street, the lack of traffic, the friendliness of the
neighbors and the stability of the neighborhood. We have enjoyed having Tony
Serviente as a neighbor and he has become a friend. I believe that Tony will do
everything within his power to place limitations on his prospective tenants to preserve
the tranquility of the neighborhood.
However, I fear that the proposed fitness center will negatively Utica Street. The
assertions made by the applicants in their letters leave me with more questions than
answers along with some trepidation. I believe that granting this permit is rife with
potential problems.
NOISE, CLASS SIZE, AND SCHEDULING
I have been a member of 4 fitness centers in Ithaca and Rochester and have enjoyed the
classes that I have taken. For much of each class my instructors played LOUD
pulsating music which energized me during my workouts. I liked that. However, I do not
want to be forced to listen to loud pulsating music if it emanates from a fitness center
less than 100 feet from my home — especially at 6 am. Applicants, in the Planning
Department file, claim that music will not be continuous as it will not be played when
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
5
instructors are teaching and during a cool down period. Any loud pulsating music,
especially early in the morning or at dinner time, is too much for me.
Circumstances and plans can change. The applicants propose 23 fitness classes per week
with a maximum of 12 students per class. If demand is greater than anticipated, will
additional instructors be hired to teach more classes? As the room is very large, will
class size increase? If a permit is issued which delineates class size restrictions and the
times of classes, how will this be enforced? Does the City have the will power and the
manpower to enforce the above expeditiously? If applicants, in the future,claim
financial hardship might the Board relent and allow more or bigger classes?
TRAFFIC
Applicants state that “subject property has 8 parking spaces on the property”. Typically
two spaces are taken by upstairs tenants. Two more could be taken by instructors. This
potentially leaves 4 spaces, not eight, in the lot for fitness students. During change of
classes there could be traffic from 24 cars — 12 coming and 12 going. It is pure
conjecture on the part of the applicants that the impact of vehicular traffic and
congestion will be minimal because many clients will walk or cycle to class. This number
of additional vehicles will change the tenor of the Utica Street neighborhood and make
it a less desirable place to live. Many of us bought on Utica Street for the same reason
people buy on cul-de-sacs -- there is virtually no traffic.
THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
Applicants assert that the property has been used commercially since 1921. This
continuous commercial use is irrelevant. First off, there was no zoning code in the City
of Ithaca in 1921. Second and more importantly, some residents of the 300 block have
lived here for 30+ or 40+ years. None of us goes back to the days of noisy bustling
establishments like the body and transmission shop of the 1950s. We bought here
because it is a quiet street and the commercial building in question was a quiet
neighbor. My wife and I would not have bought here if there was a fitness studio 100
feet from our home.
CONCLUSIONS:
Applicants, in their letter to us, neglect to address the noise issue. Their assessment of
traffic patterns and impact on the neighborhood is conjecture. They do not address
possible future business expansion with more noise and more vehicular traffic. Their
assumption that a fitness center will not affect property values is not sufficiently
supported in their application. Property values are a function of supply and demand and
the demand for housing on our street would, I believe, be negatively impacted by a
fitness club. This is especially true for houses, like mine, located closest to the proposed
fitness center.
Fitness clubs are not generally situated in quiet, residentially zoned neighborhoods and
there is good reason for that. At this point, I do not see any upside to a fitness center
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
6
being situated in the Serviente Glass Building especially when there are other more
appropriate commercially zoned locations in town.
I am happy to talk with anyone, including the applicants about my issues.
There being no more members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, Vice Chair Jones
closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass.
Applicants were given an opportunity to address the comments.
Leyden said they are going to offer income-based memberships, which is unique. They may be
the only fitness center in Ithaca to do so. She said they want to bring equity into fitness and will
be using a sliding price scale.
She also said that they will not be open all day, only when there is a coach on site, and while
some noise will be generated, she doesn’t think it would be unreasonable.
Owner Tony Serviente appeared and said that he is confident that loud music should not be a
problem. He said he did tests earlier in the day in which he cranked up the music and invited
the neighbors to evaluate the levels around the building. Even with the doors open and the
music louder than what would be comfortable inside, the neighbors were satisfied that it
should not cause a disturbance.
Leyden said that as far is parking is concerned, they would have 8 spaces off the street. Class
size would be capped at 12 with one instructor. Even with overlapping arrivals and departures,
she said she thinks there’s sufficient parking on the street to accommodate their students.
Further, they are planning a 15-minute buffer between classes, so overlapping clients shouldn’t
typically be an issue. As for growth, she said their goal is to keep a small family feel to their
business, so she doesn’t foresee them growing very large. She said their goal is to cap
membership at 100 total. She said that 8 spaces to 100 members as a ratio is comparable to
other fitness facilities in the area. She said that if they grew beyond that, the plan would be to
find a second location.
Board members generally expressed support for the proposal and said parking seems sufficient.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
7
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Special Permit for a Neighborhood Commercial Use in an R-2B Zoning District at 201 E Tompkins Street Jan
Leyden for owner Tony Serviente, and WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, §329-9 (B) (f), Standards for Special Conditions and Special
Permits- Applicability, a special use permit is required for “Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2, R-3, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4 Districts”, and WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to use the ground floor of the building for a fitness studio. The current use of the ground floor is an artisanal glass studio. Additional changes may include the addition of signage. There are eight parking spaces on site, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 and is subject to
environmental review, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on July 27, 2021, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency did, on July 27, 2021, review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff, and other application materials prepared by the applicant, now, therefore be it, RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Glass
In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Board members discussed the neighbors’ concerns and added a condition allowing for
revocation of the Permit should the business expand beyond what was proposed and/or for
unresolved, proven neighborhood impacts.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of the Special Permit
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Randall:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
8
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Special Permit for a Neighborhood Commercial Use in an R-2B Zoning District at 201 E Tompkins Street by Jan
Leyden , operator on behalf of owner, Tony Serviente, and WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, §329-9 (B) (f), Standards for Special Conditions and Special
Permits- Applicability, a special use permit is required for “Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2, R-3, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4 Districts”, and WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to use the ground floor of the building for a fitness studio. The current use of the ground floor is an artisanal glass studio. Additional changes may include the addition of signage. There are eight parking spaces on site, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 and is subject to
environmental review, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on July 27, 2021, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency did, on July 27, 2021, review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff, and other application materials prepared by the applicant, and , WHEREAS: that the Planning Board did, on July 27, 2021, determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board after reviewing all relevant material, does make the following findings of fact in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code:
1. The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it, and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it are such that the use will be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate
development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof due to the following: The use will be in an existing structure, built in 1980. The property is currently used as a glass
studio, a nonconforming use allowed by the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 6, 1995. This variance will become void if the glass studio use ceases to operate for 12 months or more. No changes are proposed for the size of the site or building. One existing curb cut on Tompkins Street
gives access to an 8-space parking area on the site. Based on a Zoning Analysis dated July 13, 2021, the property meets off-street parking requirements for the proposed use. Any future proposed enlargement of the property will require an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals due
to existing deficiencies on the site.
2. Operations in connection with the use will not be more objectionable to nearby property by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, vibration, or flashing lights that would be the operations of any use permitted without a special permit due to the following:
The building has been operated as a glass art production studio since 1986. The building owner has stated, in an email dated July 7, 2021, that he has operated continuously with up to 8 employees.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
9
He also stated that he insulated the building for noise. During the operation of the glass studio, few, if any noise complaints were recorded. The owner also stated that he recently conducted an
informal noise test involving concerned members of the neighborhood whereby music was played at increasingly higher volumes in the building while those involved observed the noise from various location outside. The owner concluded the test demonstrated that there was not impactful noise
outside the building. In addition, the fitness studio operator provided information about the hours of operation (1 morning class and 3 afternoon/evening classes) and number of participants per class (up to 12) and has stated that amplified music is not continuous during classes. A 15-minute
interval between classes will be a sufficient gap to avoid congestion as participants are expected to leave directly after class. 3. The granting of a special permit may be conditioned on the effect the use would have on traffic, congestion, environment, property values, municipal services, character of the surrounding
neighborhood, or the general plan for the development of the community, now, therefore be it, RESOLVED: that the subject application is APPROVED, subject to the following condition: i. The special permit is granted based on the scale of the business described above and in application materials. The City will review this approval should the owner or operator
request to expand the business or in the case of unresolved and proven neighborhood impacts that are not addressed by the owner or operator in a timely manner, and be it further RESOLVED: that in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code, the Director of Planning and Development or their designee shall revoke any special permit issued hereunder should the applicant or the applicant's tenant violate any provision of this chapter or any condition imposed upon the issuance of the special permit by the Planning and Development Board. Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Randall In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
10
4. Subdivision Review
A. Major Subdivision. 401 E State/MLK Jr Street (Gateway Property) by Jeff Githens for
McKinley Development Company. Public Hearing and Consideration of Preliminary
Subdivision Approval. The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the 3.689-acre site,
resulting in four parcels: Area A, measuring .112 acres (4,861 SF), with frontage along
State Street, which will be conveyed to the City; Area B, measuring 3,965 SF to be
conveyed to another party for construction of a memorial, Parcel C, measuring 1.048
acres (45,650 SF), with approximately 182 feet of frontage on E. Green and E. State
Streets, and containing an existing seven-story commercial building, parking, and a
portion of the Gateway Trail; and Parcel D, measuring 2.641 acres, with approximately
184 feet of frontage on E. State Street, and to contain the new building, a portion of the
Gateway Trail, and a fire access road. A cross-property easement will be required for
vehicular access to ingress and egress on E. State and Green Streets. The Subdivision is
part of a larger development project that was determined to be 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). The Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on
May 25, 2021.
Applicant Brian Bouchard of CHA Companies appeared in front of the Board to describe their
proposal to subdivide the 401 E. State Street parcel into four lots.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Randall, Vice Chair Jones opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing in order to speak, nor any written comments
submitted to be read into the record, Vice Chair Jones closed the Public Hearing on a motion by
Petrina, seconded by Randall.
Board discussed the necessity of including conditions related to the building being placed up to
the lot line, which due to the glazing, conflicts with the fire code. Further, the subdivision would
require Common Council approve several easements. Such conditions were added.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
11
Adopted Declaration of Preliminary Approval for a Major Subdivision
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for subdivision approval at City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 69.-6-3 at 401 E State/MLK Jr St by McKinley Ithaca LLC for Owner GPA Management, and WHEREAS:, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 3.689-acre site, resulting in four parcels: Area A, measuring .112 acres (4,861 SF), with frontage along State Street, which will be conveyed to the City; Area
B, measuring 3,965 SF to be conveyed to another party for construction of a memorial, Parcel C, measuring 1.048 acres (45,650 SF), with approximately 182 feet of frontage on E. Green and E. State Streets, and containing an existing seven-story commercial building, parking, and a portion of the Gateway Trail; and Parcel D, measuring 2.641 acres, with approximately 184 feet of frontage on E. State Street, and to contain the new building, a portion of the Gateway Trail, and a fire access road. The property is inCDB-60 Zoning District. A cross-property easement will be required for vehicular access to ingress and egress on E. State
and Green Streets, 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: the Subdivision is part of a larger development project that was determined to be 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), and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on May 25, 2021 issue a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the entire project and all its components, and WHEREAS: this Board has on July 27, 2021, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a subdivision plat titled:
Subdivision Plat for No. 401 E State Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, dated 05/25/21 and prepared by TG Miller PC and an annotated Site Plan dated 7/2/21 showing the proposed parcel lines in relation to the existing and proposed building footprints, and
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 July 27, 2021, and WHEREAS: Information provided to the Planning Board by Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator, indicates that the proposed parcels meet the minimum lot requirements for parcels in the CBD-60 zoning district provided that Parcel A becomes part of the E. State Street right-of-way as planned. (If Parcel A does not become part of the street right-of-way, Parcel D will be deficient in required lot frontage and will need an area variance from §325-8, Column 7, Width in Feet at Street Line, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance) now, therefore, be it
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
12
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed
Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 69.-6-3 at 401 E State/MLK Jr St by McKinley Ithaca LLC for Owner GPA Management subject to the following conditions: Before Final Subdivision approval: i. Documentation showing agreement between Alpha Phi Alpha, the property owner and the applicant that the proposed Area B, to be conveyed for construction of a memorial, is the dimension agreed-upon by the three parties and submission of a final Subdivision plat, if needed, and ii. Approval by Common Council for the release of two easement on the property: one a five-foot pedestrian easement extending from the most northeasterly point of the property to the northwest running along the property line and the other an existing drainage easement to be relocated, and,
and iii. Submission of executed required easements: cross property, trail and drainage easements and iv. Applicant must demonstrate building code/fire separation compliance for the proposed building as
it relates to the proposed “Area B” through one of the following: i. Provide documentation of a permanent easement/public way or other legal mechanism prohibiting future building on a portion of Area B such that the proposed façade of the
apartment building complies with the allowable amount of openings in accordance with building code, or ii. If an easement is not obtained, provide a revised façade design that complies with the allowable amount of openings in accordance with building code, or iii. If an easement is not obtained, provide a revised drawing demonstrating that the building has been pulled back from the proposed property lines such that the façade design complies with the allowable amount of openings in accordance with building code Before Certification v. Submission of three paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor.
Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall
Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
13
5. Site Plan Review
A. Apartments (347 Units), Parking & Major Subdivision, 401 E State/MLK Jr Street
(Gateway Property) by Jeff Githens for McKinley Development Company. Consideration
of Preliminary Site Plan Approval. 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.
Brian Bouchard of CHA Companies again appeared in front of the Board.
Board discussed the conditions needing to be fulfilled prior to granting of final site plan
approval.
Adopted Declaration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for construction of an apartment building with internal parking decks by Jeff Githens for McKinley Development Company, and
WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to construct a seven-story building with a 267-space internal parking garage and 353 apartments including studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. Non-vehicular building access will be provided off State /MLK Jr St as well as internal to the site. The project proposes other site improvements including a stairway from State St to the creek level of the site, extension of the trail to the end of the site and into City property, landscaping, lighting, and other site amenities. Project development will require the
demolition of the existing one-story building and installation of associated infrastructure including, water, electric, gas, stormwater and wastewater. The applicant is also requesting a subdivision of the 3.689-acre site resulting in four parcels: Area A measuring .112 acres (4,861 SF) with frontage along State Street, which will be conveyed to the City; Area B measuring 3,965 SF to be conveyed to another party for construction of a memorial; Parcel C measuring 1.048 acres (45,650 SF) with approximately 182 feet of frontage on E. Green and E. State Streets and containing an existing six-story commercial building, parking and a portion of the
Gateway Trail; and Parcel D measuring 2.641 Acres with approximately 184 feet of frontage on E. State Street and to contain the new building, a portion of the Gateway Trail, and a fire access road. A cross-property easement will be required for vehicular access to ingress and egress on E. State and Green Streets. The project
is in the CDB-60 Zoning District. It requires an area variance for height and Design Review for compliance
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
14
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, and
WHEREAS: 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), and WHEREAS: the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, the NYS Department of Transportation, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), the Board of Public Works, Common Council, and the Board of Zoning Appeals all potentially involved agencies in this action, have consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving,
funding or carrying out the action, did, in October 2020, declare itself Lead Agency for the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on May 25, 2021, reviewed and
accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Part 2 prepared by Planning staff, and Part 3 prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Board, drawings titled: Existing Conditions (C003), Demolition Plan (C004), Site Layout Plan (C101), Grading & Drainage Plan
(C201), Utility Plan ( C301), Landscape Plan (C401), Landscape Plan –Trail (C4-2), Landscape Plan –Retaining Wall (C403), Landscape Plan – State Street Entrance (C-404), Landscape Plan- Building (C405), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C501), Details (C601 & 602) all dated 5/10/21 and prepared by CHA Associates; Retaining Wall Sections (S-303) dated 05/05/21 and prepared by Beardsley; the following annotated drawings Floor Plan –Amenity & Parking Entry Levels (A2.01 & A2.02) annotated with bike rack locations, Grading & Drainage Plan (C201) annotated to show stormwater relocation and proposed drainage easement and Alta Survey annotated to show proposed changes to City Easements; Rooftop Mechanicals, North & West Elevations, South Elevation and 3D Views (Three Sheets) all dated 1/26/21; and Context Sections showing materials changes and Context Sections showing fire access road alternatives both dated 1/14/2, and Context – Photo Simulation (undated), all three prepared by Cooper Carey, and other application materials, and
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 project, and any received comments have been considered, 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: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing beginning on December 10, 2020, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board conducted Design Review for the Project on January 26, 2021 and found the project to be largely compliant with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did, on May 25, 20201 determined, as elaborated in the FEAF Part 3, that the proposed project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals has not yet granted the required area variances, however the Board has determined that due to the long review process and resolution of many site plan issues during that process, that Preliminary approval is appropriate at this time subject to the condition that the applicant receives the required variances, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
15
RESOLVED: the Planning Board does herby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project. Such
approval applies to the major elements of the site layout including building placement and footprints, location and design of major routes of site circulation pertaining to emergency access, personal, commercial and service vehicles, and pedestrians and bikes, grading and demolition, and placement of major hardscape features such as walls, patios, stairways, etc. Preliminary approval does not apply to the placement and arrangement of building façade features, building and hardscape materials and colors, planting plans, lighting, signage, site furnishings and other site details, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to the following conditions:
i. Applicant must demonstrate building code/fire separation compliance for the proposed building
as it relates to the proposed “Area B” through one of the following: a. Provide documentation of a permanent easement/public way or other legal mechanism prohibiting future building on a portion of Area B such that the proposed façade of the
apartment building complies with the allowable amount of openings in accordance with building code, or b. If an easement is not obtained, provide a revised façade design that complies with the
allowable amount of openings in accordance with building code, or c. If an easement is not obtained, provide a revised drawing demonstrating that the building has been pulled back from the proposed property lines such that the façade design complies with the allowable amount of openings in accordance with building
ii. Approval and filing of the proposed subdivision, and
iii. Issuance of the required area variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals
iv. Submission to the Planning Board for review and approval of all site details including but not limited to exterior furnishings, walls, railings, bollards, paving, signage, interpretive signage, lighting showing dark sky compliance) , etc., and
v. Submission of colored and keyed building elevations of all facades with building materials samples
sheet
vi. Submission of a revised Landscape Plan – showing the following:
• East retaining wall – vegetation/vines to cover and plant diversity/root diversity
• Deer resistant plants & deer protection
• Review of plant materials by City Forester, etc.
• Review of bioretention area and bioretention plants
• Planting specifications and soil volumes
• Restoration plan for disturbed trail and landscape – to Green Street
vii. Submission of drawing detailing treatment of ‘gap’ between city retaining wall and the north façade
of the building
viii. Detail of masonry terraced wall – plans and materials
ix. Submission of documentation showing percentage of greenspace on the site
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
16
x. Submission of site plan for trail extension on City property, including planting plans
xi. Plans, drawings and/or visualizations showing all proposed exterior mechanicals and associated equipment including heat pumps, ventilation, etc., including appropriate screening if necessary
xii. Any changes to the approved project must be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Staff will determine if changes require Board approval and
xiii. Addition of exterior bike racks for visitors
xiv. Before a building permit is issued, the monitoring plan as well as other required engineering reports (if needed) must be approved the Director of Engineering
xv. The applicant will submit documentation of the final monitoring plan for adjacent buildings to the Planning Board
xvi. Before issuance of the building permit, the applicant will submit documentation off-site contractor parking – not in City garages and parking relocation plan for relocating current parkers.
xvii. Submission of detail demonstrating that there will be no headlight spillage in parking garage
xviii. Submission of drawings and details of the plaza between the base of the stairs from E State Street and the Creek, and
xix. Noise producing construction activities will be limited to the hours between 7:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday (or Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. with advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and Development).
xx. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department emergency access issues have been satisfied, and
xxi. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits
xxii. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer
xxiii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed
xxiv. Submission of executed easement or other legal agreements, including maintenance of public walkway
Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Glass In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
17
B. Carpenter Circle Project. Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove
Realty LLC. Consideration of Final Approval for Ithaca Community Gardens Site. The
Planning Board granted preliminary site plan approval to the overall project on May 26,
2020 and final approval to Phase 1 of this project on September 22, 2020. The Ithaca
Community Gardens (ICG) now seek final approval for the 2.1 acre garden site project.
The garden site includes a revised layout, new fencing, structures for storage and shelter
and other site amenities. The overall project was 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)
) for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance on May 26, 2020.
Marty Hillerman appeared in front of the Board to present minor materials changes and
updates to the project.
Adopted Declaration of Final Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: The Planning Board issued Preliminary Approval for the mixed-use development and associated site improvements to be located at Carpenter Park Road on May 26, 2020, and
WHEREAS: the applicant now seeks final approval for the Ithaca Community Gardens (ICG) which includes 2.1 acres of garden lots and amenities, that will be reconfigured and approved to include fencing, storage buildings, gated entrances, a new layout, and other associated improvements WHEREAS: this Board, has on July 27, 2021, reviewed and accepted as adequate the following new and revised drawings titled: Site Plan (L-1.3), Berm Planting Plan (L2.0), Details (L-3.2) and Above Ground Fencing Plan (L1.0) all dated 6/7/21,and Fence Schedules (L1.2) and Fence Detail (L3.1) dated 3/26/21 and all prepared by Whitham Planning & Design PLLC, and Garden Grading and Utility Plan dated 3/26/21
and prepared by Passero Associates and other application materials, and , now be it therefore RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the ICG site project subject
to the following conditions: i. Any damage done to City Property including roads, utilities, etc. shall be corrected by the applicant
to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, ii. Any changes to the approved project must be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Staff will determine if changes require Board approval and iii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits
Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Glass, Jones, Petrina, Randall Against: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
18
Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
C. 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.
Applicants Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and Patrick Braga of Visum Development
appeared to present the proposed materials changes.
The originally proposed materials were proposed to be used on the front façade, and carefully
matched panelized systems were proposed to be applied on the back portions of the building.
Adopted Declaration to Approve Materials Changes
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approved a 66-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings, located at 815 South Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the owner, on September 24, 2019 and WHEREAS: The proposed project was to construct a new 66-unit student housing complex 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 is located in the R-3b
Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: the applicant now seeks changes to the approved building materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on July 27, 2021 reviewed and accepted as adequate the following drawings showing the proposed material changes: Building A Exterior Elevations and Building B Exterior Elevations dated 06-01-21 and Exterior Features dated 09-17-19 prepared by Stream Collaborative et. at., and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has determined that the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance issued by this Board as Lead agency on 07-23-19 and
that further environmental review is not required, now therefore be it
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
19
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does herby grant approval to the proposed materials changes, and
be it further RESOLVED: this approval does not change the remaining unsatisfied conditions from the Final Approval that are as follows: Before issuance of a Building Permit i. Submission to the Planning Board of a monitoring plan by a qualified professional detailing steps that will be taken to protect the structural integrity for the cell tower an any proximate off-site structures, as needed, during foundation construction, and ii. Noise producing construction activities will be limited to the hours between 7:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday (or Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. with advance notification to
and approval by the Director of Planning and Development). iii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed, and iv. Documentation of a binding commitment for winter sidewalk snow removal, and
v. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department and DOT that all transportation and emergency access issues have been satisfied, and Before Certificate of Occupancy vi. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and vii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and viii. Signage in parking lot pertaining to cell tower fall zone must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and ix. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the sidewalk on private property, and x. Submission to the Planning Board of the tenant lease including language regarding the fall zone of the cell tower, and xi. 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: Randall Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Glass, Jones Petrina, Randall Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
20
D. Mixed-Use Building. 510 W State/MLK Jr Boulevard by Visum Development
Determination of Environmental Significance and Rec. to 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.
Applicants Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and Patrick Braga of Visum Development
appeared to present the project updates, notably the decision to use CMC piles.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a mixed-use development located at 510 W. MKL/State Street and 507 W. Seneca St. by Visum Development, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: 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, 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. The project is subject to the Downtown Design
Guidelines and requires an area variance, and WHEREAS: This is 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 §617.4(b)(11), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability Tompkins County Department of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community
Renewal, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all been identified as potentially Involved Agencies in Environmental Review, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
21
WHEREAS: 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, did, on May 28, 2019, declare
itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review has, on July 27, 2021, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Part 2 prepared by Planning staff, and Part 3 prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Board, drawings titled Boundary and Topographic Map No. 507 West Seneca Street, No. 510 West State Street, No. 501 West Seneca Street, No. 112 North Corn Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins, New York dated 12/26/18 and prepared by TG Miller P.C.; Site Layout Plan (also showing Demo Plan) L101 dated 4/21/21; Planting Plan L103 dated 12/18/2020; Exterior Elevations A201 & A202, Sections A301, Wall Sections A302, #D Perspectives A901, Interior Area- 1st Floor A1.0, Interior Area- 2nd Floor A2.0, Interior Area- 3rd Floor A3.0, Interior Area- 4th Floor A4.0, Interior Area- 5th Floor A5.0 and Typical Unit Plans A107 all
dated 1/21/21, and Seneca Street View L302 dated 4/21/21, and Exterior Features – State Street Façade , Exterior Features – Corn Street Façade and Exterior Features – Seneca Street Façade all dated 3/12/21 and Shadow Studies (two Sheets) dated 4/21/21 and all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other application
materials, and WHEREAS: interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and
any received comments have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City Planning Board determined, as elaborated in the FEAF Part 3, that the proposed project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be issued in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of SEQRA. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Glass In favor: Glass, Jones Petrina, Randall Against: None
Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
22
E. Commercial Building (KFC). 405 Elmira Road by Rich Wilkinson of KBP Investment.
Review of Design Changes and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval.
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 of Marathon Engineering and Ken Shaw of KBP Investments appeared in front of
the Board to present updated materials selections (brick) and to report that they are in talks
with the State Park to connect to the trail in the rear.
