Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-PDB-2016-08-23DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.: Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type; proposed new language shown in red type. (Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.) Planning and Development Board Minutes August 23, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Applicants Attending: 123-125 Eddy Street Dylan Scott, Jagat P. Sharma Architect; Jacob Marnell, Jagat P. Sharma Architect; Nick Lambrou, Owner Apartments at 201 College Avenue Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Todd Fox, Visum Development Group; John A. Mancuso, Esq., Harris Beach, PLLC Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project) Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Antonino Borgese, CJS Architects; Jeffrey Lehrbach, McGuire Development Co.; David Lubin, Owner DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Collegetown Crossing at 307 College Avenue Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; 607 S. Aurora Street (Sketch Plan) Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:17 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas explained the sequence of agenda items has been slightly re-arranged. She also suggested the Board consider adding a review of the remaining Site Plan Approval conditions associated with the Carey Building project to the agenda (time permitting), since the owner is seeking to obtain the building’s Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Privilege of the Floor Neil Golder, 203 College Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 201 College Avenue project, noting he has been conducting some research on the neighborhood: (1) One book in particular, Ithaca’s Neighborhoods: The Rhine, the Hill, and the Goose Pasture, describes the East Hill area of the City as possessing a great degree of architectural distinction and as a place that both the City and the community have worked to preserve; (2) a recent issue of The Ithaca Journal also mentions Collegetown as an area with a combination of nice homes and apartments; (3) in 2011, a group of concerned citizens lobbied against the proposed Collegetown rezoning proposal, especially the change in facade length regulations, which has now emerged as a potential problem with the project. Gary Thomas, 110 Irving Place, also spoke against the proposed 201 College Avenue project, stating that the length of the building facade on Bool Street exceeds the maximum 75 feet allowed. He said he does not like the suggestion of dividing the building into two separate buildings, which would remain too massive and end up overwhelming Neil Golder’s house. Justin Moore, 217 Mitchell Street, also opposed the proposed 201 College Avenue project, saying he moved to the neighborhood partly because of its character. He said while the proposed building may comply with the letter of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not compatible with that zoning’s original intention. The building would dwarf the surrounding buildings, he concluded. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the proposed 201 College Avenue project, saying there seems to be a disproportionate amount of public opposition to any kind of change in the neighborhood whatsoever. 3. Subdivision Review DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 A. Minor Subdivision, 123-125 Eddy Street, Nick Lambrou. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to BZA. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy Street, and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy Street, and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels require Zoning Variances for deficient off-street parking on both proposed lots. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as Site Plan Approval. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R- 2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels require variances for deficient off-street parking. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require both a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and Site Plan Review, and WHEREAS: the construction of a two-family home is a Type 2 Action and is exempt from Environmental Review, and a Minor Subdivision within a Historic District is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Owner Nick Lambrou and architects Dylan Scott and Jacob Marnell of Jagat P. Sharma Architect presented a brief update on the proposed Subdivision, noting it is the last empty developable site on Eddy Street, in the heart of Collegetown. Lambrou said the proposed house would feature a design that fits with the rest of the neighborhood and attracts good tenants. Jones-Rounds noted the Planning Board is only reviewing the proposed Subdivision at this time, and not conducting Site Plan Review for the pending project. Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Jane Fajans, 115 Eddy Street, spoke regarding her concerns with the proposed Subdivision and associated housing project. She said she frequently walks around the Orchard Place neighborhood, so it is important to her that the project not threaten the integrity of the community and the Historic District; for example, there are at least four mature trees on the property that the site plan suggests would be removed. She asked if the site plan and design could be modified so at least one or two of those trees could be saved and maintained. She is also concerned one of the proposed houses would include a back porch on the second floor — and in a college community, her experience has been that porches can be very loud. Since the rear of the property is adjacent to her own, she would also like something put in place to serve as a barrier between the two. Graham Kerslick, 115 Orchard Place, and Fourth Ward Alderperson, spoke regarding his concerns with the proposed Subdivision and associated project. As mentioned in his August 17, 2016 letter to the Planning Board, he believes the parking situation needs to be carefully examined. He urged the Board to review the project’s two Zoning Appeals in detail, especially since this is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in Collegetown. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Lambrou responded he agrees with some of the previous comments (e.g., the need for screening). He stressed that the proposed new housing would only contain two three- bedroom apartments, so the likelihood of loud or intrusive use of the second-floor porch is very small. In terms of the parking situation, he owns a 60-car parking lot within the 300-block of Eddy Street, which he said should be able to handle the anticipated demand. Schroeder encouraged the applicant to hold a meeting with neighborhood residents to ensure all their concerns are being addressed. He also noted the Project Review Committee agreed that the Site Plan Review application should be reviewed by the full Planning Board, and not conducted as a Limited Site Plan Review. Nicholas added that the project would also require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R- 2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels require Zoning Variances for deficient off-street parking. