Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2020-02-25 Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes February 25, 2020 Board Members Attending: McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair Board Vacancies: One Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Student Apartments – 238 Dryden Road Brandon Ebel, Stream Collaborative Carpenter Circle Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning & Design Jess Sudol, Passero Associates City Harbor – 101 Pier Road David Herrick, T.G. Miller David Kruse, SRF Associates Mixed Use Student Apartments – 411-415 College Ave Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Rob Schultz, HOLT Architects Sara Hayes, owner’s representative Student Apartments – 126 College Avenue Craig Modisher. Stream Collaborative Laura Mattros, Visum Development Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 2 261 Lake St – Student Housing – Sketch Plan Jeff Amungual, DMG Investments John Corbo, DMG Investments Mohamed Razak, Razak Associates 215 E State Street – Mixed Use Apartments – Sketch Plan #2 Blalock served as acting chair in Chair Lewis’ absence. Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Approval of minutes and end-of-meeting reports were removed from the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. Todd Kurzweil of downtown retail store Sunny Days spoke in opposition to the proposed redevelopment of 215 E. State Street (where the store is currently located). He said their business will be involuntarily displaced when that portion of the building is demolished. He said the rug is being pulled out from underneath him and his wife. He urged the board to table the proposal until mitigations can be determined. He said they only learned of the proposal through a third party two weeks earlier. He asked what calculation will be made to determine how they are to be valued as people and businesses. He said they have done a lot to help the community as small business owners and he doesn’t want the project to advance further until the question of what will be done to help make up their potential loss is answered. Wing Loong Cheung of 109 Summit Avenue spoke in opposition to the 238 Dryden Road project. He said that the use of the street on the proposed development site is currently under litigation. He said the proposed staging area would block both lanes at the south end of Summit and would block access to several of his parking spaces and his driveway. He said that the proposed transportation plan is inadequate to address the traffic currently generated by the project even without considering the additional traffic that will be created from the new building. The materials he submitted to the Board are included as an addendum to these minutes. Todd Bittmer, Director of Natural Areas at the Cornell Botanic Gardens, spoke about the mixed use student housing proposed for 411-15 College Avenue. He said about 5,000 people visit this part of Cascadilla Gorge daily. And he is concerned about the large amount of glass that will face the gorge and the gorge trail. He said that at night, the lighted façade will visually encroach on the natural area and the trail, particularly in winter months when the deciduous trees Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 3 are leafless. He said the illuminated glass façade will be visible along the entire approach, from the north end trolley pedestrian bridge to the gorge trailhead at the corner of Oak and College Avenues. He said the proposed design is out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and will visually encroach on the natural area. He said that while Student Agencies has met with them several times to discuss these concerns, no substantive changes to the design have been made. He said they are primarily interested in low-cost, thoughtful mitigations to minimize the façade’s illumination. He said it’s more critical on the upper floors and at the east end of the building. Such changes could allow the north-west corner to continue to act as an urban transition, while also maintaining an active space at ground level. He said they could consider mitigations such as selecting a type of glass that would minimize light spill, interior lighting techniques that would direct the light back towards the interior spaces, and selecting interior materials that will absorb rather than reflect light. He asked the Board to please consider their concerns as they continue to work with the developer. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 3. Board Response to Public Comment Jones thanked Bittman for his comments. To Kurzweil she said that she is sorry he wasn’t notified, and to Cheung, she apologized for any confusion and said that while they will be discussing the project later, there will not be a public hearing at that time. Blalock asked Deputy Director Nicholas to discuss procedure regarding sketch plans. Deputy Director Nicholas said a sketch plan is a presentation that some applicants will do prior to submitting an application in order to get feedback from the Board on their design. She said there is not yet a formal application in place. 4. Site Plan Review A. Student Apartments, 238 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development. Public Hearing, Amendment to Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to the BZA. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and had previous received Design Review. This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 24, 2019. The applicant has revised the project and will be seeking design review, an amended negative declaration and site plan approval the revised layout in January 2020. Brandon Ebel of Stream Collaborative appeared in front of the Board to present project changes. He said that due to a Fire Department request for additional fire access, they have determined Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 4 that it will be necessary to extend Summit Avenue Slightly in order to create a fire lane. He said that the owners of 109 Summit Avenue will not be affected in the event the IFD needs to access the site. He said the interior layout of the building changed slightly, as they moved a bedroom to the other side of the building to accommodate the change. Nicholas said that they will not be able to use Summit Avenue as a staging area if it will be designated as a fire lane. Ebel said the applicant is aware, and they will be staging materials off-site, and will be bringing them onsite as needed. He said the Board can include that as a condition if they want, but Visum is already aware of and agreeable to it. Jones said she understands the applicant has been working with the Fire Department, and she is confident that they will follow through, but especially because neighbors have expressed concerns, the Board is trying to do due diligence. She said it might be a good idea to communicate more closely with the neighbors. Ebel said they would not be staging onsite, as they know how Chief Parsons operates, and they know he would shut the jobsite down in a heartbeat if they were in the fire lane. Jones asked if neighbors are losing parking. Ebel said, no, Visum is eliminating their parking on Summit, but there’s currently no parking for anyone else on Summit. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a student housing project to be located at 232-236 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development Group, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the project consists of the construction a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .777-acre project site contains two recently-completed apartment buildings. Site development requires the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal, relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant has submitted a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. The project has received the required area variances from the BZA the routine variance from the Regional NYS Board of Code Review, and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and was treated as a Type I Action for the purposes of environmental review, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 5 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on July 24, 2019, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: After filing of the Negative Declaration, the applicant was required to alter the design to address fire access. Changes from the originally proposed project included extending the paving at the southern end of Summit Avenue, altering the building footprint and exterior arrangement of building features, and making additional minor site adjustments to accommodate the new spatial arrangement. The new arrangement triggered a revised appeal for area variances and, as stated above and a routine variance from the Regional NYS Board of Code Review for fire access, 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 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 determined that no significant adverse impact would occur, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on January 28, 2020 reviewed and accepted as adequate the new information consisting of: a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part1, submitted by the applicant and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; the following revised drawings: “Site Layout Plan (L101)” and “Planting Plan (L104)” dated 12-3-19, “Demo Plan (D100)” dated 12-18-19, “Site Perspective 1 (A1)” and “Site Perspective 2 (A2)”, “Elevation South (A201)”, Elevation North (A202)”, “Elevation East (A203)” and “Elevation West (A204)” dated 12-4-19, and “Floor Plan (A101)” dated 12-20-19 and the following drawing showing exterior building materials titled “East Elevation (A1)” and dated 8-21-19 and all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other supporting materials, and WHEREAS: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 28, 2020 determine that the changes to the building were consistent with the Collegetown Design Guidelines and the previous design review conducted on August 27, 2019, and WHEREAS: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 28, 2020, amend the Negative Declaration issued on September 24, 2019 to include the above-mentioned information in the environmental record and determined that the proposed apartments (238 Dryden Road) located at 232-236 Dryden Road will result in no significant impact on the environment, 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 September 24, 2019 and, due to project changes, held a second Public Hearing on January 28, 2020 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 Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required area variances on February 4, 2020, and WHEREAS: the Board has on February 25, 2020 reviewed and accepted the following revised drawings: “Utility Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Site Utility Plan (C103)”, “Site Utility Profiles (C104)”, Foundation Drain Plans (C105)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (C106)” and “Details (C201 & C202)’ all with Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 6 a revision date of 1-30-20 and all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other supporting 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 and 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., and iii. Plans, drawings and/or visualizations showing all proposed exterior mechanicals and associated equipment including heat pumps, ventilation, etc including appropriate screening if necessary, and iv. 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). v. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer, and vi. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed vii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and viii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permits required by City Code, such as sign, tree, or street permits. Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Lewis Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for a Transportation Demand Management Plan 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 student housing project to be located at 232-236 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development Group, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the project consists of the construction a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .777-acre project site contains two recently-completed apartment buildings. Site development requires the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal, relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 7 buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations, and WHEREAS: as no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant submitted a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations, and WHEREAS: the Board has on February 25, 2020 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), submitted in application materials dated 12-11-19 and prepared by Stream Collaborative, , now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve the aforementioned revised TDMP for the project at 232-236 Dryden Road. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Glass In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Lewis Vacancies: One B. Carpenter Circle Project, Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC. Transportation / Break in Access & Community Benefits. The project seeks to develop the existing 10.8-acre parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third Street. The parcel currently contains 2.1 acres of community gardens, an access road (Carpenter Circle Road), and one storage building to be removed. The proposal includes Building A, a 64,000 SF medical office building; Buildings B & C, two mixed-use buildings which will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking, 166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and Building D, a residential building offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking, transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project includes 187 internal parking spaces within Buildings B and C, 349 surface parking spaces, and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The Project Sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Route 13. The property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project will require subdivision into four lots to separate each program element, resulting in Lot 1 measuring 2.086 acres and containing Building A, Lot 2 measuring 5.758 acres and containing Buildings B & C, Lot 3 measuring 2.12 acres and containing the community gardens, and Lot 4 measuring .833 acres and containing Building D. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 8 Applicants Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design and Jess Sudol of Passero Associates appeared in front of the Board to provide a presentation and answer questions about transportation / break in access and the community benefits of the project. Sudol gave a presentation on current traffic levels and then discussing what traffic/ transportation impacts the project is expected to have, including improvements to the transportation network. He said that in order to justify a break in access, they have to identify significant community benefits. In this case, he said developing a challenging vacant parcel is in itself a benefit, but he said they are also making improvements to the transportation network that will give the public more direct routes between Greenstar, and the Farmers’ Market and Aldi’s, providing connectivity between the city street network to the east and all the new development to the west, and expanding the sidewalk network along Route 13. He said they are planning on doing the project in a phased way, starting with the medical office building and the associated storm water management systems, and creating a four-way intersection at Route 13 and Fifth Street. Jones said the Board approves projects in their entirety, regardless of whether the project is completed in phases. She asked what the estimated timeline is from the beginning of Phase I to the end of Phase III. Sudol said probably around three years. Jones also asked if the Board had any method to ensure all phases of the project are completed, citing another project where a phased approach was approved, but later phases of work were never completed, resulting in less public benefit and a corner parking lot. She said similarly, she wants to approve the project with the Fifth Street intersection, and she asked what their options are if it’s not approved by the state. She said it will change the project. Deputy Director Nicholas said that the project requires approvals by DOT, and the project also required a PUD. She said part of the community benefit cited during the PUD approval process was the community benefit of the affordable housing. She said there’s a provision in the PUD that if they can’t provide the affordable housing, they will need to return to Common Council and renegotiate to provide alternate community benefits. Petrina asked if they can include a condition saying that if the Fifth Street access is not approved, they will have to re-open the site plan process. Deputy Director Nicholas said that the Board needs to know what is going to happen at these intersections in order to complete the CEQR process. If there are turn lanes that degrade to “Fs,” they need to know that for CEQR. They have to be able to weigh those factors against the proposed mitigations. She said everybody wants to see the break in access, but it actually has traffic impacts that weren’t covered in the applicant’s presentation. The Board needs to understand that to complete CEQR. They have to know what’s going to happen at these intersections, and not just in general, but that there are turn lanes that will turn into “Fs.” It’s going to happen. It’s in the data. She said the Board needs to understand that for CEQR and then weigh it against the mitigations being proposed. Common Council, also an involved agency, will have to propose this break in access to DOT. The impacts and mitigations are reviewed by the DOT, Common Council, and the Planning Board. She said it looks like the direction they’re Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 9 going in is that the Fire Department wouldn’t allow Phase II to move forward until the break in access is in place. Sudol said they are proposing to add turn lanes similar to what you see at Third Street currently. He said that would require widening Route 13, re-striping, and installing a brand new signal light with mast arms, as well as rebuilding the signal light down the street. He said that in addition to that, there will be pedestrian connections, sidewalks, bicycle accommodations. He said that the break in access and the affordable housing component are in a similar situation in that both have been conceptually supported by all the stakeholders, but they’re in a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. The State says they want to see our approvals before they will grant us the money for the affordable housing component. They want to see the Site Plan approval and the PUD approval. He said he thinks a lot of the stakeholders at the City have been very supportive of the affordable housing component, which increases their chances of securing State funding the first time around. (The State recently switched to offering funding opportunities every six months.) Jones said if they were looking at a smaller, non-phased project, and it didn’t get funded, it would just die, or if the builder decided to change materials, it would come back to us, so it seems like if the Board approves the proposal as-is, but if funding doesn’t come through or DOT won’t grant their approval, it will come back to the Planning Board and/or Common Council. She said she feels satisfied and comfortable with that. Johnston asked if the phasing plan would affect the number of employees cited in the SRF document Sec. 1, bullet 2. He asked if the numbers provided for both building size and number of employees would be affected by the phasing plan. He asked if the numbers reflect the total project and total parking. Sudol said that the numbers reflect the two ways of calculating parking, building size and number of employees. He said that because the numbers are very close, that gives them the confidence to move forward. Johnston also asked about the next bullet point that says the medical office building will use staggered opening and closing times to reduce demand at any one time. He asked if they could really do that, or if they are more of a 9 to 5 operation. Fournier said they would be able to stagger hours. She said they sat down to discuss it with Tony Votaw. She said that he told them that the hours on the quick care clinic would probably be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. She said something like 20 percent of the staff would be arriving before the 8-9 o’clock morning peak. She said opening times would be staggered over the morning hours from 7 to 9 and closing times would be staggered over the afternoon and into the evening. She said that the staggered hours make their trip generation numbers look a little better. Jones asked if there would be any conflict in the evening with the retail and dining in the mixed-use buildings. Applicants said not enough to be an issue. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 10 Johnston asked if the City has thought at all about spillover onto the Farmers’ Market lot. Deputy Director Nicholas said that hadn’t come up. Jones said it seems more likely the opposite would happen (people going to the Farmers’ Market might park on this site). Sudol pointed out that the highest density portion of their project would be farthest away from the Farmers’ Market. Glass said he is a little concerned by the phasing drawing because early on they are going to have a single building in a huge sea of parking without any streetscape. He said the DOT phasing is a little unclear. He said he’s also unclear on when the Community Gardens are going to happen. He said he would be more comfortable if Phase I included the medical office building, stormwater management, parking, a great streetscape, and the Community Gardens. Right now, he said, this looks like it’s going to be a big parking lot, and he’s scared of that. Sudol said that when he said three years, he meant three years from breaking ground to cutting ribbon and occupying the third phase. He said Phase II will start as fast as they can, almost certainly while the medical office building is still under construction. He said they hope to start the office building, and then after securing final break in access approvals, start in on the whold streetscape. Fournier said the Community Gardens would also be part of Phase I, and in fact, they are intending to start the garden portion of the project right away, so the gardeners can be in there this summer. The gardens would be up and going before Phase I is fully underway. Sudol said they would not disrupt the existing portion of the gardens the gardeners are currently in until they are ready to start working in that area. Deputy Director Nicholas asked if they were proposing to rebuild the Third Street intersection. Sudol said they are not proposing to rebuild the entire intersection, but rather, proposing to replace the post, mast arm, controllers, and signal light with an up-to-date setup that will coordinate with all the other lights. Deputy Director Nicholas asked Sudol about installing a median on Route 13 to create a pedestrian refuge. Sudol said that to do a median, you’d have to do a substantial one so people know it’s there. Deputy Director Nicholas said, yes, 10 feet. Johnston asked about access control on the connection between Carpenter Park and Greenstar (restriction to TCAT only). Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 11 Fournier said they have been looking into a gate tied into a pressure sensitive plate that would detect the weight of a vehicle the size of a bus and then raise the arm. She said radio control might be another option. She said they are looking into it, but aren’t sure yet what the mechanism will be. She said they are also looking at ways to make drivers not want to go that way (speed bumps or raised pedestrian intersections). Jones said she’d also like to see a complete signage package for the whole project. Acting Chair Blalock asked if any Board members had any other questions or comments. Petrina said that she’s looking at the increased wait times, with many of the intersections turning into “Ds” and “Es,” thinking that this is terrible and they need to find ways to mitigate. She asked Nicholas if the downgraded vehicular movement is okay in light of the improved pedestrian connections. She asked what would be acceptable for the city or it’s hard to pinpoint. Nicholas said it’s hard to pinpoint, but she said she thinks it’s important to remember that these very degraded movements happen for two hours a day, the AM peak and the PM peak. That’s why the Planning Board needs to see not just the average for an intersection, but the entire set of tables (and there are a lot of them). Once we get the impacts clearly described and then look at the mitigations to determine if the impacts are being mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Sudol said they did provide a detailed analysis for each turning movement within the network. He said that anything above a “D” is generally considered acceptable. In many cases, wait times are improved, and in the very few cases where something becomes an “F,” that’s when you have to weigh the issues. He said an “F” is any time there’s a wait of more than 80 seconds, but some of the lights have a long cycle of 120 seconds, so you can achieve an “F” there without sitting through multiple cycles of the light. He said you have to look closely to see what the scores really mean. He said a big question to ask is if a long wait time starts to impact neighboring lanes, and he said they didn’t see any instances of that. He urged them to look at the detailed traffic study just submitted. Nicholas said the Board had not received that yet. Fournier said that another factor to consider is that the City is trying to shift towards more multimodal transportation, so you have to ask if the “F” is still going to be an “F” in 2030. Deputy Director Nicholas said that as planners it’s okay to say that we don’t care about a certain impact because there are all these community benefits, but as part of the CEQR process, the Board has to identify specific mitigations directly related to identified impacts. Sudol said that if you look at the total travel time delay, which is when you take all the approaches, all the intersections, everything and add it up. He said that in this case when you look at the heaviest travel time, the PM peak hour, the number is reduced from 950 hours to 885 (that’s everybody’s wait times added together), which represents about a 10-second reduction in travel delays over the whole network. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 12 Nicholas said that the applicants need to put together a very clear list of impacts and the proposed mitigations for next month’s meeting. Fournier asked if the Board would be ready to make a determination of environmental significance next month if they put that information together. Jones said she doesn’t know what questions might come up until they are looking at CEQR, but she doesn’t have any questions now. Acting Chair Blalock asked the Board if anyone had anything to add. As no one had anything further, he thanked the applicants for their time. C. City Harbor, 101 Pier Road by Jessica Edger-Hillman. Transportation Impacts & Mitigations. The 10.35-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of privately-owned land and 2.02 acres of adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and make improvements to 2.02 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned tax parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF medical office building, (2) five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF and 111 housing units, (1) five-story mixed-use building with 77,800 GFA with 45 housing units, 4,500 SF of ground floor commercial (expected to be a restaurant), and (1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating, and other recreational activities associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course. Phase 1 includes the rebuilding of Pier Road to include sidewalks, street trees, a fire engine turnaround, and additional and reorganized parking, all improvements on private property with the exception of the construction of Point East Building (which will be used as greenspace and parking) and the temporary relocation of the fueling dock and tank. Phase 2 of the project will include the construction of the Point East Building, additional parking at the golf course, installation of the new fueling dock and tank, the 5,500 SF Newman Community Center, removal of the existing clubhouse and relocation of the Ninth green. Site improvements on private property to include a 1,570-foot publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla Creek, including construction of a new seawall and replacement of existing docks, waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal circulation streets, bus stops, surface parking for 435 cars (in Phases 1 & 2), and landscaping. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2), (i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v). David Herrick of T.G. Miller and David Kruse of SRF Associates appeared in front of the Board to give a presentation on transportation impacts and mitigations. Herrick said that they too would be phasing their project. He said the Point West and Point East buildings with 96 residential units and a ground floor restaurant, as well as the Guthrie Medical office building would be part of Phase I. Point East II would be part of Phase II. He showed some diagrams showing pedestrian connections currently existing and the enhancements the project would make to the pedestrian connections. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 13 Kruse discussed the improvements to the intersection at Willow and Dey Street they are proposing. He said their projections for the medical office building shows variability in trip generation based on time of day. He said that in terms of mitigations at the intersection they are proposing adding both a northbound and a southbound right turn lane; striping changes on Dey Street to create a left turn, through and right turn lane; lengthening the northbound and southbound left turn lanes to accommodate more vehicles; and signal modifications to allow the northbound and southbound left turn lanes to run concurrently. He said they are also looking into making multimodal improvements such as intersection lighting. He said that as the project is going to be phased, they are also looking into phasing the proposed mitigations. He touched on a few other options they were looking into including pedestrian refuge islands and adaptive crosswalk technology. He said that total network delay during both background and peak conditions does increase by about 10 seconds or less per vehicle as a result of the project. Acting Chair Blalock invited Board questions. Johnston asked Kruse about feedback they had received from the NYS DOT. Kruse said they had considered adding right turn lanes, and that suggestion was dismissed as part of the State’s initial review. He said the tech memo has since undergone an update, in large part based on that review. In large part what came out of that was the understanding that there are some limitations on what can be done further down from the site. That led them to shift their focus to what can be done at Willow and Dey. Kruse also said that they would be willing to do a post-study of traffic volumes and conditions after Phase I is up and running to see if the trips line up with what was predicted and determine if programmatic adjustments need to be made. It would also help determine if or when certain mitigations might be needed. Jones asked if they can require post-studies. Nicholas said yes, and that one of the proposed mitigations is to do a post-study after Phase I is completed but before Phase II can move forward to ensure that traffic counts match projections. TDM is a big part of their proposed mitigations, so it’s important to determine that that’s effective or make changes to it. Glass asked when they might be able to see detailed drawings of the intersections, showing turn lanes, landscaping, trail intersections, etc. Herrick said that he was going to ask when they wanted to see detailed drawings. He said the ones showing landscaping, curb cuts, and trail intersections are already prepared, and they will prepare the ones detailing the proposed mitigations to the intersection at Willow and Dey and submit those as well. Acting Chair Blalock asked about next steps. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 14 Deputy Director Nicholas said she had drafted the transportation section of the FEAF Part III, and one of the outstanding questions is regarding the timeline of when all the proposed mitigations will happen, and who is responsible for them. Herrick said they are committed to a post-Phase I study prior to moving ahead with Phase II. He said that the other off-site physical improvements still need to be worked out, and that will require partnership between the City, the DOT, and the development team. Acting Chair Lewis asked if they should review the Part III next. Deputy Director Nicholas said they should take it home, read through, and review at the next meeting. She said that one of the things that stood out to her is how many improvements to the Waterfront Trail are already included as part of the project. She said she thinks that as the waterfront develops, the trail will become much more of a transportation amenity than it is now because it really connects everything along the waterfront. Acting Chair Blalock asked if anyone had anything to add. There being no more comments or questions from the Board, he thanked the applicants for their time. D. Mixed-Use Student Apartments, 411-415 College Avenue by Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining walls. The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. 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) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9). Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design; Sara Hayes, owner’s representative; and Steve Hugo and Rob Schultz of HOLT Architects appeared in front of the Board. They presented updated drawings and plans, and addressed outstanding items requested by the Board. Whitham said they had been in touch with Historic Ithaca and Ithaca Re-Use to arrange for them to claim any salvageable materials from the building. He also said they had been in contact with Todd Bittmer from Cornell Botanic Gardens and had discussions about reducing the light spillage and lowering the illumination inside the building. Whitham said Bero Architects has been onsite taking photographs and beginning their HABS work. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 15 He said they are continuing outreach efforts with St. Luke’s Church, and are continuing to develop monitoring plans to ensure their building is not damaged during demolition and construction. They’ve also determined a prominent, publicly accessible location for the medallions that were removed from the Chacona Block previously. They will install an informational plaque nearby. Board members expressed support for the project, and thanked the applicants for reducing the building’s light spillage. After further discussion, Jones moved and the Board agreed unanimously to add a condition requesting applicants to explore glazing options to determine which one will help minimize light spillage into the gorge natural area. The Board also had a discussion about the applicant’s choice to use EFIS stucco on the stairwell in the rear, next to St. Paul’s church. Petrina asked why they chose EFIS as opposed to brick. Applicants said that it was partly to avoid adding the weight to the building, and partly because it sits so far back from the street, so they don’t think it will have significant visual impact. Jones said she doesn’t have a problem with EFIS in this case, but her concern is about the precedent this creates. Petrina asked if it is the whole east elevation and eastern portion of the south elevation are EFIS. Applicant said yes. Board and applicants next discussed the material choice, and the Board decided to insert a statement noticing that the EFIS is an acceptable material given that it is in use on a secondary façade. Adopted Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a new mixed use apartment building located at 411-415 College Ave by Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies, owner, and WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 16 walls. The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(h)(4), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 24, 2019, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on January 28, 2020, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled: “Boundary & Topographic Map No. 411-415 College Avenue, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 3-21-17 and “Existing Site Conditions (C101)”, “Site Demolition Plan (C201)”, “Site Utility Demolition Plan (C202)”, ‘Site Layout Plan Alternative Curb Line (C301)”, “Grading and Drainage Plan (C302)”, “Site Utility Plan (C303)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C401)”, and “Site Utility Details (C501)” all dated 11/18/19 and “Work Zone Traffic Controls (C601)” dated 12-20-19, and “Roof Plan” dated 10-28-19 and “Design Development Plan (L-1.0) dated 11-19-19, the following undated drawings labeled November Planning Board Updates “Site Plan”, ‘Stepback Perspective Comparison”, “5’ Stepback Plan View”, “7’ Stepback Plan View” and “12’Stepback Plan View” and the following undated drawings labeled December Planning Board Updates: “Street Level Perspective”, “Aerial Perspective”, “Aerial Perspective – Plaza Zoom In” “Site and Building Lighting Information’, “Blank Wall in Plaza”, “College Avenue Elevation”, “Oak Avenue Elevation”, “7’ Stepback Perspective”, “Perspectives of Oak Avenue” “Conceptual Sections”, and “Analysis of Building Height from Context” and “Design Development Plan” dated 11-19-19, “Conceptual Seating Studies” dated 12-4-19, “Site Plan” dated 10-22-19 and “Site Disturbance Plan” dated 9-3-19 and “Exterior Photometric Study (001)” dated 01-15-20, all prepared by Holt Architecture et al., and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, 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 November 26, 2019, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on January 28, 2020, 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 City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on February 25 2020 review and accept as adequate the following new and revised drawings: “Site Demolition Plan (C201)”, “Site Utility Demolition Plan (C202)”, ‘Site Layout Plan (C301)”, “Grading and Drainage Plan (C302)”, “Site Utility Plan (C303)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C401)”, “Work Zone Traffic Controls (C601)”, “Basement Floor Plan (A100)”, “First and Second Floor Plans (A101)”, “Third and Fourth Floor Plans (A102)”, “Fifth and Sixth Floor Plans (A103)”, “Roof Plan (A104)” and “Exterior Elevations (A201)” all dated 2-14-20 and “Street Level Perspective” and “Aerial Perspective – Plaza Zoom In” both undated Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 17 drawings labeled February Planning Board Updates, and “Materials Plan (L100)”, “Planting Plan (L200)”, “Planting and Materials Schedule (L300)”, “Illustrative Sections (L400)”, dated 2/18/20 and “Exterior Photometric Study” dated 1/15/20, and “Exterior Window Details (A653 & 654)”, “Wall Sections(A311)” and “Exterior Details (A501)” dated 12/20/19 and all prepared by Holt Architecture et al., and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on February 25 2020 review the use of EIFIS as an exterior material for the proposed east elevation. The Board concurred that the east elevation is a secondary façade, and although it is highly on Oak Avenue, it is not a featured elevation. Given of the high visibility of the west and north facades and the extensive attention to materials and details on them, the Board determined EIFIS is a secondary material on a secondary façade and is therefore acceptable, 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 and 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., and iii. Submission to Planning staff of colored and keyed building elevations of all facades with building materials samples sheet, and iv. Submission of a final Landscape Plan with planting schedule & specifications, and v. Submission of a revised Layout Plan showing the location and number of bike racks, and vi. Plans, drawings and/or visualizations showing all proposed exterior mechanicals and associated equipment including heat pumps, ventilation, equipment vents, etc including appropriate screening if necessary, and vii. The applicant will submit documentation of the final monitoring plan for adjacent buildings to the Planning staff, and viii. The applicant will submit final selection of bird mitigation option, with documented efficacy to Planning staff for review and approval, and ix. The applicant will continue to explore the most application of glass treatments, interior lighting and window treatments to minimize light visibility from the adjoining natural area, and x. Before issuance of a building permit the applicant will complete and submit to Planning staff a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-level recordation of 411 and 413-15 College Avenue by a historic preservation professional specializing in the documentation historic buildings. Documentation shall meet standards outlined in the National Park Services’ HABS Guidelines and include a history, photographs and drawings of the building, and xi. Before issuance of the building permit, the applicant will submit documentation off-site contractor parking outside of central Collegetown Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 18 xii. Applicant will offer Architectural and construction material salvage by qualified organizations, such as Historic Ithaca and Ithaca ReUse, and xiii. Submission to the Planning Board of final placement of the original lion heads as well as design and placement of interpretive signage. xiv. 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). xv. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department emergency access issues have been satisfied, and xvi. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer xvii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed xviii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and xix. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign, tree or street permits. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Lewis Vacancies: One E. Student Apartments at 126 College Avenue by 126 C-Town LLC (Visum Development). Public Hearing, Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, and Approval of TDMP. This project was approved on January 24, 2017. The project was not constructed, and the approval expired in January 2019. The applicant now seeks re-approval for the project with a few changes. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story (with occupied basement) apartment building with a total of five units (one on each floor) and 27 bedrooms (28 originally proposed) on the .0908 acres (3,957 SF) project site. Site improvements include walkways, landscaping and a retaining wall with an upper terrace accessible from the basement apartment. All above-ground apartments will have a balcony facing College Avenue. Site development will require the removal of the existing house, with its associated retaining walls, driveway curbcut and walkways. Five mature trees in the rear of the property that were originally retained are now proposed to be removed. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and received Design Review in 2017. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 19 Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. 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 for which the Lead Agency made a negative determination of environmental significance in 12-20-16. The Neg Dec will be amended to include new information regarding project changes. Craig Modisher of Stream Collaborative and Laura Mattros of Visum Development appeared in front of the Board to present updates to the proposed project. Public Hearing On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina. Adopted Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: on December 12, 2016, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed apartment building project at 126 College Avenue 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 proposed project consisted of a four-story (with occupied basement) apartment building with a total of five units (one on each floor) and 28 bedrooms on the .0908 acres (3,957 SF) project site. The project is expected to attract primarily student tenants. Site improvements include walkways, landscaping, and a retaining wall with and upper terrace accessible from the basement apartment. All above-ground apartments will have a balcony facing College Ave. Site development will require the removal of the existing house, with its associated retaining walls, driveway curbcut, walkways, and one mature tree. Four mature trees in the rear of the property will be preserved. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and required Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations, and WHEREAS: This is a 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did, on January 21, 2017 grant the project Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and also approved the proposed TDMP, and WHEREAS: the project was not built and the site plan approval expired on January 21, 2019, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 20 WHEREAS: the applicant now seeks re-approval for the project with changes. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story (with occupied basement) apartment building with a total of five units (one on each floor) and 27 bedrooms (28 originally proposed). The building footprint has been altered slightly. Four of the five mature trees in the rear of the property were originally retained but now all five are proposed for removal. The retaining wall at the rear of the property has been changed from limestone quarry block to limestone Verti-block and now has a 3-foot 4-inch wooden fence atop. Seven windows have been added to the front façade, six windows removed from the north façade, and two windows added to the south façade. Sidewalks around the building have been shortened, and the entrance on the south façade has been moved. Grading has been changed around the building, and window wells have been added to the south façade. A trash room has also been created inside the building, 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on February 25, 2020 reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff and the following revised drawings: “Topographic & Boundary Map No. 126 College Ave, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 8/23/18, “Existing Conditions Map (C101)”, “Utility Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Site Utility Plan (C103)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C104)”, “Details (C201)” all dated 12-18-19 and prepared by TG Miller PC, and “Site Layout Plan (L102)”, “Grading Plans (L201)”, “Planting Details (L501)”, “Site Details (L502)”, “Basement Plan (A1)”, and “First Floor Area Plan (A2)”, “2nd-4th Area Plans (A3)” all dated 12- 13-19 and “North Elevation (A2.2)”, “West Elevation (A2.3)”,“South Elevation (A2.4)” “Street Perspective (A9.1)” and “Street Elevation (A2.5)” all dated 12/19/19 and “East Elevation (A2.1)” showing building materials and “Planting Plan (L301)” both dated 2/11/20, all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby amend the Negative Declaration issued on December 12, 2016 to include the above-mentioned information in the 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 apartments located at 126 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 Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Lewis Vacancies: One Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 21 Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a 5 unit apartment building by Visum Development Group, and WHEREAS: the proposed project consisted of a four-story (with occupied basement) apartment building with a total of five units (one on each floor) and 28 bedrooms on the .0908 acres (3,957 SF) project site. The project is expected to attract primarily student tenants. Site improvements include walkways, landscaping, and a retaining wall with and upper terrace accessible from the basement apartment. All above-ground apartments will have a balcony facing College Ave. Site development will require the removal of the existing house, with its associated retaining walls, driveway curbcut, walkways, and one mature tree. Four mature trees in the rear of the property will be preserved. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and required Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations, and WHEREAS: This is a 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did, on January 21, 2017 grant the project Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and also approved the proposed TDMP, and WHEREAS: the project was not built and the site plan approval expired on January 21, 2019, and WHEREAS: the applicant now seeks re-approval for the project with changes. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story (with occupied basement) apartment building with a total of five units (one on each floor) and 27 bedrooms (28 originally proposed). The building footprint has been altered slightly. Four of the five mature trees in the rear of the property were originally retained but now all five are proposed for removal. The retaining wall at the rear of the property has been changed from limestone quarry block to limestone Verti-block and now has a 3-foot 4-inch wooden fence atop. Seven windows have been added to the front façade, six windows removed from the north façade, and two windows added to the south façade. Sidewalks around the building have been shortened, and the entrance on the south façade has been moved. Grading has been changed around the building, and window wells have been added to the south façade. A trash room has also been created inside the building, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on February 25, 2020 reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff and the following revised drawings: “Topographic & Boundary Map No. 126 College Ave, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 8/23/18, “Existing Conditions Map (C101)”, “Utility Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Site Utility Plan (C103)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C104)”, “Details (C201)” all dated 12-18-19 and prepared by TG Miller PC, and “Site Layout Plan (L102)”, “Grading Plans (L201)”, “Planting Details (L501)”, “Site Details (L502)”, “Basement Plan (A1)”, and “First Floor Area Plan (A2)”, “2nd-4th Area Plans (A3)” all dated 12- 13-19 and “North Elevation (A2.2)”, “West Elevation (A2.3)”,“South Elevation (A2.4)” “Street Perspective (A9.1)” and “Street Elevation (A2.5)” all dated 12/19/19 and “East Elevation (A2.1)” showing building materials, “Planting Plan (L301)” and “Planting Details (L501)” all dated 2/11/20, all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other application materials, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 22 WHEREAS: that based on all supporting documentation, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on February 25, 2020 determine that the proposed apartments located at 126 College Ave will result in no significant impact on the environment and that an amended 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. now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development 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 and 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., and iii. Plans, drawings and/or visualizations showing all proposed exterior mechanicals and associated equipment including heat pumps, ventilation, etc including appropriate screening if necessary, and iv. The applicant will work with City staff for final selection of tree types, and v. 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). vi. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer, and vii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed viii. Receipt of the required routine variance from the Regional NYS Board of Code Review, and ix. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and x. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permits required by City Code, such as sign, tree, or street permits, and be it further RESOLVED: that the TDMP approved on January 12, 2017 has not been changed and remains valid. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Lewis Vacancies: One Glass suggested they reconsider the choice of hawthorn tree out front and consult with the City Forester to select a tree that will provide more shade. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 23 F. 261 Lake St – Student Housing – Sketch Plan Applicants Jeff Amungual and John Corbo of DMG Investments, and architect Mohamed Razak of Razak Associates appeared in front of the Board to present their sketch plan for an 84-unit market rate apartment building. The project, as proposed, would require a variance for building height (4 stories/ 40 feet allowed, 6 stories/ 60 feet proposed). Jones said the massing seems large, especially in context of the neighborhood. Glass said he is not impressed by the architecture as yet developed. Johnston reminded them of the industrial history of the site and of its possible contamination. Blalock expressed some support for the project, though he acknowledged other Board members’ concerns. Petrina said that it’s in a transitional area between a residential neighborhood and the University and urged them to make thoughtful materials selections and think careful about proportionality. Jones expressed concern about visual access and line of sight. She said that as tall as it is, she’s worried it might tower over neighboring buildings, the school, and the street itself. Deputy Director Nicholas said that the requested variance of two stories (50 percent above what’s allowed by zoning) is a big ask. Jones said that the BZA is going to investigate whether or not the need for a variance is self-imposed, and they are also going to consider how the project would impact the character of the neighborhood. She said she thinks the requested variance will be hard to obtain. She said a parking variance might be easier to obtain and that they might consider reducing the massing. Blalock said that if they move forward with the Site Plan application, they should provide a number of perspectives from various locations around the site, and also that they be sensitive to the neighborhood concerns, as the cleanup of the Gun Hill site has dragged on and made many people distrustful. G. 215 E State Street – Mixed Use Apartments – Sketch Plan #2 James Trasher of CHA, John Abisch of BSB Design, and Jeff Rimland, project sponsor appeared in front of the Board to present their sketch plan for a 12- or 13-story mixed-use apartment building, including renovation of portions of the existing Rothschild Building. A height variance might be required for the building as proposed. Board members expressed support for the articulation and massing. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 24 Glass asked if a portion of units would be affordable. Trasher said 10 percent would be devoted to workforce housing. Jones urged the applicants to reach out to tenants who might be upset by being displaced. Rimland said he had reached out, and he will make all of the tenants whole. 5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals • # 3152 – 518 Stewart Avenue, Area Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. This is a welcome pedestrian and accessibility improvement and it is visually attractive. • # 3154 – 115 W. Green Street, Sign Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The proposed signage is appropriate for the basement location. The Board requests a final design of the sign be submitted for staff level approval before installation. 6. Old/New Business Johnston announced that he would be moving and would have to leave his position on the Board. He said that he would continue to serve as long as he is allowed. He said he had a suggestion for his replacement. Deputy Director Nicholas said she would look into residency requirements and requested Johnston (and all members) share suggestions for new/ replacement memberships, noting that with Johnston’s departure, there will be two vacancies. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Board of Public Works Liaison No report. C. Director of Planning & Development No report. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 26, 2020 25 8. Adjournment: On a motion by Glass, seconded by Petrina, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.