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.