Board members responded favorably to the updated materials selections.
Glass asked if they could make the rear gray instead of red and white.
Shaw said they could.
Board members added a condition that the applicants obtain the requisite variances for the
project.
Board members also requested the applicants to return with their sign package for approval.
Adopted Resolution of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Glass:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan
approval for construction of a 2,200 SF commercial building by Rich Wilkinson of KBP Investments, and WHEREAS: 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 is subject to the Southwest area Design Guidelines 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, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
23
WHEREAS: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on April 27, 2021 declare itself
Lead Agency in Environmental Review for 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: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on April 27, 2021, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on May 25, 2021 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey, No. 405 Elmira Road, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York dated 3/4/21 and prepared by TG Miller PC; Demolition Plan (C1.0), Overall Plan (C2.0), Site Plan (C.2.1), Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan (C3.0), Utility Plan (C4.0), Lighting & Landscape Plan (C5.0), Detail Sheet (C6.0, 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3) and Truck Turn Plan (C7.0)
all dated 5/12/21 and prepared by Marathon Engineering, and Exterior Elevations (A4.0 & A4.1) and Renderings (R1.1) dated 3/28/21 and prepared by snjdesign Architects and other application materials, and 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 project and any received comments
have been considered, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on May 25, 2021, determine the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has made revisions to the building design in order to bring it into substantial compliance with the Southwest Design guidelines, and revised drawings all dated 7/20/2: Demolition Plan (C1.0), Overall Plan (C2.0), Site Plan (C.2.1), Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan (C3.0), Utility Plan (C4.0), Lighting & Landscape Plan (C5.0), Detail Sheet (C6.0, 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3) and Truck Turn Plan (C7.0) and prepared by Marathon Engineering, and Renderings (R1.0 & R1.1), Floor Plan (A1.0) and Exterior Elevations
(A4.0 & A4.1), all dated 7/20/21 and prepared by snjdesign Architects and other application materials, now
therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the
project subject to the following conditions: i. Any changes to the approved project must be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Staff will
determine if changes require Board approval ii. Submission to the Planning Board for review and approval of all site details including but not limited to exterior furnishings, walls, railings, bollards, paving, signage, lighting, etc. iii. Submission of colored and keyed building elevations of all facades with building materials samples sheet iv. Submission to Planning staff elevations showing gray stipes to replace red stripes on the side facades of the building
v. Roof mounted lights, positioned to downlight the building walls, will be turned off when the business is not open
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
24
vi. Submission of final Landscape Plan with planting schedule & specifications
vii. Submission of sign package viii. Upon approval of variance from Board of Zoning Appeals. ix. Plans, drawings and/or visualizations showing all proposed exterior mechanicals and associated equipment including heat pumps, ventilation, etc including appropriate screening if necessary x. Location and number of bike racks xi. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted
xii. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department emergency access issues have been satisfied, and
Moved by: Randall Seconded by: Glass
In favor: Glass, Jones Petrina, Randall
Against: None
Abstain: None Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
F. Cliff Street Retreat. 407 Cliff Street by Linc Morse. Public Hearing and Review of FEAF
Parts 2 & 3. 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 and Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative, and Linc Morse, project sponsor,
appeared in front of the Board to present project updates, including the results of a recently
completed traffic study.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, Vice Chair Jones opened the Public Hearing.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
25
There being no members of the public present to speak, nor any written comments submitted
to be read into the record, Vice Chair Jones tabled the public hearing, holding it open, in
anticipation of a neighbor (not present) who had expressed a desire to comment.
In response to some of the written comments previously received on the project, Morse said
that he is local and he intends to be an on-site manager of the hospitality elements. He said
they are going to use high quality materials and improve the look of the building. He said the
project will bring amenities which it currently lacks to West Hill.
Demarest said this is an adaptive re-use of an industrial building, and it will make use of the
embodied energy of an existing building.
Applicants and Board also discussed the public outreach efforts in conjunction with the PUD
process and said that several neighbors had expressed support for the project.
The Board next reviewed Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF.
George Frantz of 604 Cliff Street then arrived. He spoke in opposition to the proposed
development. He said the rezoning would formalize a long-standing incompatible use within a
mostly working-class residential neighborhood. He said the neighborhood is already under
stress from nearly 15,000 cars passing through each day at speeds of 35-45 MPH. He said the
insertion of commercial developments has destabilized several residential neighborhoods
around the city and across the country. He asked the Board to look at the project critically and
determine if the development supports the health and well-being of, and if it creates at least
one significant benefit for, the citizens of Ithaca, to which he said it does not. He said that with
respect to the “hard look” mandate of SEQR, this seems inconsistent with long-term land use
plans and inconsistent with the existing community.
Vice-Chair Jones thanked him and then closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Petrina,
seconded by Glass.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
26
G. Apartments (40 Units). 228 Dryden Road by 228 Dryden LLC. Public Hearing and Review
of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. 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 from HOLT Architects appeared in front of the Board to present project updates
and share materials samples.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Randall, Vice Chair Jones opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Hedland, treasurer for St. Luke’s Church, asked the applicants to put vibration monitoring
into the church to protect it from damage during construction.
There being no additional members of the public appearing in order to speak, Vice Chair Jones
closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass.
Brown said they were looking at helical piles and spread footers, so there shouldn’t be vibration
concerns, but he said they were amenable to monitoring if needed.
The Board next reviewed Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
27
H. (4) Two-Family Dwellings at 615-617 Cascadilla Street. 615-617 Cascadilla Street by
Stavros Stavropoulos. Public Hearing & Review of FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant
proposes to combine three existing parcels, 615 & 617 Cascadilla St. 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.
Architect Dan Hirtler and developer Stavros Stavropoulos appeared in front of the Board to
present project updates.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Randall, Vice Chair Jones opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing in order to speak, nor any written comments
submitted to be read into the record, Vice Chair Jones closed the Public Hearing on a motion by
Petrina, seconded by Randall.
The Board then provided feedback on the design and reviewed Part 3 of the FEAF.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
28
I. Apartments (13 Units), 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue by Red Door Rentals/
AdBro Development. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to combine
two existing parcels, 325 Dryden Road, zoned CR-3, and 320 Elmwood Ave., zoned CR-2,
to create a new parcel totaling .23 acres (~10,000 SF). The applicant proposes to demolish
(1) two-story residential unit located at 325 Dryden and (1) existing three-story residential
duplex at 320 Elmwood Ave, and then construct (1) three-story apartment building with
13 units, equaling 15,000 SF total building area. The project will require several area
variances, including lot coverage by buildings, the minimum amount for green space per
lot basis, rear yard setback, and parking. The proposed design will provide six parking
spaces, whereas zoning requires 13 parking spaces. 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)(l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (9) and is subject to environmental review.
Architect Jason Demarest and project sponsors Greg Mezey of Red Door Rentals and Chris
Petrillose of AdBro Development appeared in front of the Board to present their proposal to
redevelop the two parcels.
Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency
On a motion by Randall, seconded by Glass:
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 an apartment building with 13 units by Red Door Rentals/AdBro Development,
and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to combine two existing parcels, 325 Dryden Road, zoned CR-3, and
320 Elmwood Ave., zoned CR-2, to create a new parcel totaling .23 acres (~10,000 SF). The applicant proposes to demolish (1) two-story residential unit located at 325 Dryden and (1) existing three-story residential duplex at 320 Elmwood Ave, and then construct (1) three-story apartment building with 13 units, equaling 15,000 SF total building area. The project will require several area variances, including lot coverage by buildings, the minimum amount for green space per lot basis, rear yard setback, and parking. The proposed design will provide six parking spaces, whereas zoning requires 13 parking spaces, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (9) and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore be it
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
29
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: Randall Seconded by: Glass In favor: Glass, Jones Petrina, Randall
Against: None Abstain: None
Absent: Blalock, Godden, Lewis Vacancies: None
The applicants explained their rationale for a number of zoning variances that would be
required to construct the building being proposed. The project is in the College Area Form
District and will be subject to design review.
6. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals
• # 3192 – 109 York Street, Area Variance
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this appeal. It is improving the
property by turning an unusable portion of the front yard into a usable area. The submitted
drawings lack detail - better drawings and visualizations would be helpful to fully understand
the project.
• #3193 – 510 W State Street, Area Variance
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this
appeal. They determined that the height variances are not impactful to the site as there is a
two-foot drop on the site and it is important to maintain consistent floor levels across the
building and ample ceiling heights for future tenants; as well, the rear yard variance is not
impactful as it is a thru site and the character of the neighborhood is such that houses are close
to the street line.
• #3195 – 1204 Cayuga Street, Area Variance
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports
this appeal for the following reasons:
1. The project brings the front yard deficiency closer to compliance than existing conditions
2. The Board supports well designed investments in homes that increase their attractiveness
and functionality
Approved by the Planning and Development Board October26, 2021
30
7. Old/New Business
Glass suggested they review progress on their work, if buildings are being built as approved,
etc.
Board members agreed to aim for a retreat on the fifth Tuesday in August.
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
No report.
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
C. Director of Planning & Development
Deputy Director Nicholas discussed several projects that were complete or nearing completion,
including Student Agencies building, North Campus Residential expansion, and the Lakeview
building.
9. Adjournment:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
Claire Pastor
405 Utica St. / Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 233-4780 / jerryclaire@gmail.com
To: aharris@cityofithaca.org, and Lnicholas@cityofithaca.org.
phone: 607-274-6550
Re: Special permit for the property on 201 East Tompkins Street
20 July 2021
Dear Ithaca Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals,
On behalf of my mother, Claire, I am writing to say “No” to the proposed fitness studio at
201 East Tompkins Street. Mom and I have discussed this, and here are our ideas.
There are three main reasons I am concerned about the impact of this project: the noise;
the potentially long hours; and the increased traffic and parking on Utica Street.
# 1. The Noise. The letter about this project says that the fun begins at 6 am. Let’s ask the
obvious: What happens if the noise from the music of the fitness studio wakes up or disturbs
my mother (and other neighbors), at this early hour, or at another time? ... Mom is 91 years
old, and she needs a good sleep every night. This worst case scenario would affect her health
and happiness for the entire day -- and possibly much longer.
I didn’t see anything about the noise issue addressed in the current application.
# 2. The Hours. The project’s letter says that group classes would be held from 6:00 to
7:00 a.m. on weekdays and also 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays . This 8 hours per week
doesn’t sound like much, but what happens a few months later if we get a letter from the
studio saying “Wonderful news! Fitness Classes will now be all day, from 7 am to 6 pm! “.
If business is good, they will want to expand their hours; and if business is not good, they
will need to expand their hours. I won’t call this “bait and switch”, but it does seem somewhat
disingenuous to present the project in this way -- to highlight the limited hours -- with no
guarantees that these limited hours would remain as they are.
# 3. The Traffic and Parking. From November through April, the streets of Ithaca are
continually smothered under snow and ice. Some of us have off-street parking, but choose to
park on the street because there is no cardio workout more intense than getting plowed in by
the city snow plows, then having to shovel a driveway behind a 6-foot wall of snow and ice.
What will the fitness studio members do for parking on snowy days? ... Will they bring their
own shovel, or will they park in the spot where I have recently spent a vigorous hour clearing
out? ... I am not claiming that I own the parking spaces on the streets, but I am saying that
having strangers park in front of my mother’s house every morning would be a change for my
mother, and not a change for the better.
Dear Board, please say “No” to this project, and preserve the quiet character of this
neighborhood.
— Michael Pastor (son and P.O.A. for Claire), resident of Ithaca and Fall Creek since 2000
— Claire Pastor, resident of Ithaca and Fall Creek, since 2013
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 1/1
In support of the proposed gym in Fall Creek
MeiMei Dennis <meimeid@gmail.com>
Sun 7/25/2021 12:42 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>; ahonsky20@gmail.com <ahonsky20@gmail.com>
Dear Ithaca City Planning Department,
My name is MeiMei Dennis and I live at 309 U ca Street, a few doors down from the proposed gym at
the current Servante glass studio. I’m wri ng to say how excited I am at the prospect of this space
becoming a fitness studio. I cannot think of a be er use for this commercial space in our residen al
community. A gym would provide a huge service to residents, and give our community a posi ve,
healthy space to interact and get to know our neighbors be er while simultaneously improving our own
quality of life.
As a single mom, it is o en hard for me to find the me to get a workout in, and driving to Island or
Planet Fitness adds an hour to that commitment. Having a place to work out walking distance from my
house would be ideal, and I’m sure there are many members of the Fall Creek community in the same
situa on. Furthermore, the healthy lifestyle a fitness gym promotes, and the community built around
those ideals - is exactly the sort of environment I would welcome onto my block, and the sort of people
I want to have around my young daughter and myself.
