Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-03-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 of 33 Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2011 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Bob Boothroyd, David Kay, Jane Marcham, Tessa Rudan, John Schroeder, John Snyder Board Members Absent: (none) Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner Charles Pyott, Office Assistant Applicants Attending: 410 Elmira Road Marco Marzocchi, Widewaters 403-409 Elmira Road, Tim Hortons Restaurant Dirk Galbraith, Holmberg, Galbraith, Van Houten, & Miller Collegetown Terrace Apartments Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect Seneca Way Apartments Jeff Smetana, Developer Bryan Warren, Developer Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP Student Housing Addition, 140 College Avenue Jason Demarest, JKD Architect Mr. Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. Agenda Review – The Chair suggested the sequence of agenda items be modified slightly to permit the opportunity for people currently speaking at the Landmarks Preservation Commission public hearing regarding the Seneca Way project to also present their comments to the Planning Board. There were no objections. 2. Privilege of the Floor Jean McPheeters, 276 Baylor Road in Brooktondale and speaking on behalf of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce regarding the Seneca Way project, reiterated the Chamber’s support for the project. The sale of the existing building is critical to Challenge Industries and would put a valuable property back on the tax rolls. Moreover, numerous recent revisions to the project have made the project more attractive to the community. Ithaca will experience considerable change over the next 10-20 years and it will need more high-density housing in the city. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 of 33 Tanya Vanasse, 311 E. Green Street (across the street from the project), spoke in support of the Seneca Way project. She remarked that the old Challenge Industries building is needlessly vacant and is an eye-sore. The proposed building will add considerable value to both the neighborhood and the city as a whole. Ms. Vanasse would like to see the neighborhood prosper, but many nearby businesses are still currently struggling and they genuinely need greater downtown population density. Ms. Vanasse added that the recent changes made to the project, since the initial design, have made a significant difference. She believes it is an aesthetically pleasing and viable project. JoAnne Florino, south side resident and Executive Director of the Triad Foundation, expressed her support for the Seneca Way project. She believes it is a win-win situation for all concerned. In addition to the direct benefits the project would provide the community, she underscored the critical value of the project to Challenge Industries, which employs numerous people who would not otherwise be able to work. Joel Harlan, Newfield resident, expressed his support for the Seneca Way project. He remarked the community needs to change to how it handles development so as to bring more people into the city, rather than risk pushing them further out. Mr. Harlan encouraged city leadership to assert more leadership in moving development projects forward. The Wal-Mart project was a good example of a valuable development project that moved forward, despite initial community opposition to the project. Ellen McCollister, 221 Bryant Avenue and Third Ward Common Council member, speaking on the 140 College Avenue project, recommended a cautious approach in the Board’s review of the project, given that the building is one of the most architecturally significant buildings in Collegetown (and it should probably have been designated an historic landmark). Ms. McCollister noted she has seen recent drawings of the project which make her feel a lot more optimistic about it. Commenting separately on the Collegetown Terrace project, Ms. McCollister expressed her concern that the 2.x series buildings may negatively affect State Street. Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Avenue, commenting on the 140 College Avenue project, encouraged the Board to fully consider the historic and architectural significance of the existing building. As described in the Statement of Significance she submitted to the Board, the building is “significant not only as the sole nineteenth century brick dwelling along that street, but also and especially for its association with John Snaith,” a contractor, designer, and real estate entrepreneur. Mack Travis, Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) Vice President for Business Retention & Development and co-owner of Gateway Plaza Associates, commenting on the Seneca Way project, indicated his remarks were principally addressed to the neighbors opposing the project. He has been renovating old and derelict buildings for a considerable time and he believes the project to be a positive addition to the community. Mr. Travis encouraged the neighbors to ask themselves why they chose Seneca Street to live in and to what extent its proximity to downtown Ithaca, in fact, played a role in that decision. He emphasized that downtown Ithaca finds itself at a delicate juncture in its history and risks returning to the 20% vacancy rate of the 1980s and 1990s, if it does not succeed in attracting more people downtown. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 of 33 Gary Ferguson, DIA Executive Director, commenting on the Seneca Way project, noted that downtown and neighborhood development have to go hand-in-hand. The proposed project lies at a crucial strategic entryway to the city. It should come as no surprise that such a large and complex project would require variances  the city’s comprehensive plan is 40 years old and needs to be revised. Mr. Ferguson noted that the project’s parking variance request, for example, is actually less significant than it might appear, since mixed-use projects like this one generally require less parking and tend to employ space more efficiently. Furthermore, he noted that the Challenge Industries building had more parking than the proposed project, so it seems highly unlikely the proposed building would be introducing any new parking scarcity issues or related disruptions to the neighborhood. Joseph Gaylord, Community School of Music and Arts Board member and a downtown Ithaca employee since 1979, commenting on the Seneca Way project, noted that he supports the project and the concomitant anticipated increase in housing, business, tax revenue, and office space it would provide the city. He added that virtually any similar major project, built in a comparable urban setting, would require variances. Joseph Steuer, 701 N. Aurora Street and owner of 414 E. Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked he is still fighting with the city for parking in the rear of his unit. There have been multiple problems associated with parking on the block. Mr. Steuer indicated that, given the problems that have already been experienced with parking on the block, he only foresees an increase in parking problems as a result of the project. Mr. Steuer stressed he does not unconditionally oppose development in the area, but this project in particular seems problematic. Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Place, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked that zoning regulations exist for a reason and he has serious concerns regarding the building’s height and parking plans. He noted he does not believe the project will enhance the character of the neighborhood and he is worried environmental concerns have not been satisfactorily mitigated. Mr. Schill believes the project needs to be redesigned, before it will be welcomed by the community. Susan Stein, Chair of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, commenting on the Seneca Way project, indicated the Commission had just met regarding the project and agreed to a resolution, which she proceeded to read an excerpt from: “RESOLVED, that permitting new construction (as shown in the Site Plan Review Application Report, dated December 22, 2010), that is substantially taller and virtually contiguous with the historic district, by supporting and approving zoning variances will have adverse impacts on the historic and architectural character of the East Hill Historic District, similar to the impacts of the proposed and subsequently rejected CDB-60, and be it further RESOLVED, that, as depicted in the Site Plan Review Application Report, the height of the proposed building and the proximity of its north elevation to properties noted above threaten to erode the edge of this designated and protected historic neighborhood.” “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 of 33 Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked that the project’s requested variances are excessive. The project is too large, too close to adjacent properties, and will produce a negative impact on the neighborhood. Parking on Seneca Street is already scarce and the prospect of even greater demand for parking in the area is distressing. The residential parking system would not address overnight parking and Seneca Street is a lot closer to the project site than any other part of the city. Mr. Clark also noted he is concerned with the additional traffic the neighborhood would probably have to endure. He concluded by indicating that he is not anti-development. John Chong, 408 E. Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, noted that he and his wife would like to reiterate most of the concerns that had just been expressed by concerned neighbors. He noted that a flyer had been distributed around the neighborhood and had received almost 30 signatures against the project. Mr. Chong noted that many neighborhood families have little access to parking, a situation which would only be exacerbated by the project, since the neighborhood is the closest source of non-metered parking for residents of the project. The introduction of more delivery trucks to a neighborhood that is home to so many children is also distressing. Mr. Chong indicated that the relative scale of the variances being sought is also a matter of concern and it seems to imply considerable disregard for the original intent of the zoning regulations. Ravi Walsh, 418 E. Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, noted that three years ago no permit parking was allowed on his street, so some neighbors collected the necessary signatures to apply for it. The proposed project, however, threatens to return the parking situation back to what it was before. Barbara Lantz, 411 East Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, recounted that when she decided to work from her home, she was required to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). As part of the process, she was required to canvass her neighbors to elicit their concerns. As a result, she agreed not to erect a sign for her business, which she believes is a good example of how business interests and neighborhood concerns should accommodate one another. Ms. Lantz noted also that she believes the neighbors have been unfairly characterized as intransigent in their views. They, too, have made a meaningful investment in the city. Avi Smith, owner of the McCormick/Cowdry House, commenting on the Seneca Way project, indicated that the McCormick/Cowdry House is being developed as an inn. Much like his fellow neighbors, he has examined the details of the proposed project and remains skeptical about its proposed height. Mr. Smith remarked he would much rather prefer to see a building that incorporates more historical architectural elements in its design. Susan Robertson, 403 E. Seneca Street, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked that the aspect of the project that concerns her the most is the potential geological/structural impact of such large-scale construction. Given the steep embankment, Ms. Robertson believes considerably more research should be conducted on the state of the bedrock, cliff edge, potential for erosion, and the ultimate impact on the foundations of the adjacent homes. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 of 33 Eric Rosario, 22 South Geneva Street and Second Ward Common Council member, indicated his main concern is the proximity of the proposed building to the border of the East Hill Historic District. For the record, he indicated that he voted for the CBD-60 resolution and until today he opposed the project in response to what he deemed to be superficial, cosmetic improvements to the design. However, over the past few days, in light of what he has learned regarding some substantive potential improvements being proposed, Mr. Rosario indicated he is now comfortable enough with the project to lend it his conditional support. His only remaining concern involves issues associated with the loading zone and the handling of multiple large trucks at and around the site. Finally, given the complexities and convolutions inherent in the approval process, Mr. Rosario indicated it would be very helpful for a member(s) of the Board or staff to create a brief explanation and outline of the steps remaining for the project. Jeff Dobbin, 15 Chase Lane and Vice President of Elmira Savings Bank, commenting on the Seneca Way project, remarked the proposed project looks extremely good from a lender’s perspective. (He made clear he has no professional or financial connection to the project.) Although he sympathizes with the residents, he believes the kind of density the project will bring to the city is necessary and will be good for the city. 3. Subdivision Review A. Major Subdivision, 410 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel #131.-1-6, Elmira Road Shopping Center, Widewaters, Applicant/Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into three lots: Lot 1, measuring 10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing the existing 97,129 SF Home Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing 80,882 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF retail building; and Lot 3, measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and which is vacant. The property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be building-occupied. This is 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. The applicant is required to build an architectural wall on the proposed Lot 2 to bring it into conformance with the SW-3 district regulation regarding the required amount of building façade along the street frontage. Marco Marzocchi recapitulated the basic details of the subdivision application to subdivide one parcel into three in order to permit greater flexibility for individually refinancing each of the parcels. He indicated he believes conditions 3, 5, and 6 of the draft approval resolution have been satisfied. The Chair agreed these can be removed and indicated that condition 4 could also be removed (since the city has entered into a contractual agreement with Widewaters regarding traffic signal maintenance at the entrance to the property). Mr. Marzocchi indicated he had no other concerns. Govind Acharya remarked he is concerned that the existing parking on the site and the additional proposed parking would be excessive. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 of 33 Resolution for Final Approval On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham. WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, in the City of Ithaca by Marco J. Marzocchi, applicant for owner, Widewaters Route 13 II Company, LLC (“Widewaters”), and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 21-acre lot into three lots: Lot 1, measuring 10.9 acres (473,911 SF) with 42.8 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing the existing 97,129 SF Home Depot retail space; Lot 2, measuring 8.8 acres (383,533 SF) with 222.57 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and containing 80,802 SF of contiguous retail space, as well as a separate 6,335 SF retail building; and Lot 3, measuring 1.6 acres (69,521 SF) with 283.65 feet of frontage on Elmira Road and which is vacant. The property is in the SW-3 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front-yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and which requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be building-occupied, and WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of two or more additional buildable lots, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C)(1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a legal advertisement was placed in the Ithaca Journal and a public hearing for this subdivision was held on February 22, 2011, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 22, 2011 review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Subdivision Map,” dated November 7, 2007, and prepared by Bergmann Associates, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 22, 2011 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels must be brought into conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance §325.29.2 B.(3) for properties located in the SW-3 Zoning District, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 of 33 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, located on Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: i. Any future development plans for the proposed Lot 3 shall include ingress and egress from the existing internal access road on the proposed Lot 1. No curbcut shall be allowed on Elmira Road, and ii. Submission to and approval by planning staff of a site plan that includes a wall along Elmira Road (to be the same height as wall on adjacent parcel to northeast) that demonstrates compliance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance regarding street frontage requirements in accordance with §325.29.2 B.(3), and iii. The applicant must post a bond to insure construction of the wall as proposed in site plan above, and iv. An executed agreement with the City of Ithaca stating that the traffic signal at the entrance to the property on Route 13 is: (1) privately owned by Widewaters, (2) allowed in the public right-of-way, and (3) maintained by the City at the cost of the owner, and v. Confirmation that all conditions of the previously approved site plan review have been satisfied, and vi. Submission of easements as necessary to demonstrate internal permanent access from the existing Elmira Road curbcut and entrance to all parcels, and vii. Submission of a final surveyed map showing subdivision plat, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works did on March 16, 2011 authorize the Mayor to sign a contractual agreement with Widewaters for continued operation and maintenance of the traffic signal at the entrance to the property on Route 13, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the applicant has satisfied conditions iii., v., and vi. above, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #131-1-6, located on Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: i. Any future development plans for the proposed Lot 3 shall include ingress and egress from the existing internal access road on the proposed Lot 1. No curbcut shall be allowed on Elmira Road, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 of 33 ii. Submission to and approval by planning staff of a site plan that includes a wall along Elmira Road (to be the same height as wall on adjacent parcel to northeast) that demonstrates compliance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance regarding street frontage requirements in accordance with §325.29.2 B.(3), and iii. Submission of a final surveyed map showing subdivision plat. In favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder Abstain: Acharya Although not opposed outright to the project, Govind Acharya indicated he was abstaining because he is concerned about what he believes would be an excessive amount of parking on the site. B. Minor Subdivision, 403-409 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, Applicant/Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762 acres (33,175 SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273 SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road. The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a site plan review application for a new restaurant is currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the proposed northern lot. The property is in the SW-2 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be occupied by building façade. This is 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. Dirk Galbraith summarized the salient details of the subdivision request. He indicated he believes conditions 1 and 2 have been satisfied and that the City Engineer’s initial concerns with the project have also been satisfied. The Chair asked staff if there were any remaining concerns, to which Ms. Nicholas and Ms. Cornish replied, no. Resolution for Final Approval On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham. WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12 in the City of Ithaca by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 1.5-acre lot into two lots: one, measuring 0.762 acres (33,175 SF) with 137 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road, and another, measuring 0.741 acres (32,273 SF) with 131 feet of street frontage on Elmira Road. The parcel is currently used as a parking lot; however, a site plan review application for a new restaurant is currently under consideration by the Planning Board on the proposed southern lot. The property is in the SW-2 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, a front-yard setback requirement of 15 to 34 feet from curb, and requires a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage be occupied by building façade, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 of 33 WHEREAS: this is a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9(C)(1), (2) & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a legal advertisement was placed in the Ithaca Journal and a public hearing for this subdivision was held on February 22, 2011, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review did on February 22, 2011 review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II, prepared by staff, a map entitled “Proposed Buttermilk Falls Subdivision,” dated 11-09-10, and prepared by Stockwin Surveying, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review did on February 22, 2011 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the SW-2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on February 22, 2011 grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12, located at 403-409 Elmira Road, by applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of a final surveyed map showing subdivision plat, and ii. Submission of a copy of the cross-easement agreement ensuring permanent access from Elmira Road to all parcels. iii. Applicant shall work with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue to address the concerns stated in Logue’s February 17, 2011 memorandum to the Planning and Development Board and Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the applicant has satisfied conditions ii. and iii., now, therefore be it “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 of 33 RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Subdivision Approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #130.