Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-02-25Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Planning and Development Board Minutes February 25, 2014 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (arrived 6:16 p.m.); Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall (arrived 6:36 p.m.); 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 Frank Nagy, Director of Parking, Department of Public Works Applicants Attending: 313 Auburn Street Subdivision Susan Mehr, Owner Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3) Culinary Center Andrew Ramsgard, Ramsgard Architectural Design, P.C.; Chris Kozub, Ramsgard Architectural Design, P.C.; Jim Turner, TC3, Director of Facilities Wegmans: New Retail Space (Sketch Plan) Kim Seavert, Wegmans; Nathan E. Buczek, T.Y. Lin International Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas announced that the circulation memorandum regarding the proposed elimination of transition zones had been distributed. She said she would forward any Planning Board comments or recommendations to City staff. The subject was added to the agenda under “New Business.” No other changes were made to the agenda. 1 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 2. Special Order of Business — Frank Nagy, City Parking Director Director of Parking Frank Nagy walked through a summary of his background, experience, accomplishments, goals and overall role in the City. He explained that he had been charged with making parking more financially and operationally sustainable, bringing new technology to the Parking Division, transforming attitudes that parking should be free, and controlling expenses. He said recent City accomplishments and goals include the following: • Established accounting system governing how parking funds are collected. • Instituted controls regarding tickets and revenue loss. • Identified $60,000/month in revenue losses in City garages. • Automated two of the three City garages. • Created new monthly parking rate structure, making it much easier to understand. • Generated an extra $25,000 in revenue from two City garages. • Established goals to: (1) Complete automation process by March 31, 2014. (2) Install pay stations City-wide to replace old coin-operated equipment. (3) Enable receipt of any payment for any parking space in the City over the phone or via other devices. (4) Extend enforcement hours on meters in City lots (to be enforced on Saturdays). (5) Institute new license plate recognition system by February 28, 2014. (6) Add $500,000 to City revenue stream by end of 2014. (7) Raise City garage occupancy rate (currently, only 47 percent). (8) Create parking authority with parking fund for future capital project needs (e.g., Seneca Street Garage only has 12 years of life left). (9) Establish parking ‘storefront’ (to bring off-street, on-street, and residential parking under one roof). (10) Have residential parking system that continues to enable residents to park on their street or an adjacent street, but charges non-residents. (11) Double current $2 million in income to $4 million by 2017, while cutting operational costs in half. 2 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Blalock arrived at 6:16 p.m. Schroeder noted that applicants for various large projects the Board has reviewed have submitted private parking studies, which generally argue a certain point-of-view and which may not be entirely objective. He asked Nagy if he would be willing to perform his own traffic studies for the Board, in some cases. Nagy replied, yes, and that he could also review and comment upon private parking studies. Jones-Rounds noted the Board regularly discusses the merits of eliminating minimum parking requirements. She asked Nagy for his opinion on the subject. Nagy replied that the City needs a genuine residential parking program. Blalock observed that an ongoing debate in the Belle Sherman neighborhood tends to be between people who believe they are entitled to the parking spaces in front of their house and others who argue that those are City spaces. Nagy responded that any resident should have the first option to park (i.e., right-of-first-refusal), as long as they pay for it. Non-residents should not be parking in those spaces. Acharya asked how one would define “non-resident.” Nagy replied that he includes college students in the “resident” definition. Acharya then asked Nagy if he envisions charging the same amount for non-residents and residents alike. Nagy replied, no, parking should be cheaper for tax-paying residents. Schroeder observed that projects in the proposed Collegetown CR-4 Zoning District would no longer have minimum parking requirements, if a transportation demand management plan (TDM) is accepted by the Planning Board during Site Plan Review. He would be interested in seeing TDMs that are fairly substantial (e.g., a developer agreeing to provide TCAT passes, etc.), so that developers still have a responsibility to the City parking system. Acharya noted that establishing a City-wide residential parking permit system may create more problems than it solves. Nagy replied that the issue would definitely need to be examined zone-by-zone. Randall arrived at 6:36 p.m. 3. Privilege of the Floor David Warden, 106 W. York Street, spoke in opposition to the 128 W. Falls Street project, which would be close to his house. He said all the houses in the neighborhood are one-family owner-occupied older homes, with long-term residents, and that the project is simply too big for the site. He said there is also already too much traffic and not enough on-street parking. The project would also remove much-needed green space, he said, adding that the Fall Creek neighborhood is vulnerable to flooding and has experienced major flooding in the past. 3 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Patricia Forton, 106 W. York Street, also spoke in opposition to the 128 W. Falls Street project. She conceded the need for more housing, but said it should be intelligently done. She is concerned the project would be too dense and put too much pressure on the neighborhood, including environmental impacts (e.g., drainage). The removal of green space is also a concern for her. Mihal Ronen, 116 W. Falls Street, also voiced opposition to the same project, urging that the variance be denied. She said the project is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and would be too difficult to fit into the limited space. She would prefer to see a project that is more consistent with its surroundings. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the above project. He said he strongly supports development and increased density. Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, expressed concerns about Zoning Appeal #2928, Area & Parking Variances, Collegetown Terrace Apartments. She said she believes parking is needed there, adding that she is particularly concerned about guest parking for the project. Theresa Lyons, 110 W. Falls Street, spoke in opposition to the 128 W. Falls Street project, noting that the Planning Board has the authority to delay the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) review of the appeal for up to a month, while the Planning Board writes a report. She expressed concern a legal precedent would be set if the variance were approved. Acharya responded that a BZA decision does not establish a legal precedent. Randall added that the New York State Department of State publishes a Guide to Planning and Zoning Laws of New York State, which lays out what the Planning Board and BZA can and cannot do. Josh Lower, 205 College Avenue, expressed concerns about Zoning Appeal #2928, Area & Parking Variances, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, remarking that the BZA denied his own Zoning Appeal for his Collegetown Crossing project when he was seeking relief from the minimum parking requirements. The Collegetown Terrace Apartments appeal is for a similarly-sized variance request. He urged the Board to ask Common Council to change the minimum parking requirements on a City-wide basis. Charleen Heidt, 107 W. Falls Street, spoke in opposition to the 128 W. Falls Street project, referring the Board to a petition opposing the project, signed by 44 local residents. Laurie Damiani, 108 W. Falls Street, spoke against this same project, expressing agreement with the other commenters opposing the project. She said she is concerned the developer’s profit motive is making the project unnecessarily large and intrusive. 4 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 4. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 313 Auburn Street (Tax Parcel #27.-1-15), Susan Mehr, Applicant & Owner. Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,329 SF with 41 feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single- family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,621 SF with 28 feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a single- or two-family dwelling, a minimum street frontage of 35 feet, maximum lot coverage of 35%, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property in order to build a new single-family home, which she intends to occupy. Area variances are required for existing and new deficiencies and Limited Site Plan Review will be required for the new single-family home. 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. Applicant Susan Mehr summarized the salient details of the proposed Subdivision. Nicholas noted a new Subdivision drawing was submitted, reflecting the required fire separation. Cornish added that the project will require a Zoning Variance for each lot Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: 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 #27.-1-15, by Susan Mehr, owner and applicant, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,329 SF with 41’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,621 SF with 28’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a single- or two-family dwelling, a minimum street frontage of 35 feet, maximum lot coverage of 35%, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property in order to build a new single-family home, which she intends to occupy. Area variances are required for existing and new deficiencies, and a Limited Site Plan Review will be required for the new single-family home, 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 5 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #27.-1-15, by Susan Mehr, owner and applicant. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: 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 #27.-1-15, by Susan Mehr, owner and applicant, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,329 SF with 41’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,621 SF with 28’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in the R-2b Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a single- or two-family dwelling, a minimum street frontage of 35 feet, maximum lot coverage of 35%, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 35’, 10’, and 25% or 50’, respectively. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property in order to build a new single-family home, which she intends to occupy. Area variances are required for existing and new deficiencies, and a Limited Site Plan Review will be required for the new single-family home, 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: this is considered 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 6 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, has on February 25, 2014 declared itself the Lead Agency for the action, 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 all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 25, 2014 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled “Sketch Survey Map with proposed subdivision and setbacks based on Survey Map for 313 Auburn Street, Ithaca, NY, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., March 5, 2006, certified June 1, 2009,” prepared by applicant and undated; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require area variances for relief from the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed subdivision 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 Schroeder observed the north façade design of the proposed new house appears too austere. He suggested Planning Division staff work with the applicant to further develop it. Fernández added it would also be good to see the addition of a front porch. Mehr agreed. 5. Site Plan Review A. Holiday Inn Express ― 4-Story Hotel, 371 Elmira Road, Optima Design for Ithaca Hotels, LLC. Discussion Only. The applicant has made numerous revisions to the previous submission. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with approximately 76 rooms and a porous parking area with 76 spaces. The 1.58-acre project site contains two contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting Elmira Road, and an auto-body shop in the rear with access from Spencer Road and large paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition 7 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting of both buildings and the removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site improvements include retaining walls, a privacy fence, a water feature, walkways, landscaping, lighting, a new sidewalk on Spencer Road and bike racks. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Parcel consolidation will be required. Acharya said he discussed the project with Planning Division staff. Since the applicant did not appear in person at the November 2013 Planning Board meeting, it was agreed that further consideration of the project should be deferred a month, when the applicant can appear in person. Cornish noted the Site Plan Review Ordinance also requires it. Schroeder said he was happy the applicant will provide steps down from Spencer Road; however, the sidewalk at the base of these stairs, as shown on the revised drawings, would terminate at a parking space. He said the sidewalk should instead terminate away from any parking space, so that pedestrians walking down from Spencer Road can easily enter the site. In addition, he said, any rooftop mechanicals should either be screened or incorporated into the building. Schroeder also noted that the City Transportation Engineer has suggested that it might be necessary to remove some or all of the proposed new street trees along Elmira Road, which would be regrettable. He said the applicant should mitigate any loss of those street trees by adding tall trees in the lawn area adjacent to the recessed portion of the hotel’s Elmira Road frontage. Elliott observed that the façade materials do not appear very substantial and look somewhat ‘cheap.’ He asked if there were any objections to asking the applicant to improve the quality of the façade materials. There were no objections. Schroeder noted the applicant should present its building materials at the next meeting. B. Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3) Culinary Center ― Coltivare, Cayuga Street (bottom floor of Cayuga Street Garage), TC3, Applicant. Approval of Exterior Modifications. The project will consist of renovating 17,000 SF of space located on the first floor of the Cayuga Street parking structure. The space will be occupied by a culinary art institute with an 80-seat restaurant (Coltivare), multi-use space supporting academic programs, and a large cooking lab and smart classroom dedicated to the educational program. The project includes exterior façade work for signage and reworking of existing awnings, and lighting. Approval of the Cayuga Street Garage was originally granted on February 18, 2003, subject to the condition that all exterior lighting and signage be approved by the Board before installation. Architects Andrew Ramsgard and Chris Kozub introduced the Board to the proposed exterior modifications. Ramsgard highlighted the following changes that would be made to the exterior of the garage: 8 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting • Entry locations will be moved (e.g., the main entry will be relocated further north on Cayuga Street). The latter location will function better in terms of its relationship to the rest of the project (e.g., separating the reception area and restaurant). A fire exit would be added to east side of the garage, off the existing fire staircase. • Awnings along the façade would be replaced with canopies matching existing canopies, to make the frontage of the whole project appear consistent. • Exhaust ducts would be added along Clinton Street side and make-up air extracted from the easement area for the new building (Cayuga Green II) to be constructed adjacent to the Six Mile Creek Walk. Schroeder asked if there would be any fan noise from the latter. Ramsgard replied, yes, on the Clinton Street side (elevated 10 feet as required by Code). Schroeder asked if there were a way to muffle the noise. Ramsgard replied the duct would be behind louvers; however, he cannot promise it would be inaudible. That is the only logical place to situate it. He emphasized there would be variable-speed fans, only operating as needed. Elliott observed the applicant appears to be measuring the air intake from the bottom of the stair tower, which would not ensure air quality, since the air would be coming in near a street. Turner responded that he believes only 18 inches is required from ground-level for air-intake. Kozub indicated they would explore the issue further. Elliott asked the applicant for decibel rating(s) for the proposed exhaust/intake fans. He suggested the applicant explore some acoustic abatement measures (e.g., not all the exhaust air needs to be discharged). Ramsgard reiterated the fans would be variable- speed fans, which include some energy-recovery units. Jones-Rounds agreed with Elliott that the exhaust height should be increased. Schroeder observed that, per the drawings, the exhaust height would not be 10 feet along the portion of the Cayuga Street sidewalk rising towards the bridge. At the latter sidewalk location, the moving exhaust air would be very close to pedestrian head-level. Elliott expressed concern with the neon-lit signs; the project seems ‘over-signed.’ Cornish indicated the signs would be evaluated according to City Code. Ramsgard noted the signs would come just under the 400 square feet permitted. Fernández agreed with Elliott that the number of signs seems excessive; she also suggested the smaller of the two Coltivare signs be placed at eye-level. She cautioned the applicant to avoid lime-green lighting and overall light contamination. She is also concerned with the exhaust issue (e.g., decibel level, associated odors, etc.). It was suggested that, instead of some of the repetitive signs, there could be seasonal banners or flags without text. Elliott suggested having the lights shine down. Kozub replied, yes, the lights would be dimmable and focused downward. 9 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder suggested making the windows fronting Cayuga Street from the non-restaurant portions of the project intriguing to passersby (i.e., don’t just block these windows off; rather, use displays or other means of attracting pedestrian interest.) Jones-Rounds asked about the purple backlighting depicted on one rendering. Ramsgard responded the only non-signage illumination would come from the canopies along the facade above the doors. Fernández asked the applicant to correct the drawings to reflect the actual appearance of the building. She would also prefer not to see the lime-green light above every single canopy. Blalock suggested adding a small placard to showcase the educational mission of the project. Ramsgard responded the applicant has been developing a plan to showcase the educational mission in the interior design. Blalock suggested some other, more visible indicator of the educational mission, encouraging people to walk into the facility. Elliott suggested designing a motif around the ‘three Cs’ ― there is a nice visual logic to the three Cs in “TC3” and those in “Coltivare Culinary Center.” On the south façade, there is even another indentation in the brick, which would be an ideal place to insert that kind of motif. He noted the main signage within the brick indentation on the Cayuga Street side could play off this other signage on the Clinton Street side. Ramsgard replied that is a great idea. Acharya noted he is hearing there may be some opposition to the Board’s taking action on the project at this meeting. Jones-Rounds replied she would be willing to approve the project, on the condition the applicant submit revised drawings. Ramsgard responded he would submit revised drawings and any other documents to the Board, including: • Locations of the two signs, with notations on the elevations clearly identifying them. • Illustration of the unlit seasonal flags with all text removed. • Notations identifying precisely where LED lighting profiling would be situated on the canopies. • Specifications for ventilation/exhaust units, including decibel level(s). Schroeder suggested making the LED lighting a subtler, softer glow than what is depicted on the renderings. 10 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Fernández reiterated she thinks the green LED lights should only be above the entryways, rather than on every single canopy. And she would like a revised and accurate set of renderings (e.g., that do not show the purple lighting), representing what the Planning Board would be approving today. Adopted Resolution for Approval of Exterior Modifications: On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Fernández: RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Approval of Exterior Modifications for the proposed Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3) Culinary Center ― Coltivare, located on Cayuga Street (bottom floor of Cayuga Street Garage), subject to the following condition: i. Submission to the Planning and Development Board of additional information and revised drawings, including: • Revised elevations showing the final locations and appearance of all proposed signage, and showing the exact location of all proposed LED lighting, and • Revised rendering(s) accurately depicting the proposed physical appearance of the project, (a) with seasonal banners or flags (devoid of text) replacing repetitive signage and (b) without lighting effects that are not actually planned, and • Specifications for the ventilation / exhaust units, including decibel levels. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Wegmans: New Retail Space – Sketch Plan Applicants Kim Seavert and Nathan E. Buczek walked through the purpose of the proposed project. They are seeking approval of a new 16,000-SF retail building, on a site currently occupied by a lawn area. A similar project was originally approved in 1999 for the site, but was never built. Since then, Wegmans has reduced the amount of proposed parking and returned with a new site plan. It would most likely include some shared parking on the site, as well as bike racks. Elliott asked how Wegmans would handle conversion of the former parking area back into greenspace (i.e., remediating the soil, especially since it is so close to a waterway). Seavert replied, yes, the applicant would remediate the soil. Buczek added that they had already communicated with City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson about the project. 