I’m aware that some of my neighbors are concerned about the poten al noise level a gym might bring
by playing music, par cularly early in the morning, and while I respect these concerns, I do not share
them. I expect the gym to respect the noise level expecta ons of the community exactly as any other
residen al neighbor on our block would. A gym is not a nightclub, and in my experience, while gyms do
o en play music inside, it is at the same level any resident in any neighborhood would be allowed to
play music inside their home. I have never walked by a gym and heard founda on shaking basslines loud
enough to wake the neighbors. At most gyms, people who wish to crank it up will simply put on
headphones, and I hold these same expecta ons for our exci ng new neighborhood gym.
I sincerely hope the planning dept and the local community gives this gym the chance to add a healthy,
vibrant, welcoming community des na on to our block. I’m looking forward to not only working out,
but also ge ng to know my neighbors be er, and ins lling healthy habits in my 5-year-old from a young
age. I think this gym will help our community grow more ghtly knit, it will give us a resource to become
healthier both physically and mentally, and it will cut down on me and carbon spent commu ng to
other gyms while simultaneously suppor ng a local business.
For people like me – single moms without a strong support network- or anyone in the area who cannot
currently manage to fit a workout into their work or childcare schedule – it will open a whole new world
of possibility. Having a gym walking distance to my house will undoubtedly raise my quality of life, and
I’m looking forward to having this fantas c resource made available to our en re Fall Creek community.
Very sincerely yours,
MeiMei Dennis
Owner and Resident of 309 U ca Street
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 1/1
Support for Special Permit Application for Fitness Facility in former Serviente Glass
Debra DeLorenzo <lunamadre60@gmail.com>
Sun 7/25/2021 4:33 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>; Jana Leyden <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
To Whom It May Concern:
I write to express my whole hearted support for the approval of the Special Permit to allow the fitness
facility owned and operated by Jana Leyden and Andy Lonsky to occupy the space formerly known as
Serviente Glass.
I have known both Jana Leyden and Andy Lonsky for several years as coaches for another local fitness
facility and am thrilled that they are bringing their expertise and commitment to diversity and
excellence to the Fall Creek Community.
Working with Jana and Andy as coaches has changed my life for the better in so many ways. Their
approach is grounded in the tenets of functional fitness and over time, I have seen my ability and
enjoyment of daily activities, recreational and otherwise, grow exponentially. They are intelligent,
compassionate and highly trained professionals who meet each client where they are and create
challenging opportunities for growth and success. I am so excited that more of the Ithaca community
will have access to this outstanding opportunity to improve their health and vitality...especially since
they are strongly committed to making memberships available and accessible to family units and
underserved groups through scholarships and family pricing. They believe that access to health and
fitness needs to be available to ALL who seek it.
They are also committed to being good neighbors in the Fall Creek area, and since they live in
downtown Ithaca, are very aware of the issues of parking and noise that would concern folks in the
area. They have planned a time window between classes to reduce traffic and are sensitive (again,
since they also live close to Fall Creek) to the impact that noise from classes will have. They have
addressed this by making sure that the music/noise from classes will be highly regulated and the
music itself selected to represent a diverse selection of genres and positive themes and avoid
controversial language/topics.
By choosing to site their facility within walking distance of many neighborhoods, Jana and Andy are
investing their energy, expertise and resources IN THE HEART of the downtown Ithaca community. It
will be readily accessible to many more people than most facilities in the area that require a car. I can
think of no better place to start one's journey toward better health than an inspiring, supportive
fitness facility that focuses on increased vitality than one that is in one's neighborhood!! I am so
excited to move from my own COVID home gym to this space!!
Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Kind regards,
Debra DeLorenzo
(607)351-2142
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAIjL1m800A9OhJxaWGxYJwA%…1/1
Letter of support for a fitness facility on Tompkins Street.
Heather Cooper <HeatherRCooper@outlook.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 10:08 AM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
Gree ngs!
I am wri ng today in support of the fitness facility, proposed by Jana Leyden and Andrew Lonsky, on
Tompkins Street to be reviewed at City Hall on July 27th.
Jana and Andy are solid human beings with impeccable integrity and moral responsibility. I have known
them, personally and professionally, for over 10 years and I believe that what they have to offer the Fall
Creek community is nothing short of a posi ve opportunity!
The physical and mental benefits that come with this fitness opportunity is offered to all people
regardless of age, gender, gender iden ty, race or fitness ability. This opportunity is available to the
en re neighborhood!
The community's concerns regarding traffic/parking and noise are understandable- Jana and Andy
respect and have addressed these concerns in their plans. If they say that they commit to respect these
concerns, then the community can 100% depend on it; Jana and Andy are people of their word.
Jana and Andy have so much to offer the Fall Creek residents and families with this fitness facility. I truly
believe that it will be transforma ve to the lives of the people in an utmost posi ve way.
If you would like to call me for further conversa on, I can be reached at 607-351-0903.
Thank you for your me in considering this le er of support.
Sincerely,
Heather Cooper
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQALsnp764IVRJtv9H7%2F6JcJs…1/1
Fitness Facility on Tompkins Street - SUPPORT!
Rachel Kissinger <rachelkissinger01@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 11:03 AM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Jana Leyden <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
Good Morning,
I am writing to express my support of the zoning application for the fitness facility on north Tompkins
Street, on the agenda for Tuesday, July 27, 2021. I met Jana Leyden and Andy Lonsky in 2014 and have
known them to consistently be responsible, responsive, professional individuals. Their demeanors are
both steady, thoughtful, thorough and positive. I have never known either to act without considering
other people in their decisions.
I met both Andy and Jana when I started my journey with functional fitness in 2014. They have always
provided sage leadership for me, as an athlete and as an aspiring coaching professional. I have
benefitted enormously from functional fitness, in reduced resting heart rate, better sleep and meeting
lots of people from different age groups and backgrounds. The gym community is diverse and
positive.
Not only with their fitness facility bring a health-minded business to the downtown area of Ithaca,
accessible without crossing over to "retail row", making it safe for pedestrians and bicycles as well as
car drivers. This is a good fit for Ithaca's initiative for "walkability". Ithaca is also trying to bring mixed-
use to the downtown area, and the prospective building is already a business location.
Street parking has been addressed in Jana and Andy's scheduling plan, since their class schedule
allows for transition time between classes for cars to exit and enter the area. Parking as an argument is
a double-edged sword in a city that seeks to minimize heat-island effect and rain runoff by limiting
parking lots and paving. To then argue street parking is a premium only for homeowners doesn't seem
to make sense. There is room for everyone, and street parking should not be prioritized for rentals,
which rely on street parking for tenants.
My hope is to see Jana and Andy's fitness facility flourish. I hope any concerns are not just "NIMBY"
complaints, and that the sense of a shared community gives everyone a chance.
I strongly urge you to decide in favor of the application tomorrow. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Kissinger
607-280-1047
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAJ1ONl44IENEqNaYY%2Bm7O…1/1
Crossfit Vertical
Jeff Cooper <bikeandbees@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 12:19 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Jana <Janaleyden@yahoo.com>
Good Afternoon -
I am writing this today to show my complete support for the fitness facility slated for the Fall Creek
area. I have known Jana Leyden for over 10 years and Andy Lonsky for over 8 years. In that time, from
fitness to friendship to family, I have witnessed them set goals, develop plans and put in the hard work
to achieve them. All of this, with unwavering respect, for those around them. I have no doubt that this
trend will continue.
On a personal note, the importance of a functional fitness facility can not be overstated and I know
from experience that Jana and Andy are top caliber coaches. I love the sense of community, humor
and inclusion they bring to their classes. I also love feeling healthy and fit as I work through my day.
Most importantly, I love that I am still able to keep up and play with my 4 year old granddaughter. To
me, this is the essence of what functional fitness means.
Thank you for your time.
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAPgqGgHhGW1MtGo1XJ5OsCc…1/2
Proposed fitness center at 201 E. Tompkins Street
Tom Blecher <tomblecher@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 1:45 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>; Tony Serviente <tsglass314@gmail.com>; janaleyden@yahoo.com
<janaleyden@yahoo.com>; atlonsky20@gmail.com <atlonsky20@gmail.com>
Hi Anya.
This is my statement to the Board regarding the proposed fitness center at 201 E. Tompkins Street. Please have it read into the
record. Thank you! I have sent a copy of this to the three applicants.
My wife and I have been residents of the 300 block of Utica Street for over 30 years. We love the peace and quiet of Utica Street,
the lack of traffic, the friendliness of the neighbors and the stability of the neighborhood. We have enjoyed having Tony Serviente
as a neighbor and he has become a friend. I believe that Tony will do everything within his power to place limitations on his
prospective tenants to preserve the tranquility of the neighborhood.
However, I fear that the proposed fitness center will negatively Utica Street. The assertions made by the applicants in their letters
leave me with more questions than answers along with some trepidation. I believe that granting this permit is rife with potential
problems.
NOISE, CLASS SIZE, AND SCHEDULING I have been a member of 4 fitness centers in Ithaca and Rochester and have
enjoyed the classes that I have taken. For much of each class my instructors played LOUD pulsating music which energized me
during my workouts. I liked that. However, I do not want to be forced to listen to loud pulsating music if it emanates from a
fitness center less than 100 feet from my home — especially at 6 am. Applicants, in the Planning Department file, claim that
music will not be continuous as it will not be played when instructors are teaching and during a cool down period. Any loud
pulsating music, especially early in the morning or at dinner time, is too much for me.
Circumstances and plans can change. The applicants propose 23 fitness classes per week with a maximum of 12 students per
class. If demand is greater than anticipated, will additional instructors be hired to teach more classes? As the room is very large,
will class size increase? If a permit is issued which delineates class size restrictions and the times of classes, how will this be
enforced? Does the City have the will power and the manpower to enforce the above expeditiously? If applicants, in the future,
claim financial hardship might the Board relent and allow more or bigger classes?
TRAFFIC Applicants state that “subject property has 8 parking spaces on the property”. Typically two spaces are taken by
upstairs tenants. Two more could be taken by instructors. This potentially leaves 4 spaces, not eight, in the lot for fitness students.
During change of classes there could be traffic from 24 cars — 12 coming and 12 going. It is pure conjecture on the part of the
applicants that the impact of vehicular traffic and congestion will be minimal because many clients will walk or cycle to class.
This number of additional vehicles will change the tenor of the Utica Street neighborhood and make it a less desirable place to
live. Many of us bought on Utica Street for the same reason people buy on cul-de-sacs -- there is virtually no traffic.
THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY Applicants assert that the property has been used commercially since 1921. This
continuous commercial use is irrelevant. First off, there was no zoning code in the City of Ithaca in 1921. Second and more
importantly, some residents of the 300 block have lived here for 30+ or 40+ years. None of us goes back to the days of noisy
bustling establishments like the body and transmission shop of the 1950s. We bought here because it is a quiet street and the
commercial building in question was a quiet neighbor. My wife and I would not have bought here if there was a fitness studio 100
feet from our home.
CONCLUSIONS: Applicants, in their letter to us, neglect to address the noise issue. Their assessment of traffic patterns and
impact on the neighborhood is conjecture. They do not address possible future business expansion with more noise and more
vehicular traffic. Their assumption that a fitness center will not affect property values is not sufficiently supported in their
application. Property values are a function of supply and demand and the demand for housing on our street would, I believe, be
negatively impacted by a fitness club. This is especially true for houses, like mine, located closest to the proposed fitness center.
Fitness clubs are not generally situated in quiet, residentially zoned neighborhoods and there is good reason for that. At this point,
I do not see any upside to a fitness center being situated in the Serviente Glass Building especially when there are other more
appropriate commercially zoned locations in town.
I am happy to talk with anyone, including the applicants about my issues.
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAPgqGgHhGW1MtGo1XJ5OsCc…2/2
Tom Blecher
279-0625
311-313 Utica Street
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAF9diqXBi6VEnFjpWx1gkFA%3D 1/1
Support for Leyden/Lonsky Fitness Facility
Elizabeth Weissbrot <eweissbrot@hotmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 2:34 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
To Whom It May Concern,
I write in hearty support of the fitness facility that owners Jana Leyden and Andy Lonsky have proposed
for their Fall Creek address. I have had the pleasure of being coached by both Jana and Andy in a
community fitness se ng since 2018.
Jana and Andy have made so many people feel welcomed into what can some mes be a very daun ng
atmosphere. If one is undertaking a fitness regimen for the first me, or following a pregnancy or cancer
diagnosis, that person isn't just looking for a coach with good technical skills, they need compassion,
dedica on, posi vity, and a willingness to meet people wherever they are at. Those are all a ributes
that I have experienced first-hand from Jana and Andy's coaching and presence. They are both excellent
communicators with great experience in promo ng a culture of safety and community.
I have benefited enormously from par cipa ng in this type of func onal fitness program. I have
improved my stamina, strength, and overall health, but also engaged in the special community which is
built largely because of the approach of the coaches involved. There is no shaming, pressure, or
nega vity in their methods. Jana and Andy seek to provide the most suppor ve and fun environment for
a life-changing and life-affirming fitness experience. They have coached hundreds of people - of all ages,
from all walks of life - to be er health, strength and mobility, and have done so on the strengths of their
program which is focused on func onal fitness - the movements we perform every day and, hopefully,
will perform well into older age.