-02-01.12, located at 403-409 Elmira Road, to applicant and owner, Buttermilk Falls, LLC, subject to the following condition: i. submission of two full-scale copies and one original (record copy) of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder 4. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John Novarr). Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant has proposed a new rental apartment development targeted to graduate students. This Project anticipates providing approximately 589 net additional bedrooms for a maximum of 1,226 bedrooms in new and existing apartment buildings. The Project involves the demolition of 29 buildings, all roads, and some landscaping on site. Three existing apartment buildings to remain – Quarry Arms, Casa Roma, and Boiler Works – include 162 beds and are all located within the East Hill Historic District. No work is proposed to these buildings. 901 East State Street, known as the Williams House, is also to remain. The 16 proposed new buildings (not including the retained and renovated George C. Williams House) will have up to four stories of residential use and up to two stories of parking under the buildings. Some of the parking will be below grade. The Project site is bounded on the northeast by NYS Route 79/East State Street, on the southeast by Valentine Place, on the southwest by the Six Mile Creek gorge, and on the northwest by South Quarry Street. The total size of the Project site is 16.4 acres, 12.4 of which will be redeveloped. The environmental review for this project was completed on October 26, 2010, when the Planning and Development Board adopted the Findings of the Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant has been granted a lot line adjustment and is seeking a height variance and from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Kathryn Wolf noted that a number of issues emerged at the Board’s recent Project Review Committee meeting that the applicant would be addressing at this meeting. Ian Tyndell walked the Board through the site plan and landscape architecture portion of the applicant’s presentation, highlighting the following details: the addition of Tulip trees, an attractive, fast-growing species; the removal of some plantings to address concerns about the absence of landscaping between the 2.x buildings; the inclusion of cascaded stone slabs between Buildings 2.1 and 2.2; and the addition of some vernal witch- hazel trees in wood planters along the side of Building 2.2. The Chair remarked that he believes the changes represent a major improvement to the project. Alan Chimacoff then proceeded to review the new building elevation drawings submitted to the Board. The Chair asked that if the blank walls were going to be more articulated, to which Alan Chimacoff replied, yes, the applicant had added windows in the returns at the entrances to Building 7.3, in the middle of the roof. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 of 33 Mr. Chimacoff proceeded to walk through the elevation for Building 4.1. The Chair indicated that the primary concern with this building had been to ensure that it line up architecturally with the other buildings. Mr. Chimacoff noted that although the HVAC units will not align perfectly, they will be architecturally incorporated to appear as harmonious as possible. Alan Chimacoff then noted that the Building 4.1 chimney had been narrowed, but the window slot had been retained. Also, in response to concerns about the volumetric modulation of the east end of Building 3.4, there will now be less material and the glass plane has been folded back. Mr. Boothroyd asked about the mulch, to which Mr. Tyndall replied that the stone slabs would serve the same function as mulch. Mr. Boothroyd remarked he liked the idea. At this point in the proceedings, the Chair noted he would like to walk through some proposed corrections and recommendations to the individual site plan drawings with the applicant. Some of the proposed correction and recommendations are listed below: C2.1.1: Inside the Casa Roma footprint, the annotated reference to the Norway Maple trees needs to be removed and the “Protect, do not disturb […]” note in the upper-left corner of the drawing should also be removed. C7.01: Crosswalk striping for Street A should be inserted (adjacent to Building 3.4 driveway) and the bulwarks adjacent to the Pavilion entrance should be removed. A2.41A: Building 4.1 State Street façade on drawing and on the elevation plans should be consistent with each other – the A2.41A floor plan appears to be missing some windows and the projection for the chimney elements. A2.44A: Porch restorations need to be reflected. A.35: Upper-right drawing is missing a lot of the detailing that was reflected in the previous drawing. A4.41: Chimney simply needs to be re-centered (back to where it was in the original drawing). A4.23: Building 2.3 appears to need some form of architectural resolution, as a result of the new cantilever that was added over the driveway at the northwest building corner. (JoAnn Cornish noted the Design Review Board expressed the same concern at its March 18th meeting). A4.24: Llenroc stone should be re-inserted on the west façade of the base of Building 2.4. Mr. Chimacoff indicated the applicant would like to add the aforementioned recommendations for A4.23 and A4.24 to the list of conditions to be discussed further, to which the Chair agreed. Ms. Wolf and members of the Board then proceeded to review the draft resolution for accuracy and completeness. The Chair noted he had divided the various conditions into those that had been satisfied, partially satisfied, and not yet satisfied; he also indicated a few conditions could be characterized as permanent or ongoing conditions (e.g., the private shuttle service condition). “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 of 33 Ms. Wolf remarked the applicant would like to clarify the timeframe for satisfying the various conditions (primarily for the purpose of seeking building permits). She suggested the following six categories: (1) required for building permit, (2) required for certificate of occupancy, (3) continuing condition, (4) required before application of exterior finishes, (5) needs to be resolved before obtaining building permit, and (6) can be completed when the developer is satisfied it can proceed, such as for some of the art and sculpture (e.g., the fountain which involves complex topography). JoAnn Cornish indicated the aforementioned timeframe categories should work fine. She underscored it is the Building Department which is responsible for that part of the process, but she does not believe it would have any objections to those categories. Ms. Cornish indicated that the Board could proceed with moving for passage of the resolution today, but simply agree to instruct staff to generate a follow-up document of some kind to identify the specific timeline associated with each condition. Resolution for Final Approval (Phase 1) On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya. WHEREAS: Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, as the agent for Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John Novarr), has requested Site Plan Approval from the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the proposed Collegetown Terrace project. The 16.4 contiguous acre project site (of which approximately 12.1 acres will be disturbed for construction) is located on the south side of Route 79 between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place in the City of Ithaca. The project is in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts and a portion of the site is in the East Hill Historic District, and WHEREAS: the proposed project will include the construction of 16 new buildings, and rehabilitation of one existing building at 901 East State Street, that will provide approximately 1,064 new bedrooms and 640 new parking spaces. The existing buildings on the project site currently include 637 bedrooms and 467 parking spaces; of these, 475 bedrooms and 361 parking spaces will be removed, leaving 162 existing bedrooms and 106 existing parking spaces to remain. The combined proposed (new) and existing (to remain) bedrooms and parking spaces for the proposed project will result in a total of not-to-exceed 1,226 bedrooms and not-to-exceed 746 parking spaces. The proposed project will result in not-to-exceed 589 net additional bedrooms and not-to- exceed 279 net additional parking spaces (relative to the existing conditions). The proposed project will result in a maximum building footprint of 175,001 gross square feet, comprising an estimated 628,642 gross square feet of residential space and 235,645 gross square feet of parking. The 16 new proposed buildings range in size and height from two to six stories; all but two of the proposed buildings are at least four stories tall. Proposed site development includes the demolition of roadways, and some vegetation and landscaping on the project site. Of the total 16.4 acres of property, approximately 12.1 acres would be disturbed for construction. Almost all of the proposed construction would occur in previously disturbed areas, except for very limited utility work in undisturbed areas. Construction of the project would remove approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill, soil, and rock from the site. The proposed project would also include construction of a complete pedestrian and vehicular system that links the site to the surrounding city network. The principal vehicular access points will be at South Quarry Street and Valentine Place; access into the project site at both these locations will be two- way. All new parking is proposed to be located under the new residential apartment buildings and no new surface parking lots will be developed, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 of 33 WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action subject to environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on July 28, 2009, directing Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Collegetown Terrace project, and WHEREAS: on September 10, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on September 22, 2009 approve a Scoping Document, and WHEREAS: on March 30, 2010, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP submitted a DEIS to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, which examined possible environmental impacts, and WHEREAS: the City and the applicant did by mutual agreement elect to extend the adequacy review period first until May 25, 2010, and subsequently until June 1, 2010, and WHEREAS: on May 25, 2010, the applicant, responding to comments received from Planning Board members and the City’s consultant, Environmental Design & Research, P.C. (EDR), submitted a revised DEIS, identified on its cover by the language “Submitted: March 30, 2010 Revised: May 25, 2010,” and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of environmental review, did on June 1, 2010 (1) review the DEIS submitted on March 30, 2010 and revised on May 25, 2010 for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and (2) with the assistance of City staff and the City’s consultant, EDR, find the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and WHEREAS: on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 16, 2010, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency did on October 5, 2010 accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Collegetown Terrace project as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, CEQRO), with the additions/clarifications mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning Board on that date, and WHEREAS: on October 26, 2010, the Planning Board adopted the Findings Statement, which was a “positive” findings statement, meaning that the proposed project was potentially “approvable” (a relevant term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 of 33 WHEREAS: the Planning Board has used the Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site plan, and in considering conditions that should be applied to any approval thereof, and WHEREAS: the applicant has received the required Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and the required lot line adjustment and height variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and WHEREAS: the Board did, on February 22, 2011 review and accept as adequate the following plans: “Survey Map,” dated 10-15-2010, and prepared by T.G. Miller “Overall Architectural Site Plan-Sequence 1 (G2.01)” “Overall Architectural Site Plan-Sequence 2 (G2.02)” “Existing Conditions Map (C1.01, C1.02, C1.03, & C1.04)” “Construction Staging Plan (C2.01)” “Surface Demolition Plan (C2.1.1, C2.1.2, C2.1.3 & C2.1.4)” “Utility Demolition Plan (C2.2.1, C2.2.2, C2.2.3 & C2.2.4)” “Street Layout Plan (C3.01, C3.02, C3.03 & C3.04)” “Street Profiles (C3.1.1)” “Street Sections and Pavement Details (C3.2.1)” “Site Utility Plan (C4.01, C4.02, C4.03 & C4.04)” “Utility Details (C4.1.1)” “Storm Drainage Plan (C.5.01, C.5.02, C.5.03 & C.5.04)” “Storm Drainage Details (C5.1.1)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Demolition Phase (C6.01)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Construction Phase (C6.02)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Stabilization Phase (C6.03)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Details (C6.1.1)” “Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (C7.01)” “Emergency Access Plan (C8.01)” “Overall Site Plan (L1.00)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Site Layout Plan (L2.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Site Layout Plan (L2.01B)” “Sheet 2 Sector A Site Layout Plan (L2.02A)” “Sheet 2 Sector B Site Layout Plan (L2.02B)” “Plaza Layout Plans (L2.03)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Site Grading Plan (L3.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Site Grading Plan (L3.01B)” “Sheet 2 Sector A Site Grading Plan (L3.02A)” “Sheet 2 Sector B Site Grading Plan (L3.02B)” “Site Lighting Plan (L4.00)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01B)” “Sheet 2 Sector A Landscape Planting Plan (L5.02A)” “Sheet 2 Sector B Landscape Planting Plan (L5.02B)” “Plant Schedule and Planting Details (L6.00)” “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 of 33 “Site Details (L7.00, L8.00 & L9.00)” “Building 1 Floor Plan - Level A, Level B (A2.10A)” “Building 1 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.10B)” “Building 1 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.10C)” “Building 2 Floor Plan - Level A, Level B (A2.20A)” “Building 2 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.20B)” “Building 2 Floor Plan - Level E, Level F (A2.20C)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.30A)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.30B)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level E, Level F (A2.30C)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level G, Level H (A2.30D)” “Building 4 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.40A)” “Building 4 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.40B)” “Building 4 Floor Plan - Level C (A2.40C)” “Building 4 Floor Plan - Level D (A2.40D)” “Building 4 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.40E)” “Building 5 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.50A)” “Building 5 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.50B)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.61A)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.61B)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level C (A2.62C)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level D (A2.62D)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.62E)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level F (A2.62F)” “Building 6 Floor Plan - Level G (A2.62G)” “Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.70A)” “Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.70B)” “Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level E, Level F (A2.70C)” “Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level G, Level H (A2.70D)” “Building 7 Overall Floor Plans - Level I (A2.70E)” “Building 1 Exterior Elevations (A4.11A, A4.11B, A4.11C & A4.11D)” “Building 2 Exterior Elevations (A4.21)” “Building 3 Exterior Elevations (A4.31)” “Building 4.1 Exterior Elevations (A4.41)” “Building 4.2 Exterior Elevations (A4.42)” “Building 4.3 Exterior Elevations (A4.43)” “Building 4.4 Exterior Elevations (901 East State Street) (A4.44)” “Building 5 Exterior Elevations (A4.51)” “Building 6 Exterior Elevations (A4.61)” “Building 7 Exterior Elevations (A4.71)” “Bridge Elevations (A4.81)” all individually dated 10-19-10 but labeled “Preliminary Site Plan Review Submission - January 12, 2011” on the drawing set cover, and prepared by ikon.5 architects, and other application materials, including many additional drawings presented at the January 25, 2011, February 7, 2011, and February 22, 2011 Planning Board meetings that substantially revise significant portions of the drawings listed above, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 of 33 WHEREAS: the project consists of two phases, as shown on the drawing titled “Project Sequencing” included in a bound set of drawings titled “Collegetown Terrace Site Drawings 12.9.10.” Phase 1 (called “Sequence 1” on the aforementioned drawing) consists of the construction of Buildings 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, the entry pavilion, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, and the rehabilitation of 901 East State Street, (the Williams House) including the construction of an addition to its south, as well as all associated site work and improvements. Phase 2 (called “Sequence 2” on the aforementioned drawing) consists of the construction of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, as well as all associated site work and improvements, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on February 22, 2011 grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to Phases 1 & 2 of the proposed Collegetown Terrace project, subject to the following conditions: Conditions Taken Directly From Findings Statement Language: (Findings Statement mitigations that have already been incorporated into the current project design are not restated here. Minor modifications or clarifications to Findings Statement language appear in italics.) i. To minimize potential impacts from run-off and erosion during construction, the applicant will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that meets the satisfaction of the Tompkins County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SWPPP will include an erosion and sediment control plan and detailed drawings of all required practices, and ii. Thorough, professional documentation of the history and architectural details of the Jane A. Delano Home, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 2005). Specifically, the Lead Agency has determined that the structure should be recorded in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Documentation Level II, and iii. The rehabilitation of 901 East State Street (the George C. Williams House) in its current location, and adaptive reuse of the structure within the proposed project program. This will include restoration of the exterior of the structure to its historic appearance, including the removal of inappropriate additions and features that compromise the character and integrity of the structure. 901 East State Street was selected as an appropriate building to be retained because of: (1) its layers of importance to the community (including association with the life of George C. Williams, architectural sophistication, and role as a prominent urbanistic “marker” at the intersection of Mitchell and East State Streets), and (2) its greater visibility and prominence (compared to the Van Rensselaer and Driscoll houses) due to its location, height, massing, and architectural expression. Retention of the George C. Williams House is intended to reduce the impact on community character and the setting of the East Hill Historic District by retaining a notable structure within the affected streetscape. The retention and reuse of 901 East State Street will also avoid the complete loss of the single-family residential phase of the site’s history. The rehabilitation of this structure is also intended to mitigate, in part, for the loss of the Jane A. Delano Home, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 of 33 iv. The preparation of one or more interpretive displays that will be accessible to the public and located within the Collegetown Terrace project, which will depict the (proposed to be demolished) buildings within the project site and provide information about historically significant residents, builders, architects, and associations with local institutions (including the Ithaca City Hospital and the nursing profession in Ithaca). Sufficient historical research will be conducted to document the significance of notable persons associated with the site, including Jane A. Delano, the Driscoll family, Martha Van Rensselaer, and George C. Williams. These interpretive displays could be an effective tool for educating current and future residents of Ithaca and visitors to the city about change over time to the urban streetscape. Distinctive architectural elements from the existing buildings, such as a triplet arcade from the Jane A. Delano Home, could be used as components of the interpretive presentations, as appropriate, and v. The applicant will pursue an agreement with an appropriate group that will accept and reuse salvaged architectural materials, and vi. The existing rental apartment complex on the project site provides a private shuttle service that runs every 20 minutes from 7:30-11:30 a.m. on weekdays. To accommodate the increased demand that would result from the proposed project, the applicant has stated that it would add additional shuttles as necessary. The traffic analysis and conclusions presented in the DEIS are dependent on the continued availability and expansion of the existing shuttle service. The analysis would no longer be valid if the shuttle service were terminated. The continued provision and expansion of the shuttle service shall apply to