11 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Jones-Rounds asked if the applicant ever considered using the underutilized parking lot (also owned by Wegmans, and fronting Elmira Road east of the currently proposed building site) for the project instead. Seavert replied, yes, they explored that, but management prefers the currently proposed location, since it is visible from Wegmans and aligns with it. Jones-Rounds noted she appreciates that, but the trade-off is that so much visibility from the highway is lost. Elliott added that using this underutilized parking lot would also provide some additional Route 13 building edge, which is currently sorely lacking, thereby improving the streetscape. Jones-Rounds added that this location would also be much more pedestrian friendly. Schroeder strongly agreed with the suggestion. Acharya also agreed, adding it would only be to Wegmans’ benefit to have the proposed building face Route 13. Fernández agreed, adding there would be significant flood mitigation benefits to leaving management’s proposed building site as green space. Seavert responded that Cornish and Nicholas both proposed a similar alternative to her, which she communicated to management; however, management was determined to proceed with the current proposal, partly because of its concerns with having adequate truck-turning space. She indicated she would communicate the Board’s comments to her management team. Elliott asked what the proposed building would contain. Seavert replied that has not been determined yet. It would be a tenant of some kind (ideally, with a complementary use). Schroeder remarked that the front gabled projections on the building are a welcoming architectural form, but this effect is negated by the top “story” of these projections being solid wall, without window openings. He added that the current design represents two entirely different architectural styles, with most of the rest of the building being a standard, featureless box. 6. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2928 ― Collegetown Terrace Apartments, 112, 113, 120 Valentine Place: Area & Parking Variances Appeal of Valentine Associates, LLC for area variances from Section 325-8 Column 4, parking and 325-8, Column 6, lot area, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed are changes to the number and types of living spaces and units in Building 7, 120 Valentine Place, the final building to be constructed for the Collegetown Terrace project approved in phases by the Planning Board under the Site Development Plan Review Process concluded in 2011. The applicant believes that there are approximately 100 more parking spaces than are needed for the entire project and as a result, wishes to decrease the amount of underground parking in Building 7 so that the 80 additional single rooms for rent can be 12 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting constructed. With these additional rooms, the parking requirement for the entire project increases to 703 parking spaces. The applicant wants to provide 652 spaces for the project, a deficiency of 51 spaces. The proposed additional single rooms for rent also increases the required amount of square feet needed for lot size. Because the parcel where Building 7 is located has been subdivided and is now in Lot 3b, the 80 single rooms will cause a lot deficiency both for Parcel 3b and for the entire project. The 33,516 SF lot deficiency represents 8.3% of the lot requirement for parcel 3b. For the entire parcel, the lot deficiency is 17,349 SF or 2.4% of the total lot area requirement. The Collegetown Terrace Project consists of new and existing residential rental buildings targeted for graduate students. It is located on contiguous parcels totaling approximately 16.3 acres south of East State Street between South Quarry and Valentine Place. The Planning Board considers the project as a single unified residential complex. In addition to the three buildings, Quarry Arms, the Boiler Works, and Casa Roma, that existed prior to the most recent construction work, the project consists of twelve new buildings plus refurbishing and building an addition to 911 East State Street. At this time, eight new buildings that face South Quarry Street and East State Street and 911 East State Street have been finished and are occupied. Two larger buildings at 112 and 113 East Valentine are currently under construction and Building 7, at 120 Valentine Place, is in the design stage. Proposed Parking Deficiency The original project proposed a total of 1177 beds for the entire complex. The number of persons or dwelling units required 694 parking spaces under the Zoning requirements, although the approved plans for the project provided 699 spaces. Despite Zoning’s parking requirement for this entire project, the owner has found that only 50% of the tenants need parking. This would put the amount of needed spaces to a total of 589 parking spaces when the project is completed and means about 100 spaces will not be used. The applicant is proposing to use some of the area in Building 7 that was intended for parking to be used instead for the construction of 80 rooms that will provide sleeping accommodations. Each of these rooms will have its own full bath and the occupants will have access to shared cooking facilities, laundries, and work out rooms. In addition, this proposal increases the availability of less expensive living quarters. The applicant contends that the proposed rent for these rooms will be one half to two-thirds the cost of a typical studio or one bedroom in the new buildings that make up Collegetown Terrace. The redesign of Building 7 will also alter the mix of full apartments by reducing the number of two bedroom apartments in favor of three-bedroom apartments. The resulting recalculated overall project parking requirement, including the parking for the required new rooms is 703 spaces. The applicant is requesting to provide only 652 