I have every confidence that Jana and Andy will take special considera on of the neighborhood that will
surround their facility in order to create the best environment for all to coexist harmoniously. I would
note that program par cipants who undertake this type of fitness regimen are used to a brief arrival and
departure me. We are all so happy to see and support each other in class, but we don't typically "hang
out" once our workouts are over. We arrive on me, we clean up a er ourselves, we thank our coaches,
and we leave.
Jana and Andy are community-oriented, live in downtown Ithaca, and understand the importance of
maintaining a livable neighborhood for themselves, their children, and their neighbors. The addi on of
their fitness facility would only enhance the health and community atmosphere of Fall Creek.
Respec ully Submi ed,
Liz Weissbrot
Ithaca, NY
607-793-8914
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAIeclNNrHxVCmzeO%2BJYd7D…1/1
Fitness Center at Serviente Glass
Katherine (Effie) Johnson <johnson.holmgren@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 5:58 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
To whom it may concern:
We’re writing to voice our concerns about the proposed fitness studio at Utica and Tompkins. We are
particularly concerned about the issue of parking. In their letter the business owners state how many
spaces are available on the premises and on the street. We live right next door to this building and have
no off street parking. They are not allowing for the fact that there are already residents parking in these
supposedly available parking spaces. It is almost guaranteed that there will be people coming to theses
classes that will park directly in front of our home leaving us no place to park.
The next issue is noise. We like where we live because it is peaceful and quiet. We do not want to
contend with noise from this business; loud music or otherwise.
In addition we don’t want the extra traffic on our quiet street.
Please consider our concerns carefully and please don’t allow this gym to alter our neighborhood. Please
keep our street peaceful and quiet.
Many thanks,
Katherine Johnson, Joseph Holmgren, and Tilda Holmgren
317 Utica St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Sent from my iPhone
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQABqTADcnlZdBmi0kkVKOVBA%…1/1
Leyden/Lonsky Fitness Facility
Rachel Lance <rachellancectb@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 8:42 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
To whom it may concern:
Good evening,
I am writing in wholehearted support of the fitness facility
planned in Fall Creek by Andy Lonsky and Jana Leyden.
I have known Andy for almost 10 years and Jana for 17
years. They are two of the most compassionate,
hardworking and trustworthy people I know. I have been
coached by both of them: by Andy in a fitness setting and
by Jana in both highschool athletics and most recently in
a one-on-one fitness program. They are both everything
you could ask for in a coach: encouraging, patient,
reliable, and always continuing to expand their own
fitness education.
Not only are they excellent coaches who deserve the
space to serve more people, but they also care a great
deal about the community. They believe that fitness can
benefit anyone and will strive to make it accessible to all,
no matter the physical or financial limitations.
I strongly believe that they will create a successful, safe,
and inclusive fitness faculty that will positively affect
Ithaca as a community.
Thank you for your time.
Rachel Lance
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 1/1
Support for Special Permit Application - 201 E. Tompkins St, Lonsky/Leyden
Matt Braun <ttamnuarb@gmail.com>
Mon 7/26/2021 9:55 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Hello Ms. Harris and members of the City of Ithaca's Planning & Development Board:
I am writing to share my support for the special permit request submitted by Andrew Lonsky and Jana
Leyden to open a fitness studio in the Fall Creek neighborhood at the corner of Tompkins and Utica
Streets; a site that has been in continuous commercial use for at least a century. My wife and I have
lived on or near this corner for nearly twenty years and appreciate the opportunity to welcome a new
small business as Tony Serviente plans to move out.
We are very much in favor of Mr. Lonsky and Ms. Leyden's plan to create a neighborhood-based
fitness studio. We believe this studio would have a positive impact on the neighborhood, and bring a
welcome, new vibrancy to our family-friendly streets. We are also happy to see a business being
proposed that is focused on the physical health and wellbeing of the community. It is our
understanding that Mr. Lonsky and Ms. Leyden would be combining their substantial experience as
fitness professionals, with their commitment to family and community, to have a positive impact in Fall
Creek, and we feel comfortable with the scale of their intentions.
We cherish Fall Creek as a wonderful neighborhood in which to raise a family, where neighbors look
out for one another, and where there is space for residents and small businesses alike. I hope the
Planning and Development Board will grant permission for this fitness studio to establish itself and
contribute to the vitality of Fall Creek.
Sincerely,
Matt and Nancy Braun
103 E. Tompkins St.
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQALjG21Yi85tFo8xngzE67aM%3D 1/1
Letter of Support: Downtown Fitness Facility- Jana Leyden & Andy Lonsky
Edwards, Tyler <tedwards@CAYUGAMED.org>
Tue 7/27/2021 5:58 AM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
Hello,
I’m writing to voice my support for a fitness facility in downtown Ithaca started by Jana Leyden and Andy
Lonsky. As a homeowner in Fall Creek, my partner and I primarily walk or bike as a mean for
transportation whenever we can. When we heard about a potential fitness facility starting so close to
where we live, we were excited about the prospect of having a closer fitness facility that is within walking
distance.
As a local healthcare provider through Cayuga Medical Center, I speak with patients on a daily basis
about their choices regarding physical activity. Having an accessible fitness facility for so many people in
the downtown area could erase so many barriers that are in place for people who don’t own a car or
can’t afford to routinely pay for transportation to fitness facilities outside of town.
I have had the benefit of knowing Jana and Andy for many years and can vouch for their experience
providing a close-knit and caring environment to students and athletes, attention to detail, and
willingness to support people regardless of age/income/fitness level.
Personally, I have benefited greatly from participating in functional fitness. Aside from the numerous
health benefits, within function fitness I have gained a sense of community that has been a pathway for
many friendships over the years.
I hope that you will consider this letter of support for a functional fitness facility in downtown Ithaca. If
you have any questions please contact me at 6073421664 or tedwards@cayugamed.org
Planning and Development Board
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
We are writing to comment on the “Permit for Neighborhood Commercial (Fitness Studio) in the R-2
District” under consideration by the Planning and Development Board on July 27, 2021. We have lived at
308 Utica Street for 23 years and are concerned about the likely negative impacts of the proposal on our
neighborhood.
The applicants are proposing to run a fitness studio in the ground floor of 201 E. Tompkins St. That
location has served as an artisanal glass studio for many years. The proposal indicates there will be
individual personal training as well as four (4) scheduled fitness classes per day with up to 12 clients at a
time. The applicants’ letter to owners of property within 200 feet of the project location includes some
points that need clarification.
• The subject property has 8 parking spaces however, there are tenants on the top floor.
Assuming two cars for the tenants and one for the instructor, there are five spaces for
potentially 24 cars: 12 patrons leaving one class as another 12 arrive.
• There are 14 housing units on the block, some with two drivers in each. Not all the homes have
usable driveways and many people park on the street. At any given time, there are 7-9 cars
parked on the street. There is a limited number of parking spots and by no means should all the
spots be claimed by the applicant.
• The business will bring 12 cars to the street 4 times a day and there could be 24 cars on the
street at a time as one class ends and another starts.
• The limits in attendance and the number of classes are startup goals. There is nothing to stop
the business from expanding their offerings as it develops and grows.
Parking and Traffic
Utica Street is only six blocks long and with multiple stop signs to control traffic. While not by design, the
street has become a safe haven for children and adults from all over to walk, ride bikes, skateboard, and
socialize. We should be encouraging non-automobile transportation on roads with low traffic volumes
whenever possible and encouraging cars on main arteries that are wider and safer.
In addition, Utica Street is narrow and only one car can fit in the street when there are cars parked on
both sides of the street, which is the norm. We see the congestion and danger this causes whenever
cars are detoured off of Cayuga Street for events such as Ithaca Festival and Streets Alive.
The number of cars brought to this neighborhood with only two classes is possibly more traffic that the
300 block of Utica Street sees in 8 hours. The applicants are proposing four classes per day, Monday
through Saturday – at least 24 classes per week to start. The platooned nature of traffic flow to attend
scheduled classes accentuates the traffic impact by concentrating activity. This level of traffic will change
the flavor of the neighborhood that has grown to be a community that knows each other, spends time
outside together, and cares for each other. It is pure conjecture on the part of the applicants that the
impact of vehicular traffic and congestion will be minimized because clients will walk or cycle to class.
Sadly, the automobile remains the de facto mode of transportation for the vast majority of people, so
we can expect people will drive to the fitness center.
Regarding the history of the property, applicants assert that the property has been used commercially
since 1921. This continuous commercial use is irrelevant to the suitability of this project in this location.
Past conditions are not the same as today, particularly as it relates to car dependency and related traffic
impacts.
Noise
Fitness classes are usually accompanied by loud pulsating music to help energize customers. We are
concerned that this topic was not addressed in the application. Proposed class times – early morning
and evening – coincide with when people are most likely to be at home. Houses nearby the subject
location will be significantly impacted.
We all want businesses to succeed but we also need to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
Fitness clubs are not generally situated in quiet, residentially zoned neighborhoods and there is good
reason for that. Serviente Glass Studio has been a part of this neighborhood for as long as we have lived
here and a similar business endeavor would have less negative impact. At this point, we do not see any
upside to a fitness center being situated in the Serviente Glass Studio building, especially when there are
numerous more appropriate commercially zoned locations in the city.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Thompson
Fernando de Aragón
308 Utica Street
Ithaca, NY
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAOJLLYRU9eFPvfQ0o0wMa7s…1/1
Fitness Facility
Deb Kippola <debkippola@yahoo.com>
Tue 7/27/2021 9:04 AM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: janaleyden@yahoo.com <janaleyden@yahoo.com>
Good Morning!
We are writing to support the new fitness facility coming to downtown Ithaca! We have known Jana
Leyden & Andy Lonsky for well over 8 years. They’ve been our coaches/trainers, both in a group setting
and most recently personal training sessions. They are both kind and so very willing to help us achieve
our fitness goals. Which at this point is just staying active in a safe manner. Over the years they have
coached me thru becoming active again after 2 surgeries and currently while nursing a broken foot. The
fact that they believe fitness is for everyone is proven thru the way they tailor workouts to each persons
ability and needs.
We are so very excited for them to be able to pursue their dream of opening a facility to help others in
our community achieve their goals of fitness!
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Deb & Rich Kippola
(607) 339-9523
1
TO: Chair of the Planning & Economic Development Board
City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Division
City Hall, 3rd Floor
108 East Green St
Ithaca, NY 14850
FROM: Anne Marie Hamilton
Dr. Walter Byongsok Chon
318 Utica St
Ithaca, NY 14850
(c) 917-214-8626
hamiltonlit@hotmail.com
Property owners of 318 Utica St, Ithaca, NY and 109 East Tompkins St, Ithaca, NY
DATE: July 25, 2021
RE: Request to Reject the Special Permit Application by Leyden/Lonsky
PROPERTY - 201 EAST TOMPKINS ST, (CITY OF) ITHACA, NY 14850
Petition submitted by Jana Leyden, and Andy Lonsky
Property owner - Tony Serviente
To be reviewed and voted on by the City of Ithaca’s Planning & Economic Development Board
on July 27, 2021
This letter includes a A STATEMENT OF CALCULATIONS ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON
THIS INTERSECTION on pp. 6-8
Serviente property - 201 E. Tompkins St. location: The southeast corner of East Tompkins St/Utica St.
in the Fall Creek residential neighborhood in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State.
The Hamilton/Chon property - 318 Utica St/109 East Tompkins St. location: Our two lots which
combine into one property, occupy the southwest corner of East Tompkins St/Utica St. in the Fall Creek
residential neighborhood in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State.
In our opinion, the special application includes many misleading statements that we will address here. It
should go without saying that the commercial enterprise that Ms. Leyden and Mr. Lonsky propose is a
money-making venture. The intended usage as of the date of the special permit application therefore
must be read as a minimal usage plan. The large room on the proposed property has 2,000 square feet of
open space. Therefore, when Ms. Leyden and Mr. Lonsky state that they are intending to have 12 clients
at a time for a fitness class, it should be read and understood by the P&EDB to mean 12 clients
minimum. Because 12 clients in a 2,000 square foot open room gives each client over 150 square feet of
space around them. So, the calculations we as homeowners who reside at this intersection, and who live
across the street from 201 East Tompkins St., have made regarding the dozens of vehicles this venture
would impose on this intersection and this neighborhood, must be read as the minimum impact. As the
following calculations assert, even the minimum numbers of clients proposed by the applicants would
cause a very large impact resulting in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic, or affect existing
infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway, not to mention ruining this historic, residential
2
neighborhood. Granting this special permit would, in effect, install a strip mall on the corner of East
Tompkins St. and Utica St., without any parking or infrastructure to support it. Any employee and
classes Ms. Leyden and Mr. Lonsky might add after the fact of the Board’s special permit decision
would intensify the usage of the residential property, and multiply its negative impact on the
neighborhood, due to added classes drawing at least a dozen people per class, plus individual client
sessions and other unnamed and unspecified uses of the property. We urge the Board to take this
potential impact into consideration as well.