the project even if the property changes ownership in the future. If, for some unforeseeable reason, the applicant (or future operator of Collegetown Terrace) were interested in ceasing shuttle service, a traffic study will be required, at the project owner’s expense, to identify potential impacts of not using the shuttle and reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures, and vii. Parking will be provided solely for residents of the project and no parking will be available on the project site for non-tenant usage or rental, other than by employees or guests of the residents of the project on a short-term basis, and viii. The color palette for Building 1 will use a combination of earth-toned brick (later changed, by mutual consent of all parties, to stone) and stucco to be compatible with the neighboring architecture. The design of Building 1 will be further developed during site plan review, and ix. The palette of colors for Buildings 2.1-2.4 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The quality of design and materials used for surface treatments on the façades along East State Street will continue along the façade of Building 2.4 that faces South Quarry Street. The design of these buildings will be further developed during site plan review, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 of 33 x. While the Lead Agency agrees that it is appropriate that Buildings 3.1-3.3 and the Entry Pavilion have a more modern architectural expression than Buildings 4.1-4.4 and 2.1-2.4, the Lead Agency has also determined that minimizing impacts to community character requires that these buildings make greater reference to the colors, textures, and architectural patterns of the existing East Hill neighborhood than is seen in the FEIS illustrations. The materials to be used for these buildings are in the process of research and selection. The façades and surface treatments (including materials and colors) for Buildings 3.1- 3.4, and the design of the Entry Pavilion, will be determined during site plan review, and xi. The palette of colors for Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The palette of colors for renovated Building 4.4 (George C. Williams House, 901 East State Street) will be appropriate to its history. High- quality materials will be used for all surface treatments on the façades along both East State Street and Valentine Place. The design of Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be further developed during site plan review, as will the specifics of the renovation of the George C. Williams House, and xii. Proposed site work for the project includes the demolition of South Quarry Street, Valentine Place, and the south curb line of East State Street between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place (all of which will require permits from the Department or the Board of Public Works). As mitigation for construction traffic-related impacts, the applicant will be required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, Valentine Place, and the south curb line of NYS Route 79/East State Street as part of the project. The City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, Division of Streets and Facilities, will require the applicant to post a bond, prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction. Best practice controls will be employed during the construction of the project to minimize impacts related to noise and short-term air quality impacts, such as the proper maintenance of equipment, limits of construction hours, and dust control measures. The applicant will be required to prepare a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (M&PT) plan to minimize construction-related traffic impacts. This plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and may set restrictions on when construction can occur or when trucks can deliver/remove material to or from the site. Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review: i. Prior to final site plan approval of a phase (Phase 1 or Phase 2), all drawings relevant to that phase shall be updated, and made internally consistent, showing all approved project changes. Hence, prior to Phase 1 final site plan approval, all project-set drawings shall be updated and made consistent with all changes relevant to Phase 1 made at the January 25, 2011, February 7, 2011, and February 22, 2011 Planning Board meetings, and ii. Submission of revised site drawings showing the following: 1. Modification of landscape plan to show standard City planting specifications, removal of Norway maple and Japanese barberry from plant list, labeling of trees (with species) to remain on the project site, and addition of note indicating that transplanted or newly- planted trees that die will be replaced with similar plantings, and 2. Modification of landscape plan plant list to reflect the recommendations of local plant expert F. Robert Wesley (per his February 18, 2011 e-mail), and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 of 33 3. Modification of landscape plan to show species of new plantings resulting from the relocation of Street A; new trees in Mitchell Street Plaza and along north side of Building 3.4 shall include tall canopy trees, and 4. Modification of landscape plan to show, for Phase I areas, all proposed plant species that have not yet been selected (e.g., plantings currently shown as generic “shrubs” or generic “groundcover”), and 5. Modification of landscape plan to show additional native trees, including tall evergreen trees, south of Building 7, and 6. Identification of intended caliper of all proposed street trees and of trees intended to provide screening in the several spaces between Buildings 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and the Williams House, and 7. Addition of fencing between Buildings 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, and 8. Use of bluestone (not limestone) site walls at the west side of Building 2.4, at the north entrance to Building 1, and at the intersection of State and Quarry Streets, and 9. Addition of attractive barrier rail on top of retaining wall at northeast corner of Building 6, and 10. Addition of undulating fence at Mitchell Street Plaza, and 11. Addition of label showing intended historically-appropriate paving material in front of the Williams House, and 12. Submission of a detail showing the design of the narrow bike ramp intended to accompany a series of stairs leading down into the site from the Eddy Street Plaza, and iii. Submission of revised building elevations showing the following: 1. Building 1: Enlargement of windows in north façade of stair tower, and 2. Building 2.1: Addition of sills under windows in brick faces and of column motif (per front façade) on the upper north corner of the eastern façade, and 3. Building 2.2: Addition of window(s) or other architectural detail on stair tower and differentiation of the cornices, and 4. Building 2.3: Redesign of stair tower (now with angled roof fragment) to have more of a chimney-like appearance, possibly including brick cladding, and 5. Building 2.4: Addition to north elevation of southeast rear building projection, change of sloped center pavilion to flat roof and addition of windows to stair tower on south façade, and 6. Buildings 2.1 through 2.4: Provide missing enlarged east and west elevations, and 7. Buildings 2.1 through 2.3: Provide sectional elevations of walls flanking the main entrances for each of these buildings, and 8. Entry Pavilion: Exterior columns to be constructed of sandstone, interior and exterior ceiling under roof volume to be surfaced with natural wood, and interior elements visible from the exterior to exhibit warm color palette, and 9. Building 4.1: Narrowing of chimney width to roughly 6’, and 10. Building 4.2: Addition of intended projecting bay on left-hand side of elevation, and 11. Building 6: Redesigned east end to be added to relevant elevations and plans, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 of 33 12. Openings in all parking levels in all buildings shall be designed so that the headlights of maneuvering cars and the glare of lighting fixtures within the parking decks are not visible off-site, and such that light spillage through these openings is minimized, and 13. Updated site axonometric drawing showing, from both eye-level and sky-level points of view, current state of all buildings, and iv. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final building details, materials, and colors (including building material samples), and v. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final locations and designs for exterior art, fountains, and interpretative displays (the west end of Building 3.3 at the Eddy Street Plaza is considered exterior art), and vi. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of (1) final rehabilitation drawings for the Williams House at 901 East State Street, (2) final drawings for the addition planned to the south of the historic portions of the Williams House, and (3) final design of landscape elements and plantings in the vicinity of the Williams House, and vii. Confirmation that trees to the south of the Eddy Street Plaza and to the south of the openings between the 2.x buildings series do not block views, and viii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of any proposed signage, and ix. Modification of drawings to reflect the comments of City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue in his February 17, 2011 memo to the Planning Board and Lisa Nicholas, and x. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation issues have been satisfied, including approval of type, location, and number of bike racks, and xi. Approval in writing from the Ithaca Fire Department that all fire access requirements have been satisfied, and xii. Approval in writing from the Storm Water Management Officer that the project and its SWPPP meet City standards for storm water management, and xiii. Submission of documentation that the parcels have been consolidated into one parcel, and xiv. Construction sequencing and staging conditions: 1. Applicant shall develop a “Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan” in conjunction with the City Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer, to be approved by the City Department of Public Works, and 2. Construction work on publicly-owned property requires a “Work Permit” from the City Department of Public Works, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 of 33 3. Applicant shall post a bond, in an amount acceptable to the City Department of Public Works, prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction, and 4. All vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian routes shall remain open during construction, except — with written City Department of Public Works approval — for specified time periods during demolition, and 5. Any temporary construction entrances from public streets shall require City Department of Public Works approval, and 6. A “Staging Plan” shall be developed for Phase 1 building demolition, and 7. Temporary barriers and pedestrian protection shall meet the requirements of the New York State building code, and xv. Conditions regarding applicant’s rebuilding of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street, and Valentine Place: 1. Applicant is required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, and the south curb line of NYS Route 79/East State Street and Valentine Place, as part of the project, and shall coordinate this work with the City Department of Public Works, and 2. Regarding South Quarry Street, applicant shall install new curb and gutter along most of its east side, and shall mill and resurface the street, and 3. Applicant shall replace all curb and gutter on the south side of East State Street, and 4. Regarding Valentine Place, applicant shall install new curbing without a gutter on both sides of the street, and shall mill and resurface the street, and 5. Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate city staff for the rebuilding of the sidewalks along the east side of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street, and the west side of Valentine Place, and 6. All new curb cuts shall include drop curbs with concrete drive aprons ramped up to the sidewalks; sidewalks shall be continuous through curb cuts, and 7. Applicant has agreed to pay for the initial restriping of the pedestrian crosswalk at the Mitchell Street intersection with East State Street; this work shall be coordinated with the City Department of Public Works, and xvi. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and xvii. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on March 22, 2011 review and accept the following updated drawings: “Survey Map” “Legend, Vicinity Map and Notes (C1.00)” “Existing Conditions Map (C1.01 & C1.02)” “Construction Staging Plan (C2.01)” “Surface Demolition Plan (C2.1.1 & C2.1.2)” “Utility Demolition Plan (C2.2.1 & C2.2.2)” “Street Layout Plan (C3.01 & C3.02)” “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 of 33 “Street Profiles (C3.1.1)” “Street Sections and Pavement Details (C3.2.1)” “Site Utility Plan (C4.01 & C4.02)” “Utility Details (C4.1.1)” “Storm Drainage Plan (C.5.01 & C.5.02)” “Storm Drainage Details (C5.1.1)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Demolition Phase (C6.01)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Construction Phase (C6.02)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Stabilization Phase (C6.03)” “Erosion and Sediment Control Details (C6.1.1)” “Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (C7.01)” “Emergency Access Plan (C8.01)” (two sheets) “Sequence 1 Overall Site Plan (L1.00)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Site Layout Plan (L2.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Site Layout Plan (L2.01B)” “Plaza Layout Plans (L2.03)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Site Grading Plan (L3.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Site Grading Plan (L3.01B)” “Sequence 1 Site Lighting Plan (L4.00)” “Sheet 1 Sector A Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01A)” “Sheet 1 Sector B Landscape Planting Plan (L5.01B)” “Plant Schedule and Planting Details (L6.00)” “Site Details (L7.00, L8.00 & L9.00)” “Building 1.0 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.10)” “Building 1.1 Floor Plan - Level B, Level C (A2.11A)” “Building 1.1 Floor Plan - Level D, Level E (A2.11B)” “Building 2 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.20)” “Building 2.1 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.21A)” “Building 2.1 Floor Plan - Level E, Level F (A2.21B)” “Building 2.2 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.22A)” “Building 2.2 Floor Plan - Level E, Level F (A2.22B)” “Building 2.3 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.23A)” “Building 2.3 Floor Plan - Level E, Level F (A2.23B)” “Building 2.4 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.24A)” “Building 2.4 Floor Plan - Level B (A2.24B)” “Building 2.4 Floor Plan - Level C (A2.24C)” “Building 2.4 Floor Plan - Level D (A2.24D)” “Building 2.4 Roof Plan - Level E (A2.24E)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level A, Level B (A2.30A)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level C, Level D (A2.30B)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level E, Level F (A2.30C)” “Building 3 Overall Floor Plans - Level G, Level H (A2.30D)” “Building 4.0 Floor Plan - Level A (A2.40)” “Building 4.1 Floor Plan - Level B, Level C (A2.41A)” “Building 4.1 Floor Plan - Level D, Level E (A2.41B)” “Building 4.2 Floor Plan - Level B, Level C (A2.42A)” “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 of 33 “Building 4.2 Floor Plan - Level D, Level E (A2.42B)” “Building 4.3 Floor Plan - Level B, Level C (A2.43A)” “Building 4.3 Floor Plan - Level D, Level E (A2.43B)” “Building 4.4 Floor Plan - Level A, Level B (A2.44A)” “Building 4.4 Floor Plan - Level C, Level D (A2.44B)” “Building 4.4 Floor Plan - Level E (A2.44C)” “Enlarged Unit Plans (A2.91 & A2.92)” “Building 1 Exterior Elevations (A4.11A, A4.11B, A4.11C & A4.11D)” “Building 2.1 Exterior Elevations (A4.21)” “Building 2.2 Exterior Elevations (A4.22)” “Building 2.3 Exterior Elevations (A4.23)” “Building 2.4 Exterior Elevations (A4.24)” “Building 3 Exterior Elevations (A4.31, A4.32, A4.33, A4.34, A4.35 & A4.36)” “Building 4.1 Exterior Elevations (A4.41)” “Building 4.2 Exterior Elevations (A4.42)” “Building 4.3 Exterior Elevations (A4.43)” “Building 4.4 Exterior Elevations (901 East State Street) (A4.44)” all individually dated 3-1-11, but labeled “Final Site Plan Review Submission – Sequence 1 – March 9, 2011” on the drawing set cover, and prepared by ikon.5 architects, and “Building 4.1 - East Elevation” “Building 4.1 - North Elevation” “Building 2.3, Entry Side Walls” “Building 2.2, Entry Side Walls” Catalog Cut Sheets for “Dimensional Data, Single Package Vertical Units” “Collegetown Terrace Apartments, Ithaca NY – Distant Views” (Photographs from Giles Street and from South Hill) all date-stamped March 17, 2011, prepared by icon.5, and a set of four drawings dated March 21, 2011 showing revised designs and plantings for the spaces between Buildings 2.1 and 2.2, and between Buildings 2.2 and 2.3, and a set of ten drawings titled “Collegetown Terrace Apartments; Final Site Plan Review – Sequence #1: New Material Since Project Review Committee Meeting of March 15, 2011” dated March 22, 2011 and prepared by ikon.5 architects, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the applicant has, relevant to Phase 1, satisfied the following conditions listed under the “Conditions Taken Directly From Findings Statement Language” heading: i; and WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the applicant has, relevant to Phase 1, satisfied the following conditions listed under the “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” heading: i.; ii.2; ii.3; ii.6; ii.7; ii.8; ii.10; ii.11; ii.12; iii.1; iii.2; iii.3; iii.4; iii.5; iii.6; iii.7; iii.10; iii.12; iii.13; vii; ix; xi; xii and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 of 33 WHEREAS: the Planning Board finds that the applicant has, relevant to Phase 1, partially satisfied the following conditions listed under the “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” heading: ii.1; ii.4; iii.8; iii.9; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to Phase 1 of the proposed Collegetown Terrace Apartments project, subject to the following conditions: Conditions Taken Directly From Findings Statement Language: (Findings Statement mitigations that have already been incorporated into the current project design or that have already been accomplished are not restated here. Minor modifications or clarifications to Findings Statement language appear in italics.) i. Thorough, professional documentation of the history and architectural details of the Jane A. Delano Home consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 2005). Specifically, the Lead Agency has determined that the structure should be recorded in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Documentation Level II, and ii. The rehabilitation of 901 East State Street (the George C. Williams House) in its current location, and adaptive reuse of the structure within the proposed project program. This will include restoration of the exterior of the structure to its historic appearance, including the removal of inappropriate additions and features that compromise the character and integrity of the structure. 901 East State Street was selected as an appropriate building to be retained because of: (1) its layers of importance to the community (including association with the life of George C. Williams, architectural sophistication, and role as a prominent urbanistic “marker” at the intersection of Mitchell and East State Streets), and (2) its greater visibility and prominence (compared to the Van Rensselaer and Driscoll houses) due to its location, height, massing, and architectural expression. Retention of the George C. Williams House is intended to reduce the impact on community character and the setting of the East Hill Historic District by retaining a notable structure within the affected streetscape. The retention and reuse of 901 East State Street will also avoid the complete loss of the single-family residential phase of the site’s history. The rehabilitation of this structure is also intended to mitigate, in part, for the loss of the Jane A. Delano Home, and iii. The preparation of one or more interpretive displays that will be accessible to the public and located within the Collegetown Terrace project, which will depict the (proposed to be demolished) buildings within the project site and provide information about historically significant residents, builders, architects, and associations with local institutions (including the Ithaca City Hospital and the nursing profession in Ithaca). Sufficient historical research will be conducted to document the significance of notable persons associated with the site, including Jane A. Delano, the Driscoll family, Martha Van Rensselaer, and George C. Williams. These interpretive displays could be an effective tool for educating current and future residents of Ithaca and visitors to the city about change over time to the urban streetscape. Distinctive architectural elements from the existing buildings, such as a triplet arcade from the Jane A. Delano Home, could be used as components of the interpretive presentations, as appropriate, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 of 33 iv. The applicant will pursue an agreement with an appropriate group that will accept and reuse salvaged architectural materials, and v. The existing rental apartment complex on the project site provides a private shuttle service that runs every 20 minutes from 7:30-11:30 a.m. on weekdays. To accommodate the increased demand that would result from the proposed project, the applicant has stated that it would add additional shuttles as necessary. The traffic analysis and conclusions presented in the DEIS are dependent on the continued availability and expansion of the existing shuttle service. The analysis would no longer be valid if the shuttle service were terminated. The continued provision and expansion of the shuttle service shall apply to the project even if the property changes ownership in the future. If, for some unforeseeable reason, the applicant (or future operator of Collegetown Terrace) were interested in ceasing shuttle service, a traffic study will be required, at the project owner’s expense, to identify potential impacts of not using the shuttle and reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures, and vi. Parking will be provided solely for residents of the project and no parking will be available on the project site for non-tenant usage or rental, other than by employees