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as Site Plan Approval, and WHEREAS: the construction of a two-family home is a Type 2 Action and is exempt from Environmental Review, and a Minor Subdivision within a Historic District is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, has on August 23, 2016 declared itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on August 23, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a preliminary Subdivision plat titled “Proposed Subdivision, 123-125 Eddy St., Ithaca NY,” dated 6/7/16; and a drawing titled “Proposed 2-Family Dwelling, 123 Eddy St., Ithaca, NY,” dated 8/16/16 and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require Area Variances for relief from off-street parking requirements in the area requirements of the R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “5. Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes. 4. Site Plan Review A. Apartment Building, 201 College Avenue, Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for Visum Development Group. Consideration of Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, Request for Zoning Interpretation & Appeal, & Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to build a 5-story apartment building on a-0.173 acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping, lighting, 4 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The site has a 17’ difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to 707.00. Site development will require the removal of the existing 2-‐story wood-framed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, gravel parking area, and five trees. The project is proposing a curb bump-out that will require approval form the Board of Public Works. The project is in the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 MU-‐1 Collegetown Area Form District. The project has been revised so that it no longer requires an Area Variance. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(k) & (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of environmental significance on May 24, 2016. Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative; attorney John A. Mancuso of Harris Beach, PLLC; and owner Todd Fox of Visum Development Group presented a brief update on the proposed project. Fox explained that the additional documents the applicants recently submitted are relevant to the larger conversation that has been taking place regarding the history and character of Collegetown. He said Collegetown has long suffered from a large amount of deteriorating rental housing. Its neighborhood character, he said, has been defined by demographic pressures and the high demand for rental housing and the architecture that followed. He said the purpose of rezoning Collegetown was to protect some of the established outlying residential neighborhoods. For the vast majority of Collegetown’s history, he said, there have been few or few families and little owner-occupied housing. Review of Amended Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 Nicholas explained she provided the Board with a “clean” amended Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3, document and another version with the identical text but the modifications shown in red. Then the City Attorney also distributed a subsequent version of the amended document with a few additional proposed changes he is recommending to the Board; these additional changes are shown in blue. Finally, she said the Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2, document has been corrected to include checkboxes that have now been checked, as they should originally have been; however, no substantive changes have been made to the Part 2. The Planning Board reviewed the amended Part 3. Blalock noted there appear to be no objections to the suggested modifications to the document. Adopted Amended Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a 5-story apartment building on a 0.173-acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping, lighting, 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The site has a 17’ difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to 707.00. Site development will require removal of the existing 2-‐story wood-framed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, gravel parking area, and five trees. The project is in the MU-‐1 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD), and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(k) & (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on May 24, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “ Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “Level 1,” “Basement,” and “Levels 3-5,” dated 3/29/16; and “Southwest Corner Perspective,” “West Elevation,” “East Elevation,” “South Elevation - Bool St. Façade,” and “North Elevation,” dated 4/13/16; and “North to South Site Section,” and “East to West Site Section,” dated 5/11/16 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: on May 24, 2016, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed Apartment building at 201 College •••Ave••• •••Ave.••• would result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on August •••23 2016••• •••23, 2016••• reviewed and accepted as adequate the new and revised information consisting of: a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff; new and revised drawings titled “Exterior Building Materials,” “Site Materials,” “Basement Plan,” “1st and 2nd Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Mezzanine Plans,” “5th Floor Plans,” “5th Floor Mezzanine Plan,” and ”Roof Plan,” dated June 14, 2016; and “Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “East and West Elevations,” “South Elevation,” “North Elevations,” “North Elevation,” “Existing Context,” “Future Context,” “Sheet Showing Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast Views,” “Looking North – Existing,” “Looking North – Proposed,” “Looking South – Existing,” “Looking South – Proposed,” “Looking West – Existing,” “Looking West – Proposed,” “Looking East – Existing,” “Looking East – Proposed,” “Façade Details,” and an untitled drawing showing a street-level view of the building at the corner of Bool Street and College Avenue, all dated June 21, 2016; Staging Plan dated 7-05-16, “Site Details (L103) dated 8-2-16 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that (1) new information has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby amend the Negative Declaration issued on May 24, 2016 to include the above-mentioned information in the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 environmental record, and be it further RESOLVED: that