Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2010-04-27Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 1 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 Planning & Development Board Minutes April 27, 2010 Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Robert Boothroyd; David Kay; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Snyder; Jill Tripp (arrived 7:10) Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development Applicants Attending: Collegetown Terrace Apartments Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP; Andrew Todd, Traffic Engineer, Martin, Alexiou, Bryson PLLC; John Novarr, Collegetown Terrace Apartments LLC Olive Garden Restaurant Daniel Clarey, Bohler Engineering; Neil Twerllinger Ithaca College Boathouse Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP; Rick Couture, Vice President of Utilities, Ithaca College Maguire Automotive Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture; Tim Maguire, Owner; Phil Maguire, Owner; Pam Maguire, Owner Others Attending: Diane Enders, Principal for Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental Services, Engineering and Surveying, P.C. (EDR); Patrick Heaton, Project Manager, EDR Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 2 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 2. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, Newfield, Newfield, spoke in favor of the Olive Garden restaurant and Collegetown Terrace Apartments projects. 3. Site Plan Review A. Modified Site Plan Review, Olive Garden Restaurant, 740 South Meadow Street, N and D Restaurants Inc, a Florida Corporation, Applicant/Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant requests modifications to the site plan approved on 5/26/09 for a 17,663 SF building and 50 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a one story 7,539 SF restaurant on the northeast corner of the site with 86 parking spaces. Vehicular entrance and egress from the site remain unchanged from the previously approved site plan. Site development will include landscaping, lighting, signage, paving, site furnishings and utility work. The previously approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requires modification by the applicant and approval by the City Stormwater Management Officer to accommodate the new site design. The parcel is in the SW2 Zoning District. The proposed modifications are consistent with the City’s CEQR findings issued on May 26, 2009 for 736 and 740 South Meadow Street; therefore it is not necessary to reopen or amend those findings. The applicant explained changes made to the project in response to Project Review Committee suggestions, including the addition of street trees along the south and west lot lines and within the parking lot; pulling the sidewalk in from Meadow Street; and adding a length of trellis, an additional blind window and more plantings along the Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway façade. Board members and the applicant discussed members’ concerns (reinforced by comments from the County) that the current Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway façade, although improved from the original, still reads as a rear façade. This corner will mark the entrance to the proposed new Southwest neighborhood, and therefore will only gain importance in the future. The applicant agreed to add an additional birch tree cluster to this facade and a cultured stone cap on the dumpster enclosure on this side of the building. Schroeder noted that the 2009 environmental review for this site remained valid, and that therefore no new Lead Agency or CEQR resolutions were necessary. On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke in favor of the project. On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing. Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 3 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham: WHEREAS: a site plan and associated site improvements for the South Meadow Square Outparcel retail development, located at 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, received Final Site Plan Approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on May 26, 2009, and WHEREAS: the Approved Site Plan for 740 South Meadow Street consisted of a 17,663 SF building and 50 parking spaces, and WHEREAS: the applicant requests modifications to the approved site plan to construct a one story 7,441 SF restaurant on the northeast corner of the site with 86 parking spaces. Vehicular entrance and egress from the site remain unchanged from the previously approved site plan. Site development will include landscaping, lighting, signage, paving, site furnishings and utility work. The previously approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requires modification by the applicant and approval by the City Stormwater Management Officer to accommodate the new site design. The parcel is in the SW2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: on May 26, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 and Part 2, and WHEREAS: the proposed modifications are consistent with the City’s CEQR findings issued on May 26, 2009 for 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, therefore it is not necessary to reopen or amend those findings, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on April 27, 2010, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Board has, on April 27, 2010, reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled “Demolition Plan (C1.0)”, “Overall Site Plan (C1.1)”, “Site Plan (C1.2)”, “Site Details (C4.1, 4.2 & 4.3)”, “Grading Plan (C2.1)”, “Utility Plan (C3)”, “Landscape Plan (L1)”, and “Landscape Notes & Details (L2)” dated 2/25/10 with revision dates of Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 4 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 3/19/10 and 4/22/10, all prepared by Bohler Engineering, and “Architectural Site Plan (SP1.1)” and “Refuse Area and Site Details (SP2.1 sheets 1-3)” dated 3/15/10, “Architectural Sign Details (SP2.3, sheets 1-5)”, dated 2/25/10 with a revision date of 3/19/10, “Architectural Floor Plans (A1.1)”, “Exterior Elevations (A5.1)”, and “ Exterior Elevations and Building Sections (A5.2)” dated 3/15/10 all prepared by the Roberts Group, and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grant Preliminary Modified Site Plan Approval for the