or guests of the residents of the project on a short-term basis, and vii. The color palette for Building 1 will use a combination of earth-toned brick (later changed, by mutual consent of all parties, to stone) and stucco to be compatible with the neighboring architecture. The design of Building 1 will be further developed during site plan review, and viii. The palette of colors for Buildings 2.1-2.4 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The quality of design and materials used for surface treatments on the façades along East State Street will continue along the façade of Building 2.4 that faces South Quarry Street. The design of these buildings will be further developed during site plan review, and ix. While the Lead Agency agrees that it is appropriate that Buildings 3.1-3.3 and the Entry Pavilion have a more modern architectural expression than Buildings 4.1-4.4 and 2.1-2.4, the Lead Agency has also determined that minimizing impacts to community character requires that these buildings make greater reference to the colors, textures, and architectural patterns of the existing East Hill neighborhood than is seen in the FEIS illustrations. The materials to be used for these buildings are in the process of research and selection. The façades and surface treatments (including materials and colors) for Buildings 3.1- 3.4, and the design of the Entry Pavilion, will be determined during site plan review, and x. The palette of colors for Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be selected from earthtones compatible with the materials and colors of the adjacent and nearby existing buildings. The palette of colors for renovated Building 4.4 (George C. Williams House, 901 East State Street) will be appropriate to its history. High- quality materials will be used for all surface treatments on the façades along both East State Street and Valentine Place. The design of Buildings 4.1-4.3 will be further developed during site plan review, as will the specifics of the renovation of the George C. Williams House, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26 of 33 xi. Proposed site work for the project includes the demolition of South Quarry Street, Valentine Place, and the south curb line of East State Street between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place (all of which will require permits from the Department or the Board of Public Works). As mitigation for construction traffic-related impacts, the applicant will be required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, Valentine Place, and the south curb line of NYS Route 79/East State Street as part of the project. The City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, Division of Streets and Facilities, will require the applicant to post a bond, prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction. Best practice controls will be employed during the construction of the project to minimize impacts related to noise and short-term air quality impacts, such as the proper maintenance of equipment, limits of construction hours, and dust control measures. The applicant will be required to prepare a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (M&PT) plan to minimize construction-related traffic impacts. This plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and may set restrictions on when construction can occur or when trucks can deliver/remove material to or from the site. Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review: i. All project-set drawings shall be updated and made consistent with all changes made prior to Final Site Plan Approval of Phase 1, including changes made at the March 22, 2011 Planning Board meeting, and ii. Submission of revised site drawings showing the following: 1. Modification of landscape plan to show labeling of trees (with species) to remain on the project site, and addition of note indicating that transplanted or newly-planted trees that die will be replaced with similar plantings, and 2. Modification of landscape plan to show, for Phase I areas, all proposed plant species that have not yet been selected (e.g., plantings currently shown as generic “shrubs” or generic “groundcover”), and 3. Modification of landscape plan to show additional native trees, including tall evergreen trees, south of Building 7, and 4. Addition of attractive barrier rail on top of retaining wall at northeast corner of Building 6, and 5. Add crosswalk to parking access driveway leading from Street A to Building 3.4, and iii. Future discussion with the Planning Board of the following: 1. Building 2.1: Discussion regarding, on east elevation, restoring Llenroc stone water table to southern portion of elevation, though not necessarily to same height as shown in the February 7, 2011 PowerPoint drawing set, and 2. Building 2.3: Discussion regarding design of new cantilever over driveway at northwest building corner to make it compatible with the mitigations relevant to the Building 2.0 series as stated in the Findings Statement, and 3. Building 2.4: Discussion regarding restoring Llenroc stone base to west façade, as shown in February 7, 2011 PowerPoint drawing set, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 27 of 33 iv. Submission to the Planning Board of revised building drawings showing the following: 1. Entry Pavilion: Interior and exterior ceiling under roof volume to be surfaced with natural wood, and interior elements visible from the exterior to exhibit warm color palette, and 2. Building 4.1: Chimney centerpoint to be relocated to the location where it was previously centered, and plans for levels C and D to be corrected to show chimney and all north façade windows, and 3. Building 4.4 (901 East State Street): Revise plans to show restoration of exterior porches on first, second, and third floors, and 4. Building 6: Redesigned east end to be added to relevant elevations and plans, and v. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final building details, materials, and colors (including building material samples and ventilation grill placement), and vi. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final locations and designs for exterior art, fountains, and interpretative displays (the west end of Building 3.3 at the Eddy Street Plaza is considered exterior art), and vii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of (1) final rehabilitation drawings for the Williams House at 901 East State Street, (2) final drawings for the addition planned to the south of the historic portions of the Williams House, and (3) final design of landscape elements and plantings in the vicinity of the Williams House, and viii. Applicant shall attempt to convince NYSEG to place its utility wires underground on the project side of East State Street, and ix. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of any proposed signage, and x. Any changes to Phase 1 that affect the visual appearance of the project (including buildings and landscaping) that are proposed subsequent to final site plan approval shall require approval of the Planning and Development Board, and xi. Approval in writing from the City Transportation Engineer that all transportation issues have been satisfied, including approval of type, location, and number of bike racks, and xii. Submission of documentation that the parcels have been consolidated into one parcel, and xiii. Construction sequencing and staging conditions: 1. Applicant shall develop a “Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan” in conjunction with the City Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer, to be approved by the City Department of Public Works, and 2. Construction work on publicly-owned property requires a “Work Permit” from the City Department of Public Works, and “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 28 of 33 3. Applicant shall post a bond, in an amount acceptable to the City Department of Public Works, prior to the initiation of any demolition and/or construction activities, to cover the cost of repairing any damage to public roads that may occur during construction, and 4. All vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian routes shall remain open during construction, except — with written City Department of Public Works approval — for specified time periods, and 5. Any temporary construction entrances from public streets shall require City Department of Public Works approval, and 6. A “Staging Plan” shall be developed for Phase 1 building demolition, and 7. Temporary barriers and pedestrian protection shall meet the requirements of the New York State building code, and xiv. Conditions regarding applicant’s rebuilding of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street, and Valentine Place: 1. Applicant is required to reconstruct South Quarry Street, and the south curb line of NYS Route 79/East State Street and Valentine Place, as part of the project, and shall coordinate this work with the City Department of Public Works, and 2. Regarding South Quarry Street, applicant shall install new curb and gutter along most of its east side, and shall mill and resurface the street, and 3. Applicant shall replace all curb and gutter on the south side of East State Street, and 4. Regarding Valentine Place, applicant shall install new curbing without a gutter on both sides of the street, and shall mill and resurface the street, and 5. Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate City staff for the rebuilding of the sidewalks along the east side of South Quarry Street, the south side of East State Street, and the west side of Valentine Place, and 6. All new curb cuts shall include drop curbs with concrete drive aprons ramped up to the sidewalks; sidewalks shall be continuous through curb cuts, and 7. Applicant has agreed to pay for the initial restriping of the pedestrian crosswalk at the Mitchell Street intersection with East State Street; this work shall be coordinated with the City Department of Public Works, and xv. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and xvi. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Schroeder, Snyder Opposed: Marcham, Rudan John Snyder departed at 8:20 p.m. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 29 of 33 B. Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency and Public Hearing. The applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use building with 63,400 total gross SF with 5 stories and a 14-space basement level parking area on the 0.78-acre site. The building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first floor commercial space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd- 5th floors. Other proposed amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. Proposed site development will include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping, and a paved entry plaza. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the nearly continuous existing curbcut into two curbcuts, one accessing the east surface parking lot, and the other accessing the western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install a sidewalk and treelawn along the length of the property. Site development will require the demolition and removal of the existing building (former Challenge Industries). The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. This is a Type I Action §176-4(h)[4], (k), and (n) under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and variances for height, setbacks, and parking. The Chair noted that additional public comments had been heard today and the developer would now present its revisions to the project site plan, followed by some questions by Board members and staff. Final Board deliberation on the project, however, will take place the following week at its special meeting. The Chair stressed that while the Board has authority over the site plan and environmental reviews of the project, it is only authorized to submit a non-binding recommendation to the BZA regarding the variances. Jeffrey Smetana indicated the developer has struggled to satisfactorily address all of comments and concerns expressed by both the Board and community members. As a result, however, the development team re- examined the design in some novel ways. The current proposal now involves moving the roof terrace from the east end to the west end of the building, opening up enough space to permit dropping the north-facing side one story and hopefully mitigating some of the concerns regarding the height and proximity of the building to neighboring houses. Mr. Smetana added that favorable comments had been received from T.G. Miller, P.C. and SRF Associates regarding drainage, sight distance, parking, and traffic issues. Steve Hugo presented an overview of the most recent alterations to the site plan and elevations, as documented in a March 1, 2011 slide presentation. Two one-bedroom apartments have been removed from the top floor of the building’s north end, lowering the building’s height at that end by one story. The north stair tower has also been moved further south. The fitness center, formerly located on the southwest top floor, will now be in the basement level, and the outdoor terrace, formerly located at the southeast corner of the top floor, has been moved to the west. As a result, two one-bedroom apartments can now be added to the south end of the top floor. The relocated north stair tower will now have a first-floor external entry on the west, allowing vegetation to replace a walkway formerly located at the building’s north and northeast. In addition to the aforementioned revisions, Mr. Hugo indicated the applicant has agreed to placing a permanent deed restriction on the property, prohibiting any building within 70 feet of the northern property line from exceeding 40 feet in height. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 30 of 33 Kim Michaels then reviewed some sight distance, parking, and traffic issues, beginning with the modifications suggested by SRF Associates to the street striping for directing traffic. Mr. Holt added that City Engineer Tim Logue had expressed that he is satisfied the project will not have a significant negative impact on traffic-related issues. Ms. Michaels indicated that recent conversations with the state DOT were also of a positive nature (a formal written response from the DOT should be forthcoming). Ms. Michaels noted that, pursuant to T.G. Miller’s 3/28/11 letter, some street trees would now be removed and the ground cover planted at the front of the building would be no higher than one foot from the sidewalk surface. Mr. Acharya remarked he has seen no indication any of the parties have considered the prospect of high- velocity bicycle traffic in their calculations. He is concerned with the potential conflict between cars exiting the development and cyclists entering Seneca Way at high speed from State Street, as well as the conflict between these same cyclists and cars making a right turn from the ‘tuning fork’ into the entrance to the building. The Chair remarked he thinks striping on both sides of Seneca Way, rather than just one, might help alleviate some of these concerns. Jane Marcham added she would like to see the traffic issue examined from the perspective of rush hour traffic. In reply, Ms. Michaels noted that City Engineer Tim Logue did state that he believes the current proposal represents an improvement over existing conditions. David Kay expressed a concern with the extent to which current data regarding sight lines and other traffic- related issues may be inadequate for the purpose of evaluating the new building. Regarding vehicular loading issues, Ms. Michaels indicated that the zoning ordinance calls for 450 square feet of loading space; however, the applicant is seeking to combine several smaller loading spaces, so that larger trucks might be able to use them. The Chair then asked if the applicant could provide a diagram of the specific anticipated vehicular dynamics for the loading area, to which Ms. Michaels replied, yes. Govind Acharya inquired whether the applicant was planning on charging for parking spaces, to which Mr. Smetana replied that they would only charge residents (an as-yet-undetermined amount) and not for temporary visitor or customer parking. Mr. Acharya remarked he is concerned there is too much parking associated with the project and the applicant might also consider charging for non-resident parking. Bob Boothroyd departed at 9:10 p.m. Ms. Michaels continued with her presentation, noting that various changes had been made to the proposed vegetation on the site, including the addition of more vegetation as a result of the decreased traffic and disturbance on the north side of the building. Bob Boothroyd returned at 9:14 p.m. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 31 of 33 Mr. Acharya asked how the parking space formula was determined. Mr. Smetana replied that they determined the number of parking spaces per unit by researching how many spaces would be required to attract an AAA tenant. The calculations were performed by a commercial broker. There being no further comments or questions by any of the parties, the Chair indicated that any further Board deliberation on the project would take place at its March 29th special meeting. C. Student Housing Addition, 140 College Avenue, Jason Demarest, Applicant for Owner, Po Family Realty. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary Approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story addition on the south side of the building, incorporating the footprint of an existing one-story garage. The addition, which will function as an independent dwelling unit, will have a gross floor area of 3,800 SF and will match the three stories and walk-out basement level of the existing building. The property has an existing grandfathered 6- space parking area, which is being reduced to 5 spaces due to the addition. The layout of the new parking area includes a landscape buffer/trellis with bike racks on Cook Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning District. This is 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. Mr. Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the project for the Board. He remarked that the single most significant area of feedback and concern, as expressed at the Board’s Project Review Committee meeting, appears to be associated with the historical significance of the building. Since that meeting, he indicated that he moved the addition all the way to the western part of the property line, in response to concerns that the initial design had permitted the addition to project too far, detracting from the building’s historic character. After further discussion of some potential alternatives to the initial site plan design, the Chair indicated that the Board would defer its deliberation on the project until its next regularly scheduled meeting, given that a considerable number of changes will need to be made by the applicant. Tessa Rudan departed at 10:11 p.m. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal 2842 116 North Cayuga Street Sign Variance Appeal of New Roots Charter School on behalf of the owner, Historic Clinton House of Ithaca, LLC, for an area variance for the installation of two banner signs on the building located, at 116 North Cayuga Street. The historic building known as the Clinton House is located on a corner lot which faces both North Cayuga Street and West Seneca Street. One of the proposed banners will be on the front of the building, facing North Cayuga Street, and the other will be located on the side of the building facing West Seneca Street. Banners, under the City’s Sign Ordinance, are considered temporary signs and are to be used for a limited time period not to exceed 60 days. The applicant would like to use the two canvas banners as permanent signage. The banners will be mounted perpendicular to the surface of the building, but will project more than is allowed under the sign ordinance. (18” is allowed. The North Cayuga Street banner will project 47.75” and the West Seneca Street banner will project 36”.) “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 32 of 33 Members of the Planning Board support the requested area variance, but ask that the bottom edge of the Seneca Street corner banner be aligned with the bottom edge of the Cayuga Street banner for a more orderly presentation. Also, it will be important that, should the banners become torn, faded, or damaged in any way, they be removed and/or replaced immediately. On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Kay. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder Absent: Rudan, Snyder Appeal 2846 320 Elmira Road Sign Variance Appeal of Thomas Schickel on behalf of the owner, Robert S. Miller Revocable Trust, for a sign variance, Section 272-7A, signs permitted in the SW-2 zone. The Maguire Hyundai dealership, located at 320 Elmira Road, has recently added the Subaru brand to this location and is required to install signage to comply with the Subaru national branding standards. The applicant proposes to install a free-standing pole sign and two building signs on the property. The property currently has one pole sign for its Hyundai brand. The Sign Ordinance only allows one pole sign per property and pole signs are limited in size to 75 square feet and 22 feet in height. The applicant is proposing a sign that is 98 square feet and 25 feet, 9 inches in height. In addition to the new pole sign, the applicant proposes to install two wall signs on the building. These two new wall signs and a new pole sign, together with the existing signage, will total 278 square feet, 28 square feet more than is allowed by zoning (250 square feet allowed). Members of the Planning Board understand the requirements of adding signage when a new brand is being sold by an existing dealership and support the requested variance. However, Board Members are not in favor of allowing the extra height on the pole sign and request it be placed at the maximum allowable height of 22 feet. On a motion by Acharya, seconded by Marcham. In favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder Absent: Rudan, Snyder 6. Old Business – Planning Board Comments on Proposed Collegetown Zoning – No discussion took place. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 33 of 33 7. New Business A. Inlet Island Rezoning – No discussion took place. B. Holochuck Homes – JoAnn Cornish remarked she received some documents regarding this project, in case any Board members were interested in examining them. 8. Approval of Minutes – The approval of the following past minutes was deferred. • January 25, 2011 • February 22, 2011 • March 8, 2011 Special Meeting Tessa Rudan returned at 10:15 p.m. 9. Reports A. Planning Board Chair B. Director of Planning & Development C. Board of Public Works Liaison 10. Adjournment On a motion by Kay, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”