Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-01-28Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes January 28, 2014 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: 128 W. Falls Street Subdivision Larry Fabbroni, Sr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors; Larry Fabbroni, Jr., Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors Green Street Garage — Trash & Recycling Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design, LLC; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative 212 Hook Place Subdivision (Sketch Plan) Jeremy and Mary Taylor, Owners Gannett Student Health Center (Sketch Plan) Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Grace Chiang, Chiang O’Brien Architects Acting Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Acharya arrived at 6:09 p.m. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 2 2. Special Order of Business — Superintendent of Public Works Superintendent of Public Works Michael Thorne introduced himself and briefly walked through his educational / professional background and experience. He explained that his vision for the Department of Public Works is still being developed, and added he would particularly like to see a systematic prioritization of all City public works projects, especially given recent limited budgets and rising infrastructure needs. Another of his goals is to improve the waterfront ― considerable work needs to be done, he said, to improve its accessibility, prominence and visibility, in order to transform it into more of a desired destination. Acharya noted he would personally like to see the Department of Public Works envision transportation as a means of moving people, rather than vehicles, and prioritize City policies and operations accordingly. Fernández agreed. Blalock noted there has been considerable deferred maintenance over the past few years, so he appreciates the numerous challenges the Department of Public Works faces. 3. Privilege of the Floor John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, South Hill resident, presented some suggestions for the implementation of the Collegetown Area Form Districts proposal, as encapsulated in his January 27, 2014 e-mail to the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Review A. Major Subdivision, 128 W. Falls St., Tax Parcel #13.-2-20, Ron Ronsvalle, Applicant & Owner (Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc.). Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.375-acre (16,352 SF) tax parcel into 4 lots: Lot 1, measuring 3,687 SF with 37.5 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street; Lot 2, measuring 4,085 SF with 46.28 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street and containing an existing single-family home; Lot 3, measuring 4,094 SF with 37.5 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street; and Lot 4, measuring 4,485 SF with 61.1 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for single- or two-family dwelling and a minimum street frontage of 35 feet. Maximum lot coverage of 30% and minimum front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to build a two-family dwelling on each of proposed Lots 1, 3 and 4. Site Plan Review will be required for the project and a variance is required for an existing front-yard deficiency. 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. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 3 Project consultants Larry Fabbroni, Sr. and Larry Fabbroni, Jr. introduced the Board to the proposed Subdivision. Fabbroni, Sr. noted the original existing building had been in very poor shape for 15 years and was condemned various times. The property was then sold to Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc. (“Heritage”), which renovated that existing house and now seeks to divide the land into four lots and build three new 2-family houses. Fabbroni, Sr. submitted some photographs of the existing property. He noted the south side of W. Falls Street includes a non-conforming business. Heritage now seeks to complete the neighborhood on the north side, which has historically been fairly dilapidated. He submitted another set of photographs depicting samples of Heritage’s other completed projects in Fall Creek. He noted there was some discussion at the Project Review Committee meeting of the possibility of a cluster subdivision; however, he does not believe the applicant would be able to meet those requirements. He said the applicant would like to retain as much open space as possible. New York State, he said, owns the land adjacent to Route 13 and has no use for that land. He noted there was a suggestion at the meeting that the applicant not purchase that State land to use it for Lot 4; however, he stressed all the houses would conform with zoning. (The lone variance would be for the existing house being only 5.2 feet from the street line, though it has been there for some 50 years.) He added the stairs projecting out of the existing house would be re-built to sit entirely on proposed Lot 2. Jones-Rounds remarked she believes the Subdivision and associated housing project would be appropriate for the neighborhood; she would generally feel comfortable approving them. Nicholas explained that the housing units would be reviewed and evaluated as a single Site Plan Review project. Elliott expressed concern with the impact of highway noise on the project residents, since the project would only be five feet from the highway and the proposed multi-family residences would likely have children. He asked if there was a plan for sound abatement. Fabbroni, Sr. replied the applicant would address that issue with landscaping, and approach the State to determine what it would permit on its land. Elliott responded that landscaping would not solve the noise problems; more mass would certainly be required. Schroeder agreed with Elliott and suggested moving one of houses back a little on the site (e.g., Building 3), to create a more effective barrier to Route 13 noise. Fabbroni, Sr. replied that zoning requirements would not permit moving the proposed house, adding that moving it would make it too close to a nearby neighbor on York Street. He stressed there really is not enough land, combined with the odd-shaped lot, to permit a cluster subdivision. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 4 Fernández suggested double driveways. Fabbroni, Sr. replied the applicant could do that. Jones-Rounds observed Building 4 has a bedroom on the east side. She asked if there are any fences on the other properties. Fabbroni, Sr. replied the only fence is the one immediately adjacent to the highway. Elliott noted the applicant indicated Lot 4 was oversized. Given the strange nature of that proposed lot’s boundary (i.e., with a triangular extension to the north), he suggested making the latter area into a public amenity or playground (adding to the resale value of the properties). He also suggested adding a visual barrier at that location. Fabbroni, Sr. replied the applicant could reduce the lot size down to 3,500 SF and explore doing what Elliott suggests. Cornish cautioned that the applicant would not be permitted to create a non-conforming lot, so whatever public amenity proposed for that area would need to belong to one of the lots. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #13.-2-20, located at 128 West Falls Street, by Ron Ronsvalle, Jr. for Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.375-acre (16,352 SF) tax parcel into 4 lots: Lot 1, measuring 3,687 SF with 37.5 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street; Lot 2, measuring 4,085 SF with 46.28 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street and containing an existing single-family home; Lot 3, measuring 4,094 SF with 37.5 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street; and Lot 4, measuring 4,485 SF with 61.1 feet of frontage on W. Falls Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for single- or two-family dwelling and a minimum street frontage of 35 feet. Maximum lot coverage of 30% and minimum front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to build a two-family dwelling on each of proposed Lots 1, 3 and 4. An area variance is required for the Subdivision and Site Plan Review will be required for the building project, and Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 5 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 both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution declaring itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed Subdivision. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Mihal Ronen, 212 E. Yates Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed Subdivision, noting she will be purchasing a house right next door to one of proposed buildings. She has had some prior experience with Heritage, living very close to one of its developments; she does not believe it handled that development particularly well. She added that two-family homes would not be in keeping with the rest of the one-family homes on the street. She would prefer limits be placed on what is built. Theresa Lyons, 110 W. Falls Street, also spoke in opposition to the proposed Subdivision, noting the applicant used the phrase “typical housing” to describe the project; however, none of the other houses on the block are multi-family, so building three two-family houses on a very small lot would certainly not be typical. She also expressed concern with possible high turnover in the proposed buildings and objected to granting the Zoning Appeal, which she sees no compelling reason to grant, other than to maximize the applicant’s profit. She said zoning restrictions are in place for a reason ― to maintain the character of the area. Charlene Height, 107 W. Falls Street, also voiced opposition to the aforementioned project, maintaining it would totally alter the character of the neighborhood. She believes it is the best street in Fall Creek, in terms of its degree of peace and quiet, respectfulness, privacy, safety, security, etc. She also expressed concern with the parking situation and questioned where people would park, since there is no space for parking on the street as it is now. She remarked that the area just discussed as a possible public amenity or playground space is right next to a pumping station, so it would not be not conducive to that kind of use. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 6 Blaise Bryski, 114 W. Falls Street, agreed with the previous speakers, saying that the proposed lots are considerably smaller than they appear on the drawing. Joe Wetmore, owner of Autumn Leaves Used Books, said he thought conducting environmental review for this project’s Subdivision separate from the environmental review for its Site Plan Review would constitute segmentation (i.e., “the division of the environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as though they were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of significance”), which would contravene NYS Department of Conservation regulations. Lisa Sanfilippo, 1108 N. Cayuga Street, around the corner from the proposed development, spoke regarding the proposed Subdivision, noting she is not necessarily against the project, but there are no other duplexes on that street. She said the neighbors and culture of the neighborhood are wonderful, and that the current cul-de-sac serves as a gathering space for families. David Ost, 106 W. Falls Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed Subdivision, characterizing the proposed project as too extreme. He said it would change the nature and aesthetics of the block. On the other hand, he said he would have no problem with one-family homes. Jason Bartell, 102 W. Falls Street, and graduate student, expressed agreement with everything the other commenters had said. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing. Acharya asked Cornish about the segmentation issue that was raised. Cornish replied that Wetmore had raised a good point. When the City knows of a proposed project that would require Site Plan Review Approval associated with a Subdivision application, she said a single environmental review should be conducted for the project as a whole. Acharya encouraged the applicant to work actively with neighbors to resolve the issues that had been raised. Fabbroni, Sr. responded the applicant is not seeking to do anything that does not conform to the regulations; he stressed that two-family houses in that location are permitted. He said the applicant would be open to any other suggestions for improvement of the project. He added that today’s meeting is for approval of a Subdivision. He does not see any reason to treat the process any differently for this project. Cornish responded that the City’s Environmental Quality Review Ordinance does require that the project be evaluated as a whole, and noted that the FEAF will address many of the questions raised today. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 7 Acharya agreed that environmental review for the Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications should be done together. Schroeder concurred. Acharya noted the procedures dictate that Subdivision and Site Plan Review application processes should be two separate actions. Cornish agreed, but said that does not preclude performing the environmental review portion of those two processes simultaneously. Jones-Rounds expressed sympathy with the neighbors’ concerns, but said she cannot understand how the proposed project would, for example, prevent children from playing in the neighborhood, as had been suggested. She cited the recently-constructed Aurora Pocket Neighborhood as an example of how multiple houses can fit comfortably into a small space. 5. Site Plan Review A. Green Street Garage ― Trash & Recycling, 120 E. Green St. (Green Street Garage), Scott Whitham for David Lubin (City of Ithaca, Owner). Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure / relocate the trash and recycling area, and rearrange existing ground-level parking and vehicular circulation on the ground floor of the City-owned Green Street Garage. The proposal is to relocate the trash and recycling area to the service alley, south of Center Ithaca. Site work will require: demolition of a portion of the loading dock; construction of a new ramp and concrete platform along the south side of the alley; modification of the existing cleanout; and installation of a new access gate, overhead door, and roof canopy over the dock. Rearrangement of the ground floor of the parking garage consists of the following: widening the pedestrian walkway under the garage; refitting the snow storage silo to include materials storage; conversion of the 7 diagonal spaces into a loading zone; the addition of 15 new parking spaces; and creation of a loading zone with 3 spaces. The project is in the CDB-140 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. The project requires approval by the Board Public Works and Common Council. Consultants Noah Demarest and Scott Whitham updated the Board on the project’s current status, noting the site plan has not changed significantly. Demarest stressed the conceptual nature of the trash / recycling portion of the project. Numerous details remain to be worked out between the City and the future manager of that portion of the project. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 8 Schroeder agreed that formal Site Plan Review Approval only concerns the exterior portions of this project (with the open-air western ground-floor portion of the garage being regarded as an exterior area), whereas the proposed new trash and recycling area is interior space enclosed by the garage and therefore not subject to Site Plan Review. He suggested that the minutes state this distinction. Therefore, any potential future changes to the plans for the interior portion of the project (i.e., the new trash and recycling area) will not require review by the Planning Board. Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Joe Wetmore, owner of Autumn Leaves Used Books, remarked that he likes the project in principle, but he is concerned with how the parking situation would ultimately be handled. While parking spaces under the garage are rarely filled to capacity, the loading spaces for the adjacent businesses are actively and regularly used. He is concerned reducing the number of 15-minute parking spaces would only encourage vehicles to obstruct the loading zones and delivery spaces. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project and expediting the approval process as much as possible. Nathan Lyman, Ithaca Renting Company, expressed concern the project would adversely affect businesses with easement rights. Johnathan Jedd, Home Dairy Building, expressed the same concerns as Wetmore (in particular at peak times, during the warmer months). There being no further public comments, on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing. Whitham confirmed the applicant had taken the easement rights of adjoining properties into account. He said such rights would not be impeded in any way, and that vehicular access would be guaranteed to all the surrounding businesses. He said the project would provide three fairly deep loading areas, as well as four loading spaces under the garage itself. He added that while the applicant has proposed 15 new parking spaces along the southern edge of the new sidewalk, there is nothing to preclude the City from designating those for whatever use(s) it believes most appropriate. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 9 Cornish asked how the applicant expected to facilitate ease-of-access during construction. Whitham replied the applicant had already submitted construction plans showing pedestrian routes, and had also brainstormed with its construction team regarding potentially moving some existing City parking spaces to make room for some temporary spaces. He said the City could also choose to designate some of the metered spaces for other purposes. Schroeder brought up the subject of the written comments submitted by Trader K’s (Jay Sciarabba) and asked if the loading zones would be as easily accessible to Trader K’s as to any of the other businesses. Whitham replied, yes. Nicholas observed that Sciarabba appeared to have been commenting more broadly about the Harold’s Square project. Acharya agreed. Chair Acharya permitted Wetmore (one of the Public Hearing speakers) to explain his belief that Sciarabba’s concern might be with the deliveries Trader K receives via large trailers, and specifically with the turning radius in a small space. Whitham responded that the applicant held a number of meetings with Trader K’s and resolved numerous issues, or so he thought. He added he was surprised to receive Sciarabba’s most recent letter. The Board then reviewed the FEAF, Part 3. Schroeder noted the project involves demolition of the existing trash and recycling enclosure, on which public art is located; affected art includes the prominent ceramic “Watershed Wall” mural, which was created as a collaboration between Ithaca schools and the City of Ithaca. He suggested rewording the FEAF, Part 3 to include, as mitigation for the above impact, a requirement that the applicant relocate any public art, including “Watershed Wall,” that is attached to, and hence readily removable from, the existing trash and recycling enclosure to an appropriate location — ideally nearby — approved by the City. No objections were raised. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for changes to the trash, recycling, delivery, and vehicular circulation on the ground level of the Green Street Garage, by Scott Whitham, for David Lubin (City of Ithaca, Owner), and Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 10 WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconfigure / relocate the trash and recycling area, and rearrange existing ground-level parking and vehicular circulation on the ground floor of the City-owned Green Street Garage. The proposal is to relocate the trash and recycling area to the service alley, south of Center Ithaca. Site work will require: demolition of a portion of the loading dock; construction of a new ramp and concrete platform along the south side of the alley; modification of the existing clean-out; and installation of a new access gate, overhead door, and roof canopy over the dock. Re- arrangement of the ground floor of the parking garage consists of the following: widening the pedestrian walkway under the garage; refitting the snow storage silo to include materials storage; conversion of the 7 diagonal spaces into a loading zone; the addition of fifteen new parking spaces; and creation of a loading zone with 3 spaces. The project is in the CDB-140 Zoning District. The project requires approval by the Board of Public Works and Common Council, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works and City of Ithaca Common Council, both potentially involved agencies, have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on January 28, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Harold’s Square Site Demolition Plan (containing plans for: 1. Green Street Garage and 2. East Service Alley)” and “Harold’s Square Site Layout Plan (containing plans for: 1. Green Street Garage and 2. East Service Alley),” both dated 10/1/2013 and “Harold’s Square, Proposal for East Service Alley,” undated, and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that, with the incorporation of the mitigation identified in Part 3 of the FEAF, the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 11 Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for changes to the trash, recycling, delivery, and vehicular circulation on the ground level of the Green Street Garage, by Scott Whitham, for David Lubin (City of Ithaca, Owner), and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconfigure / relocate the trash and recycling area, and rearrange existing ground-level parking and vehicular circulation on the ground floor of the City-owned Green Street Garage. The proposal is to relocate the trash and recycling area to the service alley, south of Center Ithaca. Site work will require: demolition of a portion of the loading dock; construction of a new ramp and concrete platform along the south side of the alley; modification of the existing clean-out; and installation of a new access gate, overhead door, and roof canopy over the dock. Re- arrangement of the ground floor of the parking garage consists of the following: widening