Ms. Leyden’s specialty in fitness care is caring for pregnant women, and their after-birth health. Surely,
pregnant women, or lactating women cannot be expected to walk or bike to a fitness class in the heat, in
their later months of pregnancy, just after giving birth, with a newborn, maybe with other children, or
for appointments at any time in the dead of an Ithaca winter. They should be taking safe transportation
while pregnant and lactating, and that means that most of Ms. Leyden’s clients will be driving. To
expect otherwise or assert that they won’t, as Ms. Leyden has done in her application, would mean
placing a cruel burden of suffering onto these women. These dozens of women each week deserve a
safe, accessible environment when they are seeking fitness care. If they are pregnant, or have newborns
and possibly other children, this small, busy intersection is not a safe place for them to park, exit their
cars, and then return to their vehicles and exit the neighborhood.
In fact, the property owner is Tony Serviente, who has not made an application to the P&EDB. He is the
owner but is not the applicant. It is not clear why the potential commercial renters Ms. Leyden and Mr.
Lonsky have made the application for the special permit for commercial use of this residentially zoned
building when they do not own it, and they do not live in it.
We urge the Planning & Economic Development Committee to reject the special permit application to
install a full service, high-volume commercial fitness center on the property at 201 East Tompkins St for
the following reasons:
1. The fact that the applicants neither own nor reside in the home.
2. The fact that this R-2 special permit application is the exact opposite of the one the Planning &
Economic Development Board granted to Mr. Serviente in the 1990s. In the 1990s, Mr. Serviente
lived on the property. He asked for a special permit for a sole proprietorship for his stained-glass
art studio, in which he, as an artist, sometimes with assistants, worked alone. Sometimes, he
taught small classes. This time, Mr. Serviente does not live on his property, and is requesting a
special permit for a high-volume, fully functioning commercial fitness center. The commercial
purposes are opposite. A proprietary, personal practice art studio is the opposite of a public, high-
volume gymnasium bringing dozens of visitors to the intersection each day, and at least 30 dozen
cars each week.
3. The applicants’ commercial venture is much more appropriately suited for any of the huge
volume of commercially zoned business properties located throughout Ithaca. With the high
vacancy of commercial space available due to the commercial and business effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic, the applicants have a wide range of available choices, ready-made, for their
gymnasium. In fact, there are dozens of rentable spaces within two miles of this very location that
they can choose from. Their location within a commercial zone would do so much more for the
economic recovery of the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. It is in the best interest of the
whole region for this large commercial venture to locate itself in a space that shares parking lots,
3
in the vicinity of business which their clients can patronize. Other business can profit greatly from
over thirty dozen patrons arriving and departing each week on an hourly basis from before dawn
until way after dark. This gymnasium’s clients will want to buy food and beverages, groceries,
health supplies, clothing, energy drinks, fitness equipment, and many other items that Ithaca
businesses sell. Fitness clients might also need childcare. Businesses need to work together to
recover from this pandemic. Considering placing a high-volume fitness center in a quiet, historic,
residential neighborhood is counterproductive to Tompkins County’s economic recovery goals.
There is great opportunity for these entrepreneurs to site their high-volume business near other
businesses with parking lots in a commercial zone, so that they may create commercial synergy
and profit in a maximally beneficial location. Occupying a property at this intersection in Fall
Creek is far outside the commercial zones in Ithaca, and would do nothing to contribute to the
Planning & Economic Development Division’s stated goals. It would instead destroy a historical
residential neighborhood.
4. The applicants’ misleading statement that, “Given the small size of fitness classes and the
availability of 8 on-site parking spaces, the increase in vehicular traffic, congestion and on- street
parking demand will be minimal.” In fact, vehicular traffic on the intersection would skyrocket.
(Please refer to our A STATEMENT OF CALCULATIONS ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON
THIS INTERSECTION attached on pp. 6-8.) In fact, two residential renters use parking spaces
on the property, and the applicants Ms. Leyden and Mr. Lonsky live elsewhere in Ithaca.
Therefore, the applicants and renters alone will probably take up half the spaces that exist on the
property, leaving only 4-6 for clients at any time.
5. The daily traffic burden of 5.5 dozen of cars arriving, parking, and departing, 6 days a week, with
a turnover every hour on the hour, beginning before 6am and ending after 7pm.
6. The weekly traffic burden of over 30 dozen vehicles arriving 6 days a week to the intersection of
East Tompkins St and Utica St, bringing over 30 dozen clients each week to the property from
pre-dawn to post-dusk five days per week, turning over every single hour, and arriving on
Saturdays before 9am and departing after noon, as calculated by the applicants’ stated petition for
commercial usage of the residential property. This high-volume commercial usage of the property
at 201 East Tompkins would destroy this historic residential neighborhood. Mr. Serviente does
not reside at 201 East Tompkins, so it is possible that the request for this special permit is not
even valid.
7. The intersection’s inability to bear the traffic burden of over five dozen extra cars per day (Please
see our calculations that we provide attached entitled A STATEMENT OF CALCULATIONS
ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THIS INTERSECTION
based on the information stated by the applicants.)
8. Mr. Serviente’s property is a concrete and glass building featuring many large glass windows.
The proposed frequent group fitness classes would necessarily pour music into this historic
residential neighborhood. This 6-day a week loud music would destroy the residential nature of
the neighborhood, and the peace and quiet of those of us who live here.
9. Its effect of preventing our right to the quiet enjoyment of our home.
10. Its effect of lowering our property’s value.
11. The air pollution such a special permit would cause.
12. The noise pollution such a commercial-use permit would bring to the residential neighborhood.
13. The trash that such a permit would bring to the residential neighborhood.
14. The nuisance of noise.
15. The lack of parking on East Tompkins St and Utica St.
4
16. The safety threat to all residents, especially the elderly, who regularly walk on our narrow
sidewalks, the children, and the toddlers would lose the ability to safely navigate the narrow
sidewalks with their parents and caregivers.
17. The safety risk to all the many dogwalkers.
18. The safety risk to the driving school students, who currently utilize two different driving school
companies to learn to drive through this intersection all day long, 6 days a week, year-round.
19. My current and increasing inability to use my driveway due to parked cars’ locations forcing me
to inch my way backwards to avoid collisions, as well as the safety threat the increased traffic
causes to me because inching my way out of my driveway increases the chances that my vehicle
will be T-boned by a vehicle turning the corner at the intersection. The sight lines are not good,
and currently, drivers and skateboarders and cyclists often speed through this intersection.
20. The burden of multiple sets of the applicants’ fitness center clients arriving from before 6am to
7pm every weekday.
21. The loss of our peace and quiet 6 days a week because of the dozens of clients arriving and
departing just across the street from our house.
22. The loss of productivity and therefore profit in Ms. Hamilton’s work-from-home job due to
dozens of clients arriving and departing hourly every day across the street from the front of our
house, where her home office is located.
23. The burden of keeping our dog from being a nuisance to our residential neighbors because he will
bark sometimes when he hears 5.5 dozen cars per day arriving and departing across the street
from my home.
24. The burden of being forced to keep my dog inside my home most of the day, and not freely
allowing him to use our back yard because he will inevitably bark at some of the 5.5 dozen cars
per day arriving and departing.
25. The burden of extra effort on our parts to stay on good terms with our neighbors and not be a
nuisance to them when my dog barks at the 5.5 dozen cars per day arriving and departing every
hour on the hour.
26. The significant loss of street parking on snow days and street cleaning days, as well as any City or
utility crew street maintenance or upgrade activities.
27. The significant loss of street parking every single time it snows in Ithaca, and every time snow is
present on the ground, which is at least 3 months per year.
28. The burden of adding to the current construction traffic presence at the intersection due to the
applicants’ request to do “required minor renovation” construction at 201 East Tompkins St. This
unnamed renovation could take weeks or months, and it will disturb the peace of the
neighborhood as well as add traffic to the intersection. Every construction project affects and
disturbs the surrounding neighbors. It is necessary for the applicants to detail the plans for their
renovation to the Board so that the Board may determine the real intended usage of the property
as well as the construction scope and timeline, and the traffic and other environmental impacts.
29. The proposed daily burden of adding dozens of more non-resident cars to this intersection
currently while the owners of 402 Utica Street on the northwest corner of East Tompkins St and
Utica St are building an extension onto their residence.
30. The current over-commercialization of this residential neighborhood by the presence of 3 Airbnb
rental units near the intersection of East Tompkins St/Utica St. The 3 Airbnbs operate in the first
properties adjacent to both our property and Mr. Serviente’s property at 201 East Tompkins St.
Two units of Airbnbs are located at 105 East Tompkins St., and one large unit of Airbnb is at 317
½ Utica Street, adjacent to Mr. Serviente’s property. Each of these Airbnbs brings one or two
5
vehicles every time it is rented, and they are available with a daily turnover. The commercial use
of these residential properties adjacent to the corner have already overtaxed the intersection and
overburdened its few street parking spots. Both visitors and maintenance workers use the
available parking spaces on the street.
31. The added risk of collisions on this through-street to Fall Creek Elementary School. Many buses
drive through this intersection on this through-street to the elementary school every day.
32. The oversaturation of commercial usage and presence in our historic residential neighborhood,
soon to be increased by the new chocolate factory and retail space to be occupied at 206 East
Tompkins St, which is right across the street from Mr. Serviente’s property. It, too, functioned as
a sole proprietorship, but now will become a factory and possibly a retail space.
33. The reduction in the quality of life of several senior citizens who reside on or very near the
intersection who will not be able to continue the peaceful enjoyment of their homes in retirement
due to significantly increased safety risks on the sidewalks and streets, a high turnover of non-
residents seeking parking on an hour to hour basis which will impede free access to their homes,
and the imposition of a commercial presence of daily high pedestrian and vehicular traffic that
they did not agree to or anticipate when they bought their homes.
34. The burden of current residents losing their right to safety, peace and quiet in their retirement
years.
35. The further commercialization of this historic residential neighborhood that granting this special
permit would allow
36. The safety risks to the children who are growing up near this intersection that I have already
enumerated.
37. The exacerbation of the speeding phenomenon on East Tompkins that already exists as motorists,
school buses, constant delivery vehicles, and construction and maintenance vehicles speed along
East Tompkins.
38. The fact that more throughway traffic is already being created at this intersection, between the
Cayuga Park Development (formerly the Carpenter Park Development) and the Cornell
University campus as that new mixed-use medical, residential, and commercial complex is being
built.
39. It would deal a severe blow to the safe and healthy pedestrian environment that we now enjoy in
this historic residential neighborhood.
Please feel free to call either of us with any further questions.
Sincerely,
Anne Marie Hamilton Dr. Walter Byongsok Chon
6
A STATEMENT OF CALCULATIONS ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THIS INTERSECTION
Chart: Tracking of the arrival and departure of client vehicles, based on the applicants’ stated minimum
goals for potential use of the building at 201 East Tompkins St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Bottom Line:
The proposed activity of the applicants’ business would bring a minimum of 5.5 dozen cars each day to
the intersection of Utica St. and East Tompkins Street every day
At minimum, the proposed activity of the applicants’ business would bring over 30 dozen cars each
week to the intersection of Utica St. and East Tompkins Street
In response to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 – Impact Assessment signed on
03/21/2021 by Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, we submit this statement with opposing
views. We assert that:
#1 -The proposed action would create moderate to large impacts of a material conflict with an adopted
land use plan or zoning regulation; #2 - the proposed action would create moderate to large impacts
resulting in a change in the use or intensity of use of the land; #3 – the proposed action would create
moderate to large impacts to impair the character or quality of the existing community; #5 – the
proposed action would create moderate to large impacts resulting in an adverse change in the existing
level of traffic, or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway; #8 – the proposed
action would create moderate or large impairment of the character or quality of important historic,
archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources.
Let us face the practical truths of the matter. Remember that we have a great deal of snow in Ithaca,
around 5 months of wintery weather which causes extensive snow piles, removes parking spaces from
the residential streets, and impedes traffic every day. In addition, there is bitter cold 3 months out of the
year, and any statement that clients made by the applicants that clients live in the neighborhood and will
walk or bike to the fitness center must be disregarded as misleading. First, a business cannot legally
discriminate on which clients to allow into the center based on the client’s residential address. They
cannot serve only local clients. Second, any statement which intends to convince the P&EDB that clients
will walk or bike to classes during an Ithaca winter for pre-dawn classes in wintery, freezing, sometimes
sub-zero weather is to be dismissed outright. Clients will drive their cars to the proposed fitness center
most of the time, most of the year.
Here is the breakdown of added traffic burden, per the applicants’ actual stated petition:
Actual stated intentions for proposed use by Ms. Leyden and Mr. Lonsky:
Weekdays
Monday through Friday, fitness studio open from 6am to 7pm.