based on all supporting documentation, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby determine that the proposed apartment project at 201 College Ave. will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Blalock explained that the draft “Request for Zoning Determination” resolution was generated as a result of recent concerns by some Board members that the project is not in fact zoning-compliant. He added the Board was instructed by Director of Zoning Administration Phyllis Radke (in an August 15, 2016 memorandum to the Board) to request a formal written Zoning Determination, before the matter could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The Project Review Committee, he said, believed including language in the resolution that affirms in advance that the Planning Board would prepare and file the appeal of the determination was the most expedient approach. Jones-Rounds noted she would prefer to employ the word “consider” in the resolution (i.e., “the Planning Board does hereby agree to consider preparing and filing an appeal”). She said the Planning Board should give itself the flexibility to examine the Zoning Determination and then decide whether it would like to appeal it or not. City Attorney Aaron Lavine explained that the Board can handle the situation however it chooses; but one way or the other it will need to agree on what procedure it would follow in terms of who would actually draft the language of the appeal. Jones-Rounds observed the Board does have a Special Meeting scheduled, when it could make those kinds of decisions. Blalock replied the Planning Board should not proceed with its consideration of Final Site Plan Approval until the zoning issue has been satisfactorily addressed and there is a clear path forward. The “Request for Zoning Determination” resolution, he explained, was conceived as a way of ensuring the Board would be able to move forward with Site Plan Approval this evening. Jones-Rounds asked Darling and Lewis if they are comfortable with her proposed modification to the resolution. Darling replied, yes. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Lewis replied, no. He would vote against the resolution, as modified. In fact, he said he opposed the notion of appealing the zoning determination so late in the process, to begin with. Schroeder remarked it is the Planning Board’s legal obligation to ensure Site Plan Review project applications are Zoning-compliant. He said the purpose of the “Request for Zoning Determination” resolution is to assure the Planning Board that the issue would be addressed, one way or the other. He said he could not personally vote to adopt the Final Site Plan Approval Resolution without that assurance. Jones-Rounds made a motion to discuss the resolution, as modified with her suggestion that the last “Resolved” clause (e.g., “the Planning Board does hereby agree to consider preparing and filing an appeal”) permit the Board to decide the formal written Zoning Determination is adequate and collaborate on drafting the appeal. Schroeder agreed the Planning Board would certainly need to collaborate on drafting the language of the appeal and any other subsequent steps involved in that process. He said he simply objects to inserting the word “consider” in the first place. Jones-Rounds remarked that if the Planning Board votes on the resolution this evening, as originally proposed, then it would be essentially boxing itself in and obligating itself to pursue the appeal. Blalock noted his only concern is ensuring the BZA reviews the Zoning Determination. Jones-Rounds withdrew her motion to amend the resolution. Fox asked if the Board members with concerns about the project’s zoning compliance considered the contents of the Collegetown Area Form Districts’ MU-2 zoning regulations, as well, when they examined the façade length regulations. Demarest explained that several lines in the MU-2 section clearly distinguish the zoning regulations of the MU-1 and MU-2 Zoning Districts, in terms of corner lots. Page 26 in the Collegetown Area Form Districts, under “(3) Siting Exceptions,” mentions that “(c) All street-facing facades on corner lots shall be considered front facades.” He said the “Siting Exceptions” heading is clearly meant to indicate that it addresses exceptions that only apply to the MU-2 Zoning District. Jones-Rounds and Blalock mentioned this language could be understood in other ways. Adopted Resolution: Request for Zoning Determination: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 Ithaca Planning and Development Board for an apartment building to be located at 201 College Avenue, by Noah Demarest for Visum Development Group, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a 5-story apartment building on a 0.173-acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping, lighting, 4 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The site has a 17’ difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to 707.00. Site development will require removal of the existing 2-‐story wood-framed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, gravel parking area, and five trees. The project is in the MU-‐1 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD), and WHEREAS: the Planning Board is concerned that the project is not zoning compliant in regard to façade length requirements in the MU-1 Zoning District, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby request a zoning determination from the Director of Zoning Administration in regard to the MU-1’s façade length requirement as applied to the Bool Street façade of the project at 201 College Ave, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby agree to prepare and file an appeal of such determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals should that determination conclude that the project as proposed is compliant with the façade length requirements in the MU-1 Zoning District. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Lewis Absent: None Vacancies: None Nicholas explained that the initial version of the draft Final Site Plan Approval Resolution has been slightly revised. She also suggested the Board add a condition — to address another potential zoning issue that recently emerged, but which is unlikely to affect the building exterior — requiring the applicants to submit any future project changes to the Board. Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for an apartment building to be located at 201 College Avenue, by Noah Demarest for Visum Development Group, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a 5-story apartment building on a 0.173-acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping, lighting, 4 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The site has a 17’ difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to 707.00. Site development will require removal of the existing 2-‐story wood-framed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, a gravel parking area, and five trees. The project is in the MU-‐1 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD). The originally proposed project required an Area Variance for a rear yard setback, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(k) & (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on May 24, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on May 24, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “Level 1,” “Basement,” and “Levels 3-5,” dated 3/29/16; and “Southwest Corner Perspective,” “West Elevation,” “East Elevation,” “South Elevation - Bool St. Façade,” and “North Elevation,” dated 4/13/16; and “North to South Site Section,” and “East to West Site Section,” dated 5/11/16 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 24, 2016, and WHEREAS: the project met with the Design Review Committee on June 7, 2016, and WHEREAS: this Board did on June 28, 2016 review and accept as adequate: new and revised drawings titled “Exterior Building Materials,” “Site Materials,” “Basement Plan,” “1st and 2nd Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Mezzanine Plans,” “5th Floor Plans,” “5th Floor Mezzanine Plan,” and ”Roof Plan,” dated June 14, 2016; and “Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “East and West Elevations,” “South Elevation,” “North Elevations,” “Existing Context,” “Future Context,” “Sheet Showing Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast Views,” “Looking North – Existing,” “Looking North – Proposed,” “Looking South – Existing,” “Looking South – Proposed,” “Looking West – Existing,” “Looking West – Proposed,” “Looking East – Existing,” “Looking East – Proposed,” “Façade Details,” and an untitled drawing DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 showing a street-level view of the building at the corner of Bool Street and College Avenue, all dated June 21, 2016 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the revised drawings listed above show the following changes from plans reviewed and accepted during the Environmental Review: the repositioning of the building on the site to meet the rear yard setback requirement of 10’ while still meeting the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards for sidewalk width in urban environments along College Avenue; the addition of two functional entries along Bool Street to meet CAFD requirements, the addition of a curb-cut and concrete driveway at the rear of the building, the stepping back of the top floor of the building on College Ave•••.•••, and the incorporation of architectural details and further design development in response to Design Review Committee comments, and WHEREAS: this Board did on June 28, 2016 determine the proposed project changes are consistent with the environmental review and that no amendment to the Negative Declaration is required, and WHEREAS: that the Planning and Development Board did, on June 28•••,••• 2016 grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including, lighting, signage, paving, retaining walls, fencing, bike racks, site furnishings and other site amenities, and ii. Submission of cut-sheet for metal paneling materials demonstrating that the installation provides for reveals between panels, and iii. Screening for rooftop mechanicals will be changed from white to light gray cement panels, and iv. Submission to the Planning Board of a location and plan for remote construction parking, construction staging and deliveries, and v. Hours of noise-producing construction activities will be limited to 7:30 a.m.- 6:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, and vi. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, there must be a fully executed permanent easement for access, use, and maintenance of public sidewalk on private property, and viii. Applicant to work with City to seek underground (rather than overhead) location for all existing and proposed electric and telecommunications utilities adjacent to the project site, and ix. Applicant to explore potential cooperation with the adjacent property owner to the north, regarding relocation of the owner’s solar panels, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 WHEREAS: this Board has, on August 23, 2016, reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings entitled “Staging Plan” dated 7-05-16, “Site Details” (L103) dated 8-2-16, prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency did, on August 23, 2016, determine that (1) new information has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur as a result of this new information and change in circumstances, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on August 23, 2016 amend the Negative Declaration issued on May 24, 2016 to include the above- mentioned information in the environmental record, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board finds that conditions ii and iii above have been satisfied, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby ratify its prior Preliminary Approval and does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Resolution of the appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, as described in the “Request for Zoning Determination” resolution adopted at the August 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting, as to the issue of facade length requirements in the MU-1 zoning district as applied to the project, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including, lighting, signage, paving, retaining walls, fencing, bike racks, site furnishings and other site amenities, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of a location and plan for remote parking for construction vehicles, construction staging, and deliveries, and iv. Hours of noise-producing construction activities will be limited to 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, and v. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vi. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, there must be a fully executed permanent easement for access, use, and maintenance of public sidewalk on private property, and vii. Applicant to work with City to seek underground (rather than overhead) location for all existing and proposed electric and telecommunications utilities adjacent to the project site, and viii. Applicant to explore potential cooperation with the adjacent property owner to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 the north, regarding relocation of the owner’s solar panels., and ix. Submission to the Planning Board for review and approval of any changes that affect the building appearance, including but not limited to, height, massing, size, building materials and fenestration. In Favor: Blalock, Lewis, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder, Darling, Elliott Opposed: Lewis None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Mixed-Use Building (Harold’s Square), 123-139 E. State Street (The Commons), David Lubin for L Enterprises, LLC. Consideration of Project Changes. The applicant is requesting changes to the project that was approved on August 27, 2013. The changes are proposed to accommodate a shift in the building program to decrease office space from 43,900 SF to 25,285 SF and increase residential units from 46 to 108. The following changes are requested that affect the exterior appearance of the building: an increase from 4 to 5 stories facing the Commons (building height remaining the same); an increase from 11 to 12 stories facing Green Street with an increase in building height of 1’11”; changes in size of windows, position of balconies, and pattern of exterior finishes, as well as the elimination of one of the step-backs on the Commons-facing side of the tower and narrowing of the tower width. Owner David Lubin; Jeffrey Lehrbach of McGuire Development Co.; Antonino Borgese of CJS Architects; and Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC presented a brief overview of the proposed project changes. Jones-Rounds asked if the project changes affect projected vehicular traffic and parking requirements for the project. Borgese replied that the Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C. report concluded: “The trip generation for the Site Plan Amendment depicts a marginal difference to the original approvals with a total of 201 trip [sic] generated in the morning peak hour of traffic and 234 trips during the evening peak hour.” Schroeder said the Project Review Committee had expressed concern with the west elevation’s Commons end, which will be quite visible to the public. While the original elevation showed a regular pattern of windows here, the revised elevation now shows only blank metal siding. He asked if the applicants could add some architectural interest here. Borgese replied that, while they cannot add actual windows because of Building Code restrictions, they could certainly explore using some joint patterning and additional color. Elliott suggested that, rather than have two floors of micro-units at this corner, the applicants could have some larger units here that would preserve the previous setback and allow fenestration similar to what was originally proposed. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Schroeder added that the vertical stairwell / elevator shaft area at the left of the north tower elevation now features similarly blank metal siding. He said the Project Review Committee suggested that this area could be clad in the same terra cotta featured on other portions of the building. Borgese replied they could certainly look at including some multi-colored paneling at that location. Elliott added that the “running bond” of this area’s metal paneling appears foreign to the rest of the building and the Commons. Borgese replied that the applicants could explore changing this joint arrangement. Schroeder noted the original design included a terra cotta capping element on all four façades of the tower. Borgese replied that has actually been restored in the proposed design, since the Project Review Committee meeting. Schroeder remarked that in the prior design the row of apparently separate “buildings” facing the south edge of the Commons featured two facades that were essentially duplicates of each other; however, the revised design now shows three “duplicate” facades. He suggested redesigning the two currently adjacent “duplicate” buildings to be one unified facade with its own window arrangements, so one does not simply see the same façade unit repeated three times. Schroeder noted that the south tower facade includes small windows with frames colored to match the building’s general terra cotta color, and that this coloration adds considerably to that facade’s visual animation and interest; he suggested that the frames of similar small windows on the south facsade show the same color. Borgese replied that should be possible. Schroeder noted that in the drawings reviewed at the Project Review Committee, the terra cotta portions of the building showed a golden-yellow appearance, in addition to light browns, which looked very attractive. Borgese replied that the base metal color is a warmer, champagne-like color, which is the intent. Adopted Resolution Approving Project Modifications On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials and building façade changes for the proposed Harold’s Square Mixed-Use Project, which was approved by the Planning Board on August 27, 2013; and for which the Board subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017, subject to all the conditions stated and all drawings cited in the Final Site Plan Review Approval resolution, dated August 27, 2013, and subject to the applicant obtaining all necessary Zoning Variances, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 WHEREAS: the changes are proposed to accommodate a shift in the building program to decrease office space from 43,900 SF to 25,285 SF and increase residential units from 46 to 108. The following changes are requested that affect the exterior appearance of the building: an increase from 4 to 5 stories facing the Commons (building height remaining the same); an increase from 11 to 12 stories facing Green Street with an increase in building height of 1’11”; changes in size of windows, position of balconies, and pattern of exterior finishes, as well as the elimination of one of the step-backs on the Commons- facing side of the tower and narrowing of the tower width, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised plans entitled “Proposed Site Plan,” “Basement Plan,” “First Floor Plan,” “Second Floor Plan,” “Third Floor Plan,” “Fourth Floor Plan,” “Fifth Floor Plan,” “Six- Eleventh Floor Plans,” “Twelfth Floor Plan (Penthouse),” “Building Conceptual Section,” “Updated North Elevation,” “Updated West Elevation,” “Updated East Elevation,” “Updated South Elevation,” “North and West Elevation Comparisons,” “South and East Elevation Comparisons,” “Commons View Comparisons,” “Aerial View Massing Comparisons,” and “Proposed Building Materials” dated 8/23/16, and all prepared by CJS Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 determined the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on June 25, 2013 and, therefore, no further Environmental Review is required, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of updated perspective drawings from all angles, and ii. Consideration of ways to add color or visual interest to the stairwell / elevator shaft on north tower elevation, and iii. Restoration of terra cotta cap and vertical edges — effectively outlining the building on the north façade of tower, and iv. Restoration of window on East Elevation over the Sage Building and consideration of ways to add visual interest to the Commons end of west elevations elevation, and v. Submission to the Planning Board of updated colored elevations keyed to updates updated materials sample sheet, and vi. Avoid appearance of the three identical facades facing south edge of the Commons, and Agreed Upon Mitigations as Per FEAF, Part 3, Adopted on June 25, 2013 vii. Upon exposure of the neighboring basement foundation walls, their condition will be assessed and repairs will be coordinated, as required, with the building DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 owners to maintain the integrity of those buildings and a safe construction environment, and viii. Noise-‐producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., and ix. The applicant shall provide a Pedestrian Access Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and x. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control and Truck Routing Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and xi. The applicant shall provide a more detailed Construction Impacts and Staging Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and xii. Construction shall be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project to minimize noise impacts, and xiii. Rehabilitation of the Sage Block will include the following: a. Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the building, and b. Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls, and c. Repair and / or replacement of the existing roof, and d. New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the building. When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated to the point of requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color, texture, and perhaps material construction, and e. Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided-‐light pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block building, and f. The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space, and g. The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants, and xiv. Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), using the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 same standards it uses to evaluate proposed work on locally-‐designated buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of the entire cornice; (2) evaluation of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with significant experience in restoring wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing and repairing the existing exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where brickwork is interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street, and xv. The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123-‐127 E. State Street shall be salvaged and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the salvaged carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square project, if the applicant so desires, and Additional Unmet Conditions Identified in Site Plan Review: xvi. Submission to Planning Board of color elevations keyed to materials sample sheet, and xvii. Submission to Planning Board of site details, including, but not limited to, building materials, lighting, signage, site furnishings and paving materials, and xviii. Submission to the Project Review Committee of the final 4th floor roof plan (now 5th floor); this plan shall incorporate a light-colored roofing material and, if feasible, some areas of green roof, and xix. Tower roof shall also be of light-colored roofing material, and xx. Bicycle storage for retail, office and residential tenants shall be provided within the building, and xxi. Approval from the Planning Board of the proposed bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage, and xxii. Bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage requires approval from the Board of Public Works, and xxiii. A Staging Plan Agreement must be in place with the Department of Public Works and the Building Division before issuance of a building permit, and xxiv. Applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for any portion of the project, including door swings, that impacts City property, and xxv. Any changes to the design of the building that affects the exterior appearance, including rooftop mechanicals, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, and xxvi. Approval in writing from the Fire Department confirming the project complies with all life safety needs, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 xxvii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Blalock asked if the applicant is comfortable with the Board’s proposed conditions. Lubin replied that he does not believe they are substantial changes. Borgese added that he believes all the Board’s requests could be accommodated. If anything cannot be accommodated, the applicants would return to the Board. C. Mixed-Use Building — Collegetown Crossing, 307 College Avenue, Scott Whitham. Consideration of Project Changes (Landscape). The applicant is requesting changes to the project that was approved on August 27, 2013. The changes consist of simplifying and altering materials for the landscape along the through-block walkway. Staff previously approved minor landscape changes to this area. However, the changes now proposed require Planning Board review. Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC presented a brief overview of the proposed project changes. Adopted Resolution Approving Project Modifications On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting changes to the proposed landscaping and exterior furnishings that were approved by the Planning Board on 9/23/14 and for which a subsequent revision was approved by staff on 5/10/16, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes changes from the originally approved design that replaces the curved stone seating with linear wooden benches, adds landscape boulders, and creates a rock garden design with stone mulch and groupings of lower growing plantings, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised drawing titled “Alternative Landscape: Scheme 3,” dated 8/15/16 and prepared by Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; and other materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes proposed by the applicant. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. 