the pedestrian walkway under the garage; refitting the snow storage silo to include materials storage; conversion of the 7 diagonal spaces into a loading zone; the addition of fifteen new parking spaces; and creation of a loading zone with 3 spaces. The project is in the CDB-140 Zoning District. The project requires approval by the Board Public Works and Common Council, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works and City of Ithaca Common Council, both potentially involved agencies, have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on January 28, 2014, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 12 WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on January 28, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning Staff; plans entitled “Harold’s Square Site Demolition Plan (containing plans for: 1. Green Street Garage and 2. East Service Alley)” and “Harold’s Square Site Layout Plan (containing plans for: 1. Green Street Garage and 2. East Service Alley),” both dated 10/1/13 and “Harold’s Square, Proposal for East Service Alley,” undated, and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the project requires demolition of the current trash and recycling enclosure, on which public art is located, including the prominent “Watershed Wall” ceramic mural, which (as a plaque explains) was “created as a community collaboration between Ithaca schools and the City of Ithaca,” now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following condition: i. The applicant is required to relocate any public art, including “Watershed Wall,” that is attached to, and hence readily removable from, the current trash and recycling enclosure to an appropriate location — ideally nearby — approved by the City. (This requirement does not apply to public art painted directly on the structural walls of the enclosure itself.), and be it further RESOLVED: that Site Plan Approval does not signify Common Council or Board of Public Works approval of the specific designs, nor does it indicate a commitment of public funds to implement any proposed improvements to City property. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. 212 Hook Place Subdivision – Sketch Plan Nicholas explained that, when the owners approached her several months ago, she noticed the steep slopes associated with the property, and therefore thought it would be helpful for the Planning Board to review the proposal before a formal application had been submitted. Co-owner Jeremy Taylor explained the purpose of the proposed Subdivision, stating that he and his wife longer use the back portion of their property, so they propose subdividing off that area for development or sale. He noted the north end of the property (where the new lot would be) includes a 25-foot strip, for which ownership (either the Taylors or the City) still needs to be determined. This issue, he said, is currently being investigated by Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 13 the City Attorney; the latter’s determination may change the details of the Subdivision application. The Subdivision would provide space for another single-family home, which the City needs and which would also increase the City’s property tax revenue. Taylor noted there is a considerable 25-foot drop-off from the street edge into the lot, but this does not seem to be an insurmountable issue. Schroeder asked if the above slope resulted from fill or represented the original topography. Taylor replied he believes it was probably fill. Schroeder remarked this could be an opportunity for an architecturally spectacular site. He would have no problem approving the Subdivision. Acharya agreed. C. Gannett Student Health Center – Sketch Plan Architect Chiang walked through an overhead slide presentation of the proposed project. She explained that planning has been taking place for many years for a major expansion of the current Gannett, which has outgrown its current space, into a new Gannett Student Health Center. The proposed project would preserve much of the existing building, while increasing the total size of the structure to 96,000 square feet. Consultant Peter Trowbridge said the applicant performed a series of site assessments for the facility (e.g., working with the Ithaca Fire Department and Cornell Transportation to understand how everything currently operates in the building’s vicinity). Pedestrian access to the site was also scrutinized. The applicant appreciates the presence of the major greensward to the north of the site and also examined the context of surrounding buildings, materials, floor plates, etc. The applicant is very interested in maintaining the views from the building and has sought to retain as much of the existing landscape as possible. Chiang noted the northeast corner portion of the existing building (with the current entrance) would be demolished, since it is an inefficient use of space. Schroeder asked if the mural decorating the wall behind the reception area in that location would also be destroyed. Chiang replied she is not sure, as this remains under discussion. Schroeder indicated he hoped this artwork could be salvaged and re-installed, rather than destroyed. Schroeder asked the applicant for a large-scale detail of the shadow box portion of the façade design. He also strongly recommended that the sidewalk and pedestrian scale be emphasized as much as possible along the lower portion of the Campus Road facade, so that pedestrian access here is clearly prioritized. (In the current drawings, for example, the sidewalk does not run continuously through the curb cut leading to the Willard Straight Hall parking lot; this appears to prioritize vehicles over pedestrians.) The trees should also be situated as close to either side of this curb cut as possible. Trowbridge responded there were several concerns about trees obscuring vehicle sightlines here. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 14 Jones-Rounds suggested creating a more prominent pedestrian entrance on this same facade. Blalock strongly encouraged the applicant to invest a great deal of thought into safety and visibility concerning every component of the above intersection. Schroeder asked the applicant for details on the proposed stonework (type of stone and proposed masonry pattern), since that is so contextually important. 6. Old Business A. Proposed Collegetown Zoning — Megan Wilson Wilson summarized the most recent version of the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts zoning amendment, noting the overall intent of the form districts remains the same. The Collegetown Zoning Working Group added provisions to permit rowhouses in the proposed MU-1 district. In the CR-4 zone, it is now proposed that off-street parking requirements be eliminated for any new construction and any buildings brought up to code, provided a Transportation Demand Management plan is accepted by the Planning and Development Board during Site Plan Review. Off-street parking would be eliminated altogether in the MU-1 and MU-2 districts for both existing buildings and new construction. Schroeder remarked the vast majority of the proposal appears excellent; however, he has a few concerns with the maximum allowed building heights in the MU zones, which he will submit directly to working group members. Acharya asked Wilson to address the January 27, 2014 written comments by John Graves, in which he expresses concern that “housing projects that incorporate beneficial or innovative elements may be rejected out-of-hand because of restrictions that go well beyond the already strict City building codes.” Wilson replied the Working Group gave those kinds of concerns a lot of consideration. She noted there is considerably less design regulation in this version of the proposal than in previous versions. Any design-related elements that were removed would be addressed by future design standards, which would be overseen by the Planning Board. Wilson indicated she does not believe the proposal would ultimately make development unduly difficult (and property owners and prospective developers could always apply for Zoning Variances). Schroeder remarked it would actually represent a step forward, in terms of encouraging development, since it makes the entire process far more transparent than it is currently. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 15 Regarding Josh Lower’s January 28, 2014 letter to the Planning Board, Wilson noted she very much appreciates the work Lower did on his analysis supporting his contention that in several cases on Linden Avenue “the CR-4 designation as proposed allows less development than what currently exists on the site, and, for many of the lots, the proposed regulations would allow smaller building footprints than what now exists.” Wilson remarked that the working group reached very different conclusions from Lower’s. While there may be isolated cases where a lot size may be smaller than the minimum lot size, they would be outliers. Furthermore, Wilson concluded, taken as a whole, the proposed zoning changes would only enhance the buildability of some of those sites. Fernández expressed particular concern with the potential for increased stormwater run- off under the proposal. She asked if a special stormwater management plan could be instituted to address that. Cornish replied, yes, although the form districts do include a green space requirement, which did not exist before. Wilson added that in some places the amount of pervious space could actually increase, due to the greenspace requirement. Eliminating off-street parking would probably help as well. Acharya noted that another City working group is exploring the institution of a stormwater initiative that would address that entire issue. Noting the contention regarding some of the statistics underlying the proposal, Randall asked if a synoptic survey had ever been performed (e.g., using measuring wheels and systematically working through a list of existing conditions for each of the proposed zones). Wilson replied, yes, some of that was in fact done. In addition, City Geographic Information Systems staff created models of some of the areas. B. Comprehensive Plan Update: Overview of Draft Land Use Chapter — Megan Wilson Wilson said the Planning Board will receive the Comprehensive Plan’s draft Land Use Chapter, on which the Comprehensive Plan Committee has worked over the past months; it addresses such subjects as aging population, climate change, transportation management, where people live and businesses are located, etc. Committee members developed some general land use goals and examined the City map to determine where they wanted to see various uses. The resulting draft Future Land Use Map shows broadly defined categories of future desired uses, in various categories. Wilson stressed the Future Land Use Map should not be considered a zoning map in any sense. She went on to explain that the entire Comprehensive Plan drafting process is a two-phase process: Phase I, presenting a broad overview of the City as a whole; and Phase II, which will contain more specific recommendations for neighborhoods, including schematic plans. The Committee will review all comments it receives and incorporate them appropriately. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 16 7. New Business A. 2014 Planning Board Training Nicholas noted she would like input on what Planning Board members would like training for, over the next year. Schroeder observed that, since the Planning Board will be called on to approve the Transportation Demand Management plans for the CR-4 Zoning District, it would be useful to develop some expertise on that subject. Nicholas replied there is a fifth Tuesday in April 2014, so she could schedule it then. Jones-Rounds remarked it would be helpful to have some training on how to handle emotional reactions from members of the public. Fernández agreed. Blalock added that the Board could also do a better job of distinguishing those actions the Board can take from those it cannot, and clarify the whole process in general. 8. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2927 ― 119 Stewart Avenue: Area Variance Appeal of John Mercovich for Barbara Dunn, owner of 119 Stewart Avenue for an area variance from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12, Parking, Lot Area, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, and Other Front Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is an existing 5-unit apartment building. A couple of months ago, the applicant was concerned about the legal occupancy limits of the building. In order to answer these questions, City staff needed to review the property file to determine how the occupancy limit changed. During the file review, the results of a BZA hearing for 119 Stewart Avenue, held in 1955, were discovered. Case #496 was a petition of Valdemar Virtanen, the owner, at the time, of 119 Stewart Avenue. Virtanen was seeking to convert the 3-family house at 119 Stewart Avenue to a 4-family house. It was noted the property was deficient in lot size. By 1959, it appears the property was sold to a business named State and Aurora, Inc. The file indicates 119 Stewart Avenue was still three units in 1959; however, by 1963, it appears the business State and Aurora converted the building to 5 dwelling units without a variance being granted first by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The first Certificate of Compliance was issued for the property in 1977 for 5 dwelling units to State and Aurora, then known as RHP Properties. RHP Properties received additional Certificates of Compliance in 1983, 1990, and 1995 for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue. In 1998, 2002, and 2004, Peter Newell, the new owner, was issued a Certificate of Compliance for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue. Around 2004, 119 Stewart Avenue was sold to Barbara Dunn, the current owner. She received Certificates of Compliance for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue in 2008, 2012, and 2013. In all, 10 Certificate of Compliance have been issued over a period of 37 years, verifying the building was legal for 5 apartments. During this time, mortgages were written and taxes paid based on 5 dwelling units being legal at 119 Stewart Avenue. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 17 Based on the number of years the property at 119 Stewart Avenue has been operating as 5 dwelling units, and the enormous financial hardship the owner will suffer if the Board reduces the number of apartments at 119 Stewart Avenue, the applicant is requesting the Board grant a variance for the 2 additional apartments for a total of 5 units at 119 Stewart Avenue. In order for the Board to grant this request, it must also grant area variance for the following deficiencies at 119 Stewart Avenue: 1. Section 325-8, Column 4, Parking. The property at 119 Stewart Avenue has 2 parking spaces; required are 5 spaces. 2. Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area. The property has a lot that is 4,578 SF; required is a 8,500 SF lot. 3. Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage. The property has a 40% lot coverage; allowed is a maximum lot coverage of 35%. 4. Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard. The front yard has a setback of 4.5 feet; required is a setback of 10 feet. 5. Section 325-8, Column 12, Other Front Yard. The second front yard has a setback of 8 feet; required is 10 feet. The property at 119 Stewart Avenue is in a R-3a Use District where the current use is permitted; however, Section 325-39 requires area variances be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance can be issued. Due to the unique circumstances of this appeal, and the fact that the appellant is not at fault, members of the Planning and Development Board have no objection to granting this appeal. 9. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish informed the Board that the Ithaca Commons Repair & Renovation Project Bid Opening took place last week. Since the bid was considerably over-budget, the City is now identifying what components of the project could be eliminated or altered. The project is projected for completion in November 2014. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Acharya reported that BPW had passed the new food truck regulations. Blalock also noted the Planning Board would hold its discussion about linking the Cayuga Waterfront Trail to the Fall Creek Gorge in March 2014. He would also like to have a discussion on the 2009 Joint City-Town Study Group Report: Shared Services & Consolidation. Approved at the February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 18 10. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft November 26, 2013 and December 3, 2013 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 11. Adjournment On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.