spaces, a deficiency of 51 spaces. Even with this reduction, the applicant believes the project will still have an additional 50 parking spaces for renters and their guests. Lot Area Deficiencies The R-3a zone requirements applicable to Building 7 requires a minimum of 6,000 SF for a building up to 3 units plus 750 SF for each additional dwelling unit and 500 SF for each dorm room. The conversion of a portion of the parking space in Building 7 to residential use 13 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting increases the lot area required. In addition, a portion of Building 7 is subject to additional area increases as specified under the Zoning Ordinance Section 325-9B(1) because this portion abuts an R-1 use district. The minimum lot size for Lot 3b is 405,301 SF and the total lot area for Lot 3b is 371,784 SF. The minimum lot size for the entire project is 727,551 SF and the total lot area is 710,202 SF. The proposed reconfiguration of Building 7 which allows for 80 additional rooms for rent is a lot deficiency of 33,516 SF or 9% of the lot area requirement of Lot 3b, and a deficiency for the whole project of 17,349 SF or 2.5% of the lot area requirement for the project. Collegetown Terrace and particularly Building 7, located at 120 East Valentine Place, are in the P-1 and R-3a use district where the proposed rooms for rent are a permitted use. However, Section 325-38 and 325-39 require that area variances must be granted before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Members of the Planning Board recommend approval of this variance for the following reasons: • The proposal is consistent with the environmental review that was completed on 11-01-10. • There will be no change to the footprint or massing of the building. • The change allows the owner to incorporate units with lower rents into the project. • The applicant is required to get Board approval for the revised elevations. • The Planning Board continues to support the elimination of rigid, mandatory minimum off-street parking requirements throughout the City.   Appeal #2929 — 201 Grandview Avenue: Area Variance Appeal of Sybil Conrad for area variances form 325-8 Column 6, lot area, Column11, front yard, and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant recently decided to construct a new garage with a dwelling unit on the second floor as an additional method for generating income to pay bills. Plans were drawn by an Architect and the building permit was issued. Unfortunately, the Inspector reviewing the construction plans and carrying out the required building inspections made mistakes in his plan review. Because the garage and apartment are in a separate building from the single family home on the lot of 201 Grandview Avenue, the garage and apartment are considered a second primary use on the lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8 B (1) states that the lot area requirements for residential uses apply to only one primary use. An additional primary use doubles the requirement listed. The lot at 201 Grandview Avenue requires 5,000 SF for each single family or two family unit on the lot. Two individual single family buildings on the lot require twice the square footage or 10,000 SF. The lot size at 201 Grandview is 9,976 SF and deficient by 24 feet from meeting the lot size for two-single family uses. During the plan review of the permit, the Inspector also missed checking the depth of the rear yard. The requirement for the rear yard at 201 Grandview Avenue is a minimum of 20 feet. As shown in the building plans, for the garage and dwelling unit and as constructed, the rear yard is now only 17.5 feet; a deficiency of 2.5 feet. Finally there is an existing front yard deficiency on the property at 201 Grandview Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The front yard has a setback of 21’-9” and is deficient by 3’-3”. 14 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting The property at located at 201 Grandview Avenue is in an R2a zoning district where the single family home and the garage/apartment are permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued for the garage and dwelling unit until a variance is granted by the BZA. The Planning Board supports the granting of this appeal. Appeal #2931 ― 313 Auburn Street: Area Variance Appeal of Susan Mehr, owner of 313 Auburn Street for variances from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 11, front yard and Column 12, side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, the proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard for 313 Auburn Street is 10 feet and the proposed side yard will be 3 feet, which is a deficiency of 7 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency and is deficient in the required parking spaces. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. The property has no parking provided, 2 spaces are required. The property at 313 Auburn Street is located in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the front yard and the side yard deficiencies at 313 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal. The proposed single family home maintains the essential character of the urban context. Appeal #2932 ― 317 Auburn Street: Area Variance Appeal of Susan Mehr, owner of 313 Auburn Street for variances from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 7, lot width, Column 11, front yard, and Column 12 side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, the applicant proposes that the new lot, addressed 317 Auburn Street, have a street width of 30’-7”. The Zoning Ordinance requires a street width of 35 feet. The street width at 313 Auburn Street will be 39’-10”. The proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard is 10 feet for both properties. At 313 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 3 feet, which is a deficiency of 7 feet. At 317 