607 S. Aurora Street – Sketch Plan Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative presented a brief overview of the proposed project, on behalf of the actual project architect Jagat Sharma, noting its site is located below the South Hill Elementary School, close to the Emerson Power Transmission site entrance. There are a few residential buildings in the immediate area, he said, but there are also large swaths of vacant land in the vicinity. He described the proposed project as four 2-family buildings, employing a floor plan similar to the 312- 314 W. Spencer Street project; two buildings would front on Aurora Street, while the other two houses would be located near Hillview Place, with two parking areas at the rear of the site. He said all setbacks would be zoning-compliant. Cornish observed the project owner also owns property downhill from buildings “A” and “B,” where he built a new building in front of an existing residential house, which was a significant mistake. She said that project was not properly sited, and that the City received many complaints about its proximity to the house behind it. She said the Planning Board should ensure the proposed project has a coherent site plan. Schroeder observed buildings “A” and “B” appear logically designed and oriented in terms of their relationship with S. Aurora Street, but buildings “C” and “D” — with their long dimensions oriented east-west — conflict with the great majority of wood-framed houses along Hillview Place, which are oriented north-south. He asked if there were any reason why buildings “C” and “D” could not be oriented to better reflect the other surrounding homes. Demarest replied the reason they are situated where they are is to allow them to remain within the legal setback requirements; otherwise, the project would require a Zoning Variance. Jones-Rounds observed the amount of parking seems considerable, 18 spaces. Demarest replied that the project includes all required parking for both the existing house and the 24 new tenants. Schroeder noted that in the proposed site plan the existing house would be closely surrounded on three sides by parking areas or the access drive, with little to no space available for planting buffers. The general consensus was that the site plan needed revisions to address the concerns expressed above by Cornish and Board members. E. Carey Building Project Changes Nicholas explained the project owner wishes to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. He contacted her to review the Site Plan Approval conditions and she determined two DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 remained unmet: (1) approval of project details like signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings and lighting; and (2) completion of landscaping / hardscaping at the rear of the property, which is now affected by the imminent construction of the Hilton Canopy hotel. Jones-Rounds indicated the project owner should probably be asked to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Schroeder agreed the Board should take the time to review the conditions. One detail, for example, that was shown in one of the project drawings, was that the new railing above the historic Carey Building would be painted black; however, this railing currently has a shiny silver-metallic finish, which visually conflicts with the ornamental detailing atop the original building facade immediately below. It was agreed that the proposed project changes would be reviewed at the upcoming August 30, 2016 special Planning Board meeting. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #3038 — 125 Eddy Street: Area Variance (Off-Street Parking) Appeal of Jagat Sharma, architect, for Nick Lambrou, owner of 123-125 Eddy Street, for variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 12, and 14/15, Off-Street Parking, Side Yard, and Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide 123-125 Eddy Street into two parcels of land to create a new buildable lot. The two existing buildings — a multiple dwelling and single-family home located at the northern end of the existing parcel — will be on the lot addressed 125 Eddy Street. On the other lot, addressed 123 Eddy Street, the applicant proposes to build a two- family home. However, the Subdivision cannot be approved unless the lots are compliant with the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed lot at 125 Eddy Street does not comply with the Zoning District Regulations for Off-Street Parking, Side Yard, and Rear Yard requirements. The existing multiple dwelling and single-family home require a total of 5 off- street parking spaces. However, no off-street parking has ever been provided for the occupants of the two buildings. The applicant is requesting a variance for this deficiency because Eddy Street is approximately 5 feet lower than the parcel’s elevation along the street line. The applicant believes no vehicular access from the street to this parcel can be achieved. The applicant is also requesting variances for the side yard and rear yard deficiencies. The side yard is 8.92 feet between 125 Eddy Street’s north property line and the north face of the existing multiple dwelling on the lot. Required is a 10-foot side yard. The rear yard is 8’5” between 125 Eddy Street’s east property line and the east face of the existing single-family home located on this lot. The minimum rear yard required is 20 feet. The lot at 125 Eddy Street is in an R-2b Zoning District where the multiple dwelling is a legal non-conforming use and the single-family home is a permitted use. However, General City Law, Book 20, Section 33, requires that lots comply with City zoning regulations before the Subdivision can be approved by the Planning Board. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 The Board does not identify any long term impacts in this appeal. The Board agrees with the applicant that the steep grades on site make the installation of parking both difficult and undesirable. The installation of 24 hour parking meters on Eddy Street could help control parking demand in the area. Appeal #3039 — 123 Eddy Street: Area Variance (Off-Street Parking) Appeal of Jagat Sharma, architect for Nick Lambrou, owner of 123 Eddy Street for a variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking Spaces, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide 123-125 Eddy Street into two parcels of land to create a new buildable lot. The two existing buildings — a multiple dwelling and single-family home located at the northern end of the existing parcel — will be on the lot addressed 125 Eddy Street. On the other lot, addressed 123 Eddy Street, the applicant proposes to build a two- family home. However, the Subdivision cannot be approved unless the lots are compliant with the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed lot at 123 Eddy Street complies with all Zoning District Regulations, except the Off-Street Parking requirement. The proposed two- family home requires two parking spaces, one for each 3-bedroom unit. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide no off-street parking spaces. The applicant believes vehicular access from the street to the site cannot be achieved, because Eddy Street is approximately 5 feet lower than the parcel’s elevation along the street line. The lot at 123 Eddy Street is in an R-2b Zoning District where a two-family home is a permitted use; however, General City Law, Book 20, Section 33, requires lots comply with City zoning regulations before the Subdivision can be approved by the Planning Board. The Board does not identify any long term impacts in this appeal. The Board agrees with the applicant that the steep grades on site make the installation of parking both difficult and undesirable. The installation of 24 hour parking meters on Eddy Street could help control parking demand in the area. Appeal #3041 — 213 Cascadilla Street: Area Variances Appeal of Christopher Kourkoutis, owner of 213 Cascadilla Street, for variances from Section 325-8, Column 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Lot Area, Street Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Other Front Yard, and Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to make three modifications to the single-family home at 213 Cascadilla Street. Two of these modifications entail replacing the stairs that currently provide access to the front and rear doors. The stairs were constructed without a landing and, as a result, pose a safety hazard. Stairs without landings are not considered in lot coverage calculations or in determining yard setbacks. On the other hand, landings must be considered in the determination of required yard setbacks and maximum allowed lot coverage calculations. The applicant proposes to construct a 4’x5’ landing at the front door entry. However, the small lot at 213 Cascadilla Street only has a front yard 2.5 feet in depth and, as proposed, this landing will extend into the City right-of-way, increasing the deficient front DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 yard to minus 1.5 feet. The front yard setback is required to be 10 feet. The applicant also proposes to construct a 5’x5’ landing and stairs, as well as an 8’x8’ storage shed in the back yard of 213 Cascadilla Street. These two modifications and the proposed front yard landing will increase the property’s lot coverage from 49.2% to 55.7%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%. In addition, the property has other deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the applicant’s three proposed modifications. The property at 213 Cascadilla Street has a lot size of 1,593 SF; the required lot size is 3,000 SF. The lot’s width at street is 24 feet. The required width at street is 35 feet. The other front yard is 0.3 feet; required is 10 feet. The side yard is 1.5 feet; required is 5 feet. The property at 213 Cascadilla Street is in a R-2b Zoning District where a single-family home is a permitted use; however, Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board does not identify any long term impacts in this appeal — however it appears that the stairs could be turned 90 degrees — thus avoiding the need for a variance and creating a better layout. Zoning Appeal #3043 — 107 W. Lincoln Street: Area Variances Appeal of Aaron Buechel, owner of 107 W. Lincoln Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 11, Columns 13, and 14/15, Front Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 107 West Lincoln Street is a single-family home with a two-story garage. The applicant proposes to convert the upper story of the garage into a studio apartment, changing the classification of the garage from an accessory use to a second primary use on the property. While the existing garage at 107 West Lincoln Street meets the minimum other side yard and rear yard setback requirements for an accessory structure, it does not meet the other side yard and rear yard setbacks, as a single dwelling unit with garage space. Used as an accessory structure, the existing garage has another side yard setback of 3.7 feet. Constructing a dwelling unit in the garage structure requires the other side yard to be a minimum of 5 feet. The existing garage is set back 3.4 feet from the rear yard property line. As a primary structure, zoning requires a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback. The property at 107 West Lincoln Street also has an existing deficient front yard that will not be exacerbated by the applicant’s proposal. The front yard setback is 7.4 feet; the required front yard setback is 10 feet. The property at 107 West Lincoln Street is in an R-2b Use District where the proposed studio apartment is permitted; however Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted, before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board does not identify any long term impacts in this appeal. The project is desirable urban infill and the Planning Board supports granting the variance. 6. Old / New Business A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project DGEIS: Special Planning Board Meeting, August 30, 2016, 6:00 p.m., to Review Comments / Responses DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 Nicholas announced that City and Town staff have completed reviewing the comments received regarding the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). The Planning Board’s first Special Meeting to review these comments and responses is scheduled for August 30, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. B. Maguire / Carpenter Business Park Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD): Public Information Session, Wednesday, August 31, 2016, 6:00 p.m., Common Council Chambers Nicholas announced the Public Information Session for the Maguire / Carpenter Business Park TMPUD application will take place on Wednesday, August 31, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in Common Council Chambers. In accordance with the City of Ithaca TMPUD application process, the applicant and project team will present information about the project and answer questions from the public. In addition, a Public Hearing will be held at the September 14, 2016 meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish reported that Common Council will be reviewing a $150,000 request to fund a City facilities study to examine the potential for the relocation and consolidation of City properties (e.g., Police Department building, fire stations, City Hall, Green Street Garage, Water and Sewer Division, Streets and Facilities Division). The study would identify what City properties are worth, property tax projections for the next 20 years, and determine whether it would make sense to consolidate some or all of them onto a single site. The study would include a very conceptual site plan for a “center of government” site. Nicholas reported that City staff participated in a meeting with Cornell University about a student housing study it is undertaking to facilitate increasing the number of housing units available to its undergraduate students who want to live on campus, while ensuring students are placed in housing most appropriate to their needs. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling reported that completion of the Lake Street Bridge is two weeks ahead of schedule, with the Lake Street Park to be completed soon thereafter. He also reported the Farmer’s Market has expressed interest in building some new parking spaces to meet increased demand. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft April 24, 2016 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 9. Adjournment On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.