One fitness class for 12 clients in the morning at 6am = 12 cars, plus the owners’ cars
7
Three consecutive fitness classes for 12 clients each at 4pm, 5pm and 6pm. 12 people per class makes 36
cars arriving, parking at, and departing from the intersection in the afternoon 5 days a week. = Add 36
cars per weekday.
Consecutively held private fitness classes every hour on the hour from 7am to 4pm. The owners have
enough space to hold two personal private fitness classes during each time slot, so the assumption is that
2 cars per time session will be arriving and departing.
7am = Add 2 cars per weekday
8am = Add 2 cars per weekday
9am = Add 2 cars per weekday
10am = Add 2 cars per weekday
11am = Add 2 cars per weekday
Noon = Add 2 cars per weekday
1pm = Add 2 cars per weekday
2pm = Add 2 cars per weekday
3pm = Add 2 cars per weekday
The daily private personal training sessions subtotal = 18
Each weekday the subtotal of cars totals: 12 + 36 + 18 = 66
Therefore, five weekdays of traffic Monday through Friday will bring 5 x 66 cars per day for a
total of 330 cars’ worth of traffic.
Then add --
Saturdays
This commercial enterprise is open on weekends, too.
On Saturdays, the fitness studio proposes to be open from 9am to noon.
Three consecutive fitness classes for 12 clients each at 9am, 10am and 11am with12 people per class
makes 36 cars arriving and departing from the intersection every Saturday morning. Add 36 cars each
Saturday.
Each weekend the total numbers of cars is 36
To calculate the total vehicular traffic each week, add the number of cars arriving and departing from
Monday to Friday (330) to the number of cars arriving and departing on Saturday morning (36), and the
grand total of cars arriving and departing each week is 366. That figure represents 5.5 dozen vehicles per
day, and 30.5 dozen cars per week which will need to find parking and will take up space on these
residential streets. The street is not a parking lot. The proposed business has no parking lot to
accommodate its minimum of 366 individual clients each week.
Summary - Clearly, the applicants are asking for special permission to bring and park at least the
following numbers of cars at this one intersection each week:
30.5 dozen cars (366 cars to be parked and taking up space) each week, which is calculated from -
• 5.5 dozen cars per weekday from pre-dawn until after dusk. (66 cars)
8
• Plus 3 dozen cars (36 cars) on Saturday morning
To extrapolate, then, on a yearly basis, as a minimum starting point, according to the applicants, this
number would bring the need to accommodate -
1,586 dozen cars per year of traffic to this intersection (30.5 dozen cars per week x 52 weeks per
year). That is 19,032 vehicles per year.
So, they propose 19,032 total vehicles per year arriving, parking and departing (366 cars per week
x 52 weeks) this small-scale, residential, late-19th century/early 20th century intersection, and the
one-lane driving that makes up Utica St. It is clear that the traffic alone would cause a very large
impact on the environment. This impact would occur on an on-going basis, from pre-dawn to after-dusk,
with a turnover every hour on the hour. Clearly this petition should be rejected because it is high-volume
and would change the basic nature of this residential neighborhood and negatively affect our property
values.
CC: All members of the P&EDB
By: email to Anya Harris, plus one paper copy delivered to Anya Harris at Ithaca City Hall
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 1/1
Crossfit vertical
Chris OBrien <bukreo@yahoo.com>
Tue 7/27/2021 3:19 PM
To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Hello Ms.Harris,
My name is Christopher OBrien and I own Lincoln Street diner in Fall Creek. I have known both Janna and
Andy for the last 6-7 years and have grown to both like and respect them both as people and leaders in
the community and fitness.
I would be more than proud to have them as a neighbor business in Fall Creek. The both carry a drive to
better their community and surroundings matched by no-one.
The product of fitness is something very important these days and both Andy and Janna are
knowledgeable in this field to lead a nice fitness community.
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at the diner at 2161616.
Thank You, Christopher OBrien
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
To: City of Ithaca Planning Board
From: George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street, Ithaca, NY
Date: July 26, 2012
RE: Comments on Draft SEQR/CEQR FEAF Parts 2 & 3.
Below are my comments regarding the draft FEAF Parts 2 & 3, and the potential for significant adverse
impacts of the proposed rezoning of the property at 407 Cliff Street to a Planned Unit Development that
will introduce a major commercial development into the Cliff Street neighborhood. The proposed
project is neither consistent with the 2015 Plan Ithaca comprehensive plan, nor does in meet the criteria
outlined in the Planned Unit Development Overlay District regulations, nor is the proposed commercial
development at 407 Cliff Street consistent with the community character of the Cliff Street residential
neighborhood.
The draft FEAF Parts 2 & 3 as they stand are indicative of the lack of thought, and for that matter the
lack of vision on the part of all parties, at all stages of the review, of this proposed rezoning. In the
hands of a competent, creative and innovative developer, several of whom I know and have worked
with here in Ithaca and elsewhere, the 2.75-acre site at 407 Cliff Street could be a vibrant residential
community or 30-60 homes, a complement to the neighborhood, and to Ithaca as a whole.
Unfortunately, this will not happen unless the Common Council and the Planning Board take seriously
the responsibility to review this proposal with the critical analysis it requires. In the end it will be the
Cliff Street neighborhood, long under stress from the high volumes of traffic through the neighborhood,
that will pay the price of this very poorly thought out land use and zoning decision by the City.
The focus of my comments are on issue areas #17 and #18 of the FEAF Parts 2 & 3.
#17. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS
A. There is No Consistency With the Adopted 2015 Plan Ithaca.
The proposed rezoning of the property at 407 Cliff Street from Residential R-3a to a PUD to permit
20,000+ sq. ft. of commercial development is, by any reasonable interpretation, completely contrary to
the 2015 Plan Ithaca comprehensive plan, in its Vision for residential Ithaca’s neighborhoods; in its Plan
Goals; and in its Plan Recommendations.
Under the Vision Statement, the first statement under the category of Preserve and Enhance is:
1. “Our Neighborhoods – Ithacans place a high value on the sense of belonging, support and connection
that are inherent in our neighborhood identities. The character and livability of our existing
neighborhoods must be protected.” (p. 17)
Under the Land Use Goals (1, 2, 3, 11):
1. “The city’s role as the economic, social, and cultural center of Tompkins County will be strengthened
by attracting and retaining a larger proportion of the County population, reversing a half-century
trend of population loss to the County.”
2. “Additional housing will provide opportunities for people of all incomes, ages, and abilities to live in
the city.”
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
3. “Neighborhood character will be preserved and enhanced.”
11. “New development will be consistent with the City’s land use goals and map and will be of high-
quality design.” (p. 33)
Under the Land Use Recommendations:
A. “Make land use decisions in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and the conditions identified
in the “Planned Characteristics” subsections for individual Future Land Use categories.” (p.34)
Future Land Use Map, adopted 2015 Plan Ithaca comprehensive plan.
Under the Future Land Use Categories “Planned Characteristics” subsections, two apply specifically to
the Cliff Street neighborhood:
Residential Areas (Medium Density)
“No significant changes to the character of medium-density residential areas are proposed; however, it is
desirable to continue to provide a variety of housing types in these areas and there are opportunities for
infill development on vacant or underutilized sites. Such development should be sensitive to the
character and setting of the existing neighborhood.” (p.37)
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
“New development may be permitted in some locations but will require a higher level of review. Other
locations are inappropriate for development and new construction will be prohibited to protect the
environment.” (p. 46.)
Furthermore, on the question of commercial development, the 2015 Plan Ithaca clearly communicates
that future commercial development will occur in the designated Waterfront Mixed-Use, Urban Mixed-
Use and Enterprise areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. (pp. 40-44)
Furthermore, under the existing Residential R-3a zoning regulations, the parcel could be developed for
anywhere from 30 to 60 or more units of family housing, furthering in a substantial way the Plan Vision,
Plan Goals and Plan Recommendations of the 2015 comprehensive plan.
B. There is No Consistency With the Criteria for Approval of a PUD.
#1. Does the project further the health and welfare of the community?
The project proposes to replace a longstanding incompatible industrial use that a more intense
commercial use, consisting of 20,000+ square feet of unspecified retail commercial, a commercial
conference center, commercial office space and a commercial Airbnb operation. These types of Airbnb
have already disrupted lakefront communities in many of the communities in the Finger Lakes region,
and according to the proposed site plan, will be placed within 25 to 30 feet of an existing home.
Formalizing a commercial and industrial land use within a residential neighborhood today is generally
recognized as bad planning. It is especially bad planning in a neighborhood that is already under
extreme stress due to traffic volumes close to 15,000 vehicles per day, with attendant noise, dust,
speeding and other negative impacts on residents’ quality of life.
Rezoning the parcel at 407 Cliff Street for commercial and industrial use would set a bad precedent for
the street and the neighborhood. Further up the street is a parcel with an underperforming commercial
office building, as well as an undeveloped 11-acre parcel of land. Rezoning the parcel at 407 Cliff Street
could encourage applications from these similarly situated property owners on the street.
The project does not further the health and welfare of the Cliff Street residential community, or the
Ithaca community in general. The Cliff Street neighborhood specifically needs a bus stop at 705 Cliff
Street, for which some of us have unsuccessfully lobbied for years to have installed. A bus stop at the
Incodema site is 600 feet from the nearest residence, and essentially useless to anybody other than the
developers. There is already the Cliff Street Path to Cass Park, built in 1996 and easily accessible by
over 30 homes; the proposed walkway at 407 Cliff Street on the other hand will serve commercial
Airbnb guests and other building tenants at 407 Cliff Street, and 2 or 3 adjacent homes (check a map).
#2. Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan?
No. See above.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
#3. Does the project create at least one long-term significant community benefit?
The project will not create any long-term significant community benefit:
1. The proposed pedestrian connection to Cass Park is not needed, and would at best be useful to 2-3
homes on the street, even if it were financially feasible to build an ADA-compliant, 400-ft or longer
boardwalk on the unstable fill slope where it is proposed;
2. The proposed bus stop would only benefit the developers and their tenants;
3. The so-called restoration of the fill slope with “restorative agriculture” to replace weedy non-native
trees will be an exceedingly short-term benefit, given 1) the highly exorbitant cost of agriculture of
any type on a 1:1 slope, much less one littered with large chunks of concrete; and 2) the amount of
labor and expense necessary to prevent rapid re-population of the slope by weedy non-native
plants, leading to quick abandonment of both the agriculture and maintenance of the slope;
4. The proposed retail space “and maybe a small cafe, which is sorely missing from the West Hill
community currently” will not serve Cliff Street residents, nor the rest of West Hill, given the lack of
any direct connections between Cliff Street and the rest of West Hill;
5. This small number of predominantly low-wage jobs generated by the proposed commercial develop
will not be an economic engine for the West Hill neighborhood;
6. With some 600+ tractor trailers moving through the Cliff Street neighborhood 24/7, the reduction of
few tractor trailers generated by the former Incodema will be of no benefit, long term or short-term
In conclusion, the proposed action is not at all consistent with the City comprehensive plan, nor does it
meet even the minimal criteria set forth in the Planned Unit Development Overlay District required to
be met before the City approves a rezoning.
18. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER
The proposed commercial development to be permitted under the new PUD zoning is as inconsistent
with the predominant architectural scale and character of the Cliff Street neighborhood as was the
former Incodema industrial operation, a legal non-conforming use for decades. The proposed
commercial development is located within a residential neighborhood of some 3 dozen homes, within
the 200 to 700 block section of the street. (see Appendix A)
Historically urban planning theory and zoning has viewed legal non-conforming uses as “grandfathered”
land uses which would disappear upon termination of the use. For decades the Incodema and its
predecessors have enjoyed the use of the property for a non-conforming use totally out of character
with the surrounding residential area.
Formalizing the non-residential use of the property through adoption of the proposed PUD zoning would
also remove from the residential development market some 2.75 acres of land that under the existing
Residential R-3a zoning regulations could be developed for anywhere from 30 to 60 or more units of
family housing. This residential use would be a far more compatible and consistent use of the property,
than the commercial development envisioned under the proposed PUD.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
APPENDIX A
Cliff Street Neighborhood Context
In a communication dated June 15, 2021 Stream Collaborative Architects supplied the Planning
and Development Board with what is referred to as a “neighborhood context map” and photos
of a few homes next to the Incodema property proposed for commercial development. This
presents a far more accurate picture of the Cliff Street, neighborhood, the neighborhood not seen
by the thousands of drivers speeding through at 35 mph to 45 mph.
224 Cliff St.
Up on the bank in the trees and difficult to see.
A ca. 1900 Colonial 4-Square style home, abandoned for
many years, but fully rehabilitated by its owner over the
past decade.
196 Park Rd.
Technically not Cliff St, but a new home completed in the
last year by the former owners of 227 Cliff Street, by
subdividing off a portion of their deep back yard. It is a
creative example of creative urban infill, and reinvestment
in the Cliff Street residential neighborhood.
237 Cliff St.
Likely one of the older homes, from the layer 1800s. It
still retains the simple vernacular architecture of a 19th
century working class home in Ithaca, probably for a
railroad working in the Lehigh Valley yards that once
occupied what is now Cass Park.
243 Cliff St.
Another one of the older, late 19th century residences on the
lower end of the street, expanded ay some by replacement
of the front porch and area above with additional living
space, and conversion of the basement to living space.
The owners of 243 Cliff built 196 Park Rd. It immediately
borders the Incodema property.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
505 Cliff St.
When the Liguori family had to expand the parking lot of
then Kolar Machine, they donated this home and parcel to
INHS which moved it about 100 ft north.
It’s exterior reflects a perennial challenge to quality of life
on the street: winter salt spray.
506 Cliff St.
This home appears in a 1910 photo of lower West Hill. It
was also an early Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS) projects, in the ’80s.
Sitting 12 ft. from the curb, with the grime and other
impacts of 15,000 cars and trucks daily speeding past, it’s
the poster child for the longstanding myth that the Cliff
Street neighborhood is “all washed up.”
511 Cliff St.
An early 20th century Colonial Revival home, with 513 Cliff
St. one of the “Twins,” identical homes built by 2 brothers
who at the time were both successful homebuilders in
Ithaca. The current owner of 511 acquired and demolished
the adjacent deteriorated rental property and is completing
a new garage and guesthouse (right).
513 Cliff St.
An early 20th century Colonial Revival home, and with 511
Cliff St. one of the “Twins,” identical homes built by 2
brothers who at the time were successful homebuilders in
Ithaca.
514 Cliff St.
Along with 506 Cliff St., this home was also one of the
earliest INHS projects, in the ’80s. It was rehabbed as a
two-family, multi-generational home.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
604 Cliff St.
Built in 1873 and one of the oldest homes in the
neighborhood, it is the lone survivor of 5 working class
tenements between 604 and 614 Cliff Street. It received an
extreme makeover about 1925 as a vernacular Bungalow-
style home and still sports the original cedar shingles.
It is also a sustainable no-frack gas home energized by
community solar, with a geothermal heating system.
607 Cliff St.
An early 20th century vernacular bungalow, this home was
purchased last year by a younger couple. As is the case
with many of the homes on the east side of the street,
residents have taken advantage of the steep slope to
convert the basement area into quite living space, with
living activities oriented toward the rear of their property,
away from the noisy street.
612 Cliff St.
Built around 1910, this Colonial 4-Square home is owned
by a younger couple, and this summer being repainted. It
is one of many homes on the street purchase by younger,
first-time homebuyers in the past decade.
609 Cliff St.
Built around 1900, the owner of 609 has re-created a
naturalistic landscape of trees, shrubs, and vegetables on
his property.
611 Cliff St.
A small post-WW-II working class ranch home. Its elderly
disabled owner lacks the capacity to maintain their home as
they did for decades up until recent years, but it will be a
solid starter home for a new owner.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
614 Cliff St.
An early 20th century Bungalow style home, with its
original architectural integrity still intact, purchased in
recent years by a younger couple and rehabilitated.
701 Cliff St.
The newest home in the neighborhood, completed this
year, replacing a longstanding neighborhood eyesore and
represents the potential for new residential infill on Cliff
Street under the existing R-3a zoning.
702 Cliff St.
Another early 20th century Bungalow style home, with its
original architectural integrity still intact, including the
original garage (lower right). Also purchased and
rehabilitated in recent years by a first-time homebuyer.
706 Cliff St.
Probably a late 19th century vernacular working class home,
still owner occupied.
The two tree trunks are the remnants of Norway or blue
spruce trees, just two of the 3 or 4 that have succumbed in
recent years to heavy salt spray in the 600 and 700 block,
with another at 604 Cliff St. scheduled for removal this fall.
705 Cliff St.
The post was installed for a bus stop location that TCAT
again rejected within the last 2-3 years. Being at the center
of the neighborhood, it is with 700 feet of all homes in the
500, 600 and 700 block of Cliff Street, whereas the proposed
bus stop at the Incodema site, if approved, would be 600
feet from the nearest home in the 500, 600 and 700 block.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
705 Cliff St.
Cliff Street Neighborhood Footpath, built in 1996 as part of
the Cliff St. neighborhood parking lot that addressed the
dangerous issue of the City permitting parking on the
sidewalk on Cliff St due to lack of onstreet and offstreet
parking. It connects the core of the neighborhood to Cass
park, the Black Diamond Trail and the West End shopping
district.
705 Cliff St.
A scene repeated numerous times on Cliff Street, 24/7.
Beyond, the TCAT bus dropping of residents at the Vinegar
Hill bus stop, +/- 700 feet away.
712/714 Cliff St.
Late 19th century vernacular working class home, owner
occupied, with numerous improvements over the decades,
including the modern garage built into the hillside.
715 Cliff St.
Simple late 19th or early 20th century working class home,
heavily altered over the past century. It is also an example
of the challenges many homes on the east/downhill side of
the street, being below street level and lacking good
drainage.
721 Cliff St.
Simple late 19th or early 20th century working class home,
with its architectural integrity relatively intact. An attached
garage has been added in recent decades. The home is +/-
3 ft. being below street level.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
716 Cliff St.
Likely the oldest home in the neighborhood, possibly mid-
1800s as indicated from the hewn wood beams in the
basement. The enclosed second floor porch and its stucco
exterior hint at a makeover in the 1920.
720 Cliff St.
An early 20th century Bungalow style home, although with
a basement level addition. Nonetheless after a century it is
still a solid, well-maintained home.
723 Cliff St.
A basic working class vernacular home from the early 20th
century with Colonial 4-Square proportions but simple trim
elements. Car in front is parked at 727 Cliff St.
727 Cliff St.
Another early 20th century Bungalow style home, still well
maintained. Because it is a full story below street level a
previous owner built a wood deck at street level to park
their car and stairs down to the front door. Rear deck hints
at the view across to East Hill that many homes on the east
side of Cliff Street have.
733 Cliff St.
Another vernacular working class home, consistently
maintained and improved, including a major addition off
the back, new roof, and (to the left) a garage. Being a full
story below street level, its owners have responded with
heavy landscaping.
George R. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street . Ithaca, NY . 14850-2014 (607) 227-4652 . e-mail: geoplan57@gmail.com
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park & Open Space Planning, Agricultural Land Protection Planning, Growth Management, State Environmental Quality Review
726 Cliff St.
The newest home on the street, from the 1960s or 70s, and
historically has been a 2-family rental property.
730 Cliff St.
Early 20th century Colonial 4-square still well maintained.
The aptly named Vinegar Hill is the closest direct
connection between Cliff St, Hector St. and upper West Hill
and is 1/3 mi. north of the Incodema site.
July 26, 2021
Dear Members of the Planning and Development Board,
We are writing about the redevelopment proposed for 325 Dryden Road and 320 Elmwood Ave, on your
agenda for tomorrow’s meeting. Our property is next to 320 Elmwood, 106 Harvard Place.
Our own preference would be to preserve 320 Elmwood. It’s a well-designed and built historic house,
and one that would require a zoning variance for the proposal to go through. The 325 Dryden property,
by contrast, is zoned for higher density. The house next to that one, 321 Dryden, is directly behind ours
and in rough shape, at least on the outside. We’d much prefer the project to be built on 321 and 325
Dryden instead, perhaps even extending through the next two properties to the west. We’re impressed
with the design of the project, and we’re in favor of higher density along Dryden. But we’re opposed to
it in the 300-block of Elmwood, and we understand this to be the intent of the zoning difference.
Derk Pereboom
Nancy Brooks
106 Harvard Place
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQACzdjVTX7cVIqEscLHW2ceo%3D 1/2
Public Comment -325 Dryden Road/320 Elmwood Ave
Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org>
Mon 7/26/2021 12:31 PM
To: Emily Petrina <emily@firehousearchitecturelab.com>; mitch glass <glassmitch@gmail.com>; Blalock, Garrick
<garrick.blalock@cornell.edu>; McKenzie Lauren Jones <grasswriter@gmail.com>; Robert Aaron Lewis
<robertaaronlewis@gmail.com>; CJ Randall <cjr222@cornell.edu>; Elisabetegodden@gmail.com
<Elisabetegodden@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikki Cerra <ncerra@cityofithaca.org>; JoAnn Cornish <JCornish@cityofithaca.org>; Anya Harris
<AHarris@cityofithaca.org>
Please see the comment below.
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning
Department of Planning & Development
607-274-6557
Dear Members of the Planning & Development Board,
I am writing regarding the land use and planning implications of the redevelopment proposed for 325
Dryden Road and 320 Elmwood Ave, Item I on your site plan review agenda for the July 27 meeting.
In 2014, after a multi-year review and input from numerous stakeholders, Common Council rezoned
Collegetown by unanimously adopting the Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD). That rezoning
envisioned a deliberate and logical transition from the densest urban core area along College Ave and
lower Dryden Road to a stepping down in form, lot coverage and massing into the more traditional
housing forms of Bryant Park and the lower East Hill Historic District.
The CAFD “purpose and intent” section clearly states that, “The Collegetown Residential 1-3 (CR1,
CR2, CR3) districts contain predominantly residential structures occupied as single family
homes, as duplexes, or as multiple residences often rented by university students. The intent is
to maintain the existing housing stock. Significant redevelopment within these districts
is neither anticipated nor encouraged. Any new construction shall be similar in form and scale,
and the zoning requirements of these districts are intended to protect the character of
the established residential neighborhoods.”
The proposal before you runs directly counter to these goals. It proposes to migrate eastward up
Dryden Road, and wrap the corner onto Elmwood Ave with a single large building. The developers are
seeking substantial zoning variances to consolidate parcels, increase massing and lot coverage, and
decrease green space. They propose to do so precisely at the corner that holds the edge (Elmwood
and Harvard Place) into the traditional Bryant Park neighborhood, which has a lovely, often funky, mix
of Craftsman single family homes and smaller scale rentals.
It might be a different land use conversation if undergraduate student housing was in short supply or
was still in the derelict condition of a decade ago. But it’s not. Since the 2014 rezoning, there has been
an explosion of new student housing. Students now have a variety of housing types and price points
to choose from. What IS in short supply— and getting shorter all the time due to the conversion of
formerly owner-occupied homes into rentals, full time Airbnbs, or VRBO offerings— is family housing.
Families also value living within walking distance of place of work, recreation, and schools. It’s
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQACzdjVTX7cVIqEscLHW2ceo%3D 2/2
important to hold the line, and having large new student projects creep into formerly quiet streets
makes it tougher to do so.
Finally, from a sustainability standpoint, it is disconcerting that the developers propose to demolish
two perfectly good houses.
Modern Living Rentals seems to have come up with a very successful business model where they
rehab and renovate existing student houses, often in CR3 or CR2-equivalent zones. When they’ve
sought variances, they’ve been minor and uncontroversial. Perhaps the applicants of this proposal
could take a page from MLR’s playbook?
It’s noteworthy that seven years into the rezoning, the CAFD seems to have fostered a huge increase
in the supply of student housing without controversy. This is the first project (other than a short-lived
PUD overlay zone proposal in central Collegetown that has since morphed into a plan everyone’s
pretty happy about) that’s poised to be problematic.
I hope the Planning Board will be able to work with the applicants to help shape this proposal into one
that is more confluent with the CAFD zoning and City housing and sustainability goals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ellen McCollister
221 Bryant Ave
Common Council member, 2009-2015
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 1/2
Re: For the Planning Board this evening - Item I
Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org>
Tue 7/27/2021 1:41 PM
To: Donna Fleming <fleming.donnaj@gmail.com>; Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org>; Nikki Cerra
<ncerra@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Rob Gearhart <RGearhart@cityofithaca.org>; Donna Fleming <DFleming@cityofithaca.org>
No problem - Anya will send it out before the mee ng.
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning
Department of Planning & Development
607-274-6557
From: Donna Fleming <fleming.donnaj@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org>
Cc: Rob Gearhart <RGearhart@cityofithaca.org>; Donna Fleming <DFleming@cityofithaca.org>
Subject: For the Planning Board this evening - Item I
Lisa,
Please share this message with the Planning Board. I am sorry that I've waited till almost the last hour
to communicate these thoughts.
I am writing about tonight's agenda item I. I have read Ellen McColister's excellent and forceful letter
opposing this project and I agree with her completely. The proposal for 325 Dryden and 320
Elmwood requires significant variances for no community benefit. As Ellen notes, the zoning had a
very clear rationale which is still quite relevant today. The site at 320 Elmwood was last purchased in
2015, after the adoption of the CAFD, so the new owners were aware of the regulations when they
purchased the property.
There is also no shortage of apartments available for rent by students in and near the Collegetown,
Bryant Park, and Belle Sherman neighborhoods. If these two properties were properly renovated and
maintained they might be attractive as rental units to people who work in the area.
Please do not approve this project as it is currently drafted.
Kind regards,
Donna Fleming
Alderperson, Third Ward, City of Ithaca
607.319.0809
--
7/27/2021 Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210719002.04 2/2
Donna Fleming
607.319.0809