HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-03-08Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Special Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes
March 8, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Govind Acharya (left c. 7:30 p.m.);
Robert Boothroyd; David Kay; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan
Board Members Absent: John Snyder
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development (left c. 7:00 p.m.);
Megan Gilbert, Planner,
Department of Planning and Development
Others Attending: Ellen McCollister, Third Ward Alderperson;
Mary Tomlan, former Third Ward Alderperson
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Comments and Recommendation to Common Council on the Following:
A. The Proposed “Collegetown Area Form Districts.”
B. The Proposed “Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI).”
C. The Proposed “Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone.”
D. The Proposed “Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to
Add Chapter 160, Entitled ‘Design Review.’ ”
Planning Board members discussed, in succession, each of these four interrelated
initiatives, which are all intended – collectively – to implement core elements of the 2009
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines as endorsed by Common
Council in August 2009.
Observations, concerns and proposed corrections and amendments regarding these four
initiatives as expressed by Planning Board members during the discussion were noted,
and the principal points were then collected into the following comments and
recommendation.
1
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Acharya left the meeting prior to the vote below.
Adopted Planning Board Comments and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Collegetown Area Form Districts, the Proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone Height
Incentive District (COZ-HI), the Proposed Amendments to the Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone (CPOZ), and the Proposed New Design Review Ordinance:
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd:
At a special meeting on March 8, 2011, the Planning and Development Board
discussed the four proposals listed above. Board members agreed to convey the
following comments and concerns:
A. Collegetown Area Form Districts
1. As stated in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design
Guidelines,” one of the key goals of the proposed zoning is to concentrate
urban density in the core of Collegetown while protecting the character of
surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Collegetown Area Form
Districts proposal is consistent with this approach, and the form-based code
is an appropriate tool for implementing this vision.
2. When the City recently rezoned other areas throughout the City to R-3aa, R-
2b or R-2c to protect neighborhood character, the Collegetown area was
deliberately excluded from this rezoning because preparation of the
Collegetown Area Form Districts was already underway. The Board believes
that the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts will achieve the same
goals in appropriate peripheral Collegetown neighborhoods.
3. The City’s existing off-street parking ordinance currently prohibits parking
areas within 5’ of a side or rear property line within residential zoning
districts. The Board recommends that this distance be increased within the
proposed Traditional Residential districts, given the tremendous pressure to
pave over yards throughout the Collegetown area and given that 5’ is too
narrow to support the growth of canopy trees that could provide desirable
screening and shade.
4. In the proposed VR-2 district, the street-level story uses were expanded to
include office and commercial uses. The Board recommends that the glazing
requirements for the street-level story in the VR-2 district be increased to
allow a higher percentage of glazing for these permitted street-level office
and commercial uses (while keeping the glazing requirements for a
residential street-level story the same).
5. Due to the large amount of land required for “Motel” uses, the Board
recommends that “Motel” be removed as an allowable use in the proposed
MU district. “Hotel” uses should continue to be allowed as both street-level
and upper story uses.
2
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
6. The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines”
recommended further study and possible protection of historic resources in
Collegetown. The “Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed
Research” report, dated June 14, 2009 and prepared by Mary Tomlan and
John Schroeder, identified the most important Collegetown historic
resources. The proposed zoning would increase the development envelope on
some of these sites, which could provide an incentive for the demolition of,
or undesirable modifications to, historic resources of value to the community.
Historic designation or other protection will be considered in the next few
months, and this would mitigate potential impacts of the proposed zoning
changes on these historic resources. Parts II and III of the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF) should be updated to include this information.
7. The FEAF states that there will be no impact on land, or on noise and odors.
The Board recommends that the FEAF be amended to indicate that while
there is no impact on land or noise and odors by the adoption of the zoning,
future construction under the proposed zoning could have an impact. Future
development proposals will be subject to their own environmental reviews
and will be no less protective of the environment.
B. Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District
1. The Board discussed the provision that only one story of Class A office space
or non-tax-exempt research and development space needs to be provided in
order to qualify for the additional building height. While no consensus was
reached, some Board members thought that Common Council should
consider requiring two stories of Class A office space or non-tax-exempt
research and development space to qualify for the incentive.
C. Amendments to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone
1. The Board noted that the proposed amendments show true innovation in the
City’s approach to parking and transportation. The establishment of a
dedicated fund for transportation improvements is the first such commitment
to implement improvements identified in a plan within the specific area of
the City covered by that plan.
2. The Board discussed the proposed reduction in the residential parking
requirement to one space for every three resident occupants in the proposed
VR-4, VR-5, and MU districts. This change will necessitate on-going
monitoring to verify that the requirement has been appropriately set, which
will in turn require a commitment of funding and/or staff time.
D. New Design Review Ordinance
1. The proposed binding design review is another new tool that the Board
would like to see eventually extended to other areas of the City.
2. A consultant will be preparing design standards for Collegetown within the
next few months. The language of the proposed ordinance, and potentially
3
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
the composition of the Planning Board, will need to be reviewed once the
consultant’s work has been completed.
In general, the Board noted that it is unlikely that any of the proposals will be perfect,
and that they will all need attention, monitoring and potential revision over time.
However, Board members noted that these interrelated proposals set forth positive
new ideas and are a major step forward for the City. The Planning Board feels these
proposals truly reflect the vision for Collegetown described in the “2009 Collegetown
Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” and therefore recommends adoption,
with the revisions suggested above, of all four proposals.
In Favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Acharya, Snyder
The above comments and recommendation were distributed to the Mayor and Common
Council in a memo from the Planning and Development Board dated March 14, 2011.
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
4