proposed Olive Garden Restaurant, located on 740 South Meadow Street, by N and D Restaurants Inc, a Florida Corporation, Applicant/Owner, subject to the following conditions: i. Approval in writing from the City traffic engineer that all traffic related issues, including the location of bike racks, have been satisfied, and ii. Approval in writing from the Storm Water Management Officer that the project meets City standards for storm water management, and iii. Bike racks shall be the City standard inverted “U”, and shall be installed prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy, and iv. Submission of a revised landscape plan showing an added birch tree cluster toward the eastern end of the north façade and the use of structural soil in all planting islands, tree lawns, and under sidewalks, and v. Submission of revised drawings showing consistency between monument sign base material and building material, and vi. Submission of revised drawings showing addition of cultured stone cap to top the trash enclosure wall. In favor: Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder Against: Kay Approved 5-1-0 Kay explained that he had voted against the resolution because of his dissatisfaction with the Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway façade. B. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments LLP (c/o John Novarr). The applicant proposes to construct rental housing aimed at students, with approximately 1,260 bedrooms (a net gain of 625 bedrooms), a large majority of which will be singly occupied, in new and existing apartment buildings on a contiguous site of approximately 16.4 acres. The proposed new building design calls for seven new structures, six of which will be 65’ wide with three or four stories of apartments and up to two levels of parking at grade or below. Site development will require the demolition of all existing buildings and associated structures, roadways, and some vegetation and landscaping on the project site, with the exception of those buildings within the East Hill Historic District. The Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 5 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 project is in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts and a portion of the site is in the East Hill Historic District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (174-6 (B)(1)(d), (h)[2], [3] & [4] & (k), (n), & (3) ) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (617(b)(5)(iii) ) and is subject to environmental review. As previously agreed at the Project Review Committee meeting, the evening’s discussion of the DEIS for this project (submitted to the Board for adequacy review on March 30, 2010) began with presentations on historic resources (with Kimberly Michaels of Trowbridge & Wolf reading a document prepared by John Bero) and transportation (presented by Andrew Todd, traffic engineer with Martin, Alexiou, Bryson). Tripp arrived at the meeting during the above presentations. Subsequent questions from Board members focused on the following issues: • Who would be responsible for the improvements to the Mitchell/State Street intersection that are depicted and analyzed in the study? Project team members explained that they felt it was prudent to design for potential future improvements. • How the trip generation numbers were established. Todd explained that this project was considered a unique situation because the applicant will be providing shuttle bus transportation. So the numbers were generated using local traffic counts and existing student commuting patterns. The study does not attempt to analyze special events such as graduation. Diane Enders and Patrick Heaton of Environmental Design & Research (EDR) were introduced; they will be assisting the Board with review of the DEIS. Enders discussed the definition of adequacy under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and explained that EDR would be providing a tabular adequacy analysis of each section. Chair Schroeder explained that the Board would begin discussing adequacy at this meeting, and then continue the discussion at a special meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on May 12, when a vote on adequacy was expected. [Note: The proposed May 12, 2010 meeting was subsequently canceled, after the City and the applicant, by mutual agreement, elected to extend the adequacy review period first until May 25, and then until June 1, 2010.] During the initial adequacy discussion, Planning Board members mentioned the following potential issues regarding adequacy, though no votes were taken and no formal decisions were made: Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 6 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 • The document would be easier for understand if a map were added at the beginning of the DEIS showing all the existing buildings on the project site clearly labeled with their current names; • Clarification, documentation or rewording of the language at the bottom of page 2-2 regarding “slope stability analyses”; • Timeline for the “Columbia Street system” sanitary sewer capacity determination mentioned on page 1-54; • Global correction providing the accurate name of the Collegetown plan endorsed by Common Council in 2009, which is the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” to avoid confusion between the endorsed plan and a substantially different, earlier version; • Consistency and clarity throughout the DEIS regarding graphic depiction of the project site or project boundary, so that publicly owned land is not depicted as being part of the project site; • Corrections to the table on page 1-55, where no referent exists for the single- asterisked note following the table, and to the first full paragraph at the top of page 2-44, which should refer to Appendix C rather than to Appendix D. C. Ithaca College Boathouse — Sketch Plan The concept for the project includes two boathouses (one new structure and renovation of the existing structure), along with a central plaza. The project includes a porous paving parking lot, accommodation of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and bank stabilization. The applicant expects to submit a site plan review application in early fall 2010 D. 370 Meadow Street, Maguire Auto Dealership — Sketch Plan The proposed concept is a gravel parking lot for approximately 150 cars to be used by employees and for retail car storage. Lighting is also proposed. The Board requested that the applicant accommodate pedestrian circulation and add landscaping before formally submitting the project. 4. Zoning Appeals The Planning and Development Board agreed to pass on the following recommendations. Appeal # 2816 — 111 Cascadilla Avenue: Area Variance Appeal of Jim Mazza and Nancy Osborn, for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard, Column 13, side yard, and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a two story addition in the rear yard and Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 7 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 reconstruct the front porch of the dwelling located at 111 Cascadilla Street. The proposal is to remove the existing two story rear porch, storage area, and stair and construct a new 135 S.F. addition that will include a kitchen with an attached deck on the first floor, and an enlarged open porch on the second floor. The existing rear porch extends 2.6’ into the side yard and the removal of this portion will decrease the nonconforming side yard from 1.4’ to 4’ of the required 5’ side yard setback requirement of the zoning ordinance. The rear yard, without the existing addition, measures 16 feet and the new addition that is 8.5’in depth will leave 7.5’ of the required 20’ rear yard setback of the zoning ordinance. In addition, the 51 square foot deck will extend 8.5’ in an easterly direction, along the rear of the dwelling, and be 9.5’ from the rear yard lot line which will not exacerbate the proposed rear yard deficiency. The front porch will be rebuilt within the existing footprint and a new set of stairs will be constructed to enhance to the front façade. 111 Cascadilla Street has an existing front yard deficiency that that is 5’ of the required 10’ and will not be exacerbated by the proposed addition. The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. Members of the Planning Board recommend approval of this appeal for the following reasons: • The proposed site plan represents an intelligent use of an oddly-shaped site • The design of the proposed addition enhances its architectural coherence • The proposed change reduces one of the existing deficiencies Members of the Board recommend that neighborhood concerns, if any, be considered when making a final decision. Appeal # 2817 — 1101 East State Street: Use Variance Appeal of Michael and Elizabeth Stewart for a use variance from Section 325-32 C(1), extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located at 1101 East State Street is a legal non-conforming two family dwelling that consists of a dwelling unit on the first floor and a second dwelling unit on the second floor. The applicant would like to reconfigure the two units. Instead of two units sharing the upstairs portion of the house, the applicant would like to move the second unit into the basement. This would result in a better arrangement for the applicants’ family that would reside in the main portion of the building. The overall occupancy of the units would be unchanged by the enlargement. The current configuration is limited to 2 persons in apartment #1 and 3 persons in apartment #2. The proposed apartment occupying the first and second floor would be limited to 3 unrelated individuals and the basement apartment would be limited to 2 unrelated occupants. Since the property is in an R-1b zone district, the duplex is currently a non-conforming use. This non-conforming use cannot be expanded into the basement without a use variance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing status as a two family dwelling. Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 8 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 The property located at 1101 East State Street has existing deficiencies in lot area, lot width, front yard and both side yards. The proposed alteration is limited to the interior and these existing deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposed use. The property is located in an R-1b residential use district in which the proposed use is not permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued. Members of the Board are not clear why a variance is needed in this case. It appears that the project could be considered an owner occupied unit with an accessory apartment as is allowed in the R-1b zoning district. Appeal # 2818 — 513 South Aurora Street: Area Variance Appeal of Jesse Hill, for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, lot area, Column 11, front yard dimension, and Column 13, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located at 513 S. Aurora Street is an existing two family dwelling consisting of a two bedroom apartment located on the first floor and a two bedroom apartment on the second floor. The applicant proposes to reduce an existing 248 square foot kitchen to 134 SF and create an 87 SF bedroom, increasing the total number of bedrooms to three, in the first floor apartment. The two apartments, including the additional first floor bedroom, will require two parking spaces of the three existing spaces located on the property. The property located at 513 South Aurora Street is deficient in lot area, having 4994 SF of the required 5000 SF of the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the front yard is 11.5 feet of the required 25 feet and the side yard is 2 feet of the required 10 feet of the zoning ordinance. These existing area deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposed alteration. The property is located in an R-2a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. Members of the Board do not see any city-wide planning issues with this case, as long as the resulting rooms meet all City and State building code standards. Appeal # 2783 — 414-416 East Seneca Street: Area Variance Appeal of Joseph Steuer for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, off street parking Column 10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 11, front yard, and Column 12, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a parking area in the rear yard of the property located at 414-416 East Seneca Street. The parking area will be accessed via a right-of way from the existing driveway located at 409-411 East Buffalo Street. This parking area will be limited to a total of three cars and the associated turning space to comply with the requirements of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee. The property located at 414-416 E. Seneca Street is a legal nonconforming 5 unit multiple dwelling. The owner would like to provide these spaces for the tenants of 414-416 E. Seneca St. and possibly rent the unused spaces to neighboring properties. The property is located in an R-2a residential use district and is a legal non-conforming use. Section 325-32 C(1) states, in part, that a non-conforming use can not be extended or enlarged to other portions of the structure or to other land except by means of an area Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 9 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The property at 414-416 E. Seneca Street must first be granted an area variance by the BZA before a building permit can be issued for the construction of the parking lot approved by the ILPC held in November of 2008. Members of the Planning Board wish to reaffirm their following comment, originally submitted to the BZA on January 29, 2009: The Planning Board does not find that the applicant has provided compelling reasons for granting this appeal and does not recommend its approval. 5. New Business A. Cayuga Waterfront Trail, Phase 3 Trailhead Rick Manning, who had asked that this item be added to the agenda, was not present, so no discussion occurred. B. Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan Due to the late hour, discussion of this item was deferred to a future meeting. 6. Old Business A. Planning Board Comments on Downtown Strategic Plan Due to the late hour, discussion of this item was deferred to a future meeting. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Schroeder announced that work (outside of finalizing the proposed consultant’s scope) on the City’s new comprehensive plan has been postponed until early 2011. The following April 22, 2010 message from the Comprehensive Plan Committee co-chairs summarizes the reasons for the postponement: Dear Comprehensive Plan Committee members: We are writing to let you know that for a variety of reasons the City has decided to postpone work on the comprehensive plan until the first quarter of 2011. The decision was not an easy one. Reasons for the postponement are two-fold, having to do with limited staff resources and continuing work on the Collegetown Plan. The Planning Department is currently down two full and one part time positions. There was an expectation that at least one of these would have been filled by the time the comprehensive plan work began in earnest, but hiring has been Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 10 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 deferred due to the realities of the city budget. In addition, it was anticipated that work on the Collegetown Plan would have been completed prior to getting into the substance of the comprehensive plan, but staff continues to work with committees on zoning, transportation and design measures necessary for implementation. In discussions between staff, the mayor and several Council members, a decision was made to prioritize and commit to implementation of the Collegetown plan by the end of 2010. The primary staff responsible for completion of the Collegetown plan is the same staff working on the comprehensive plan. Postponing work on the comprehensive plan until early 2011 will put the department in a better position to focus on the comprehensive plan and will allow the involvement of all planning staff. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team is also willing to postpone their work until the first quarter of next year. Further discussion of the postponement will be scheduled for the committee’s upcoming meeting on May 6th, when we can also address committee questions and concerns. Our greatest concern is losing the momentum generated by the committee. We respect and appreciate the work to date. Committee selection was a considered process and while the postponement may not fit into the schedules of all the members it is our hope that you will remain interested in the comprehensive plan. As the Mayor has stated, the City is committed to the preparation of a new comprehensive plan, and we hope you will continue on the committee when work resumes in early 2011. Please see the message from the Mayor below. Staff continues to work on the draft scope – reflecting the committee’s suggested revisions and the subsequent input of Parsons Brinkerhoff - on which the Committee has expended considerable time and effort. We will distribute a final draft scope to committee members prior to the May 6th meeting, for review and discussion at that meeting, while the issues are relatively fresh in everyone's minds. It was clear in discussion that the ideal scope would be above the current funding level. While Parsons Brinkerhoff offered many suggestions on how to shape the scope to make best use of the funding at hand, it was acknowledged that the postponement will give the City the opportunity to seek additional funds. Staff will also set in place an agreement with Parsons Brinkerhoff that will formalize the City’s intent to continue work on the Comprehensive Plan in the first quarter of 2011, which we hope to distribute at the May 6th meeting. Chad Hoover Deb Mohlenhoff John Schroeder B. Director of Planning & Development Cornish reported that staff will be distributing a concept memo on revisions to the rear yard setback requirements in the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the revisions is to Approved at the May 25, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 11 J:\GROUPS\Planning and Dev Board\MINUTESJGSfinal\2010\0427 reconcile inconsistencies between the chart and the text of the ordinance. Cornish also reported that the Planning Department Work Plan is going back to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Tripp reported that the BPW is working on the new water plant and selecting a sediment management facility. In response to a question from Schroeder, Tripp stated that the BPW has not discussed the current temporary fences that have been installed on City bridges on East Hill. Schroeder asked that the Planning Board be involved in any discussions regarding possible permanent changes to these bridges. 8. Adjourment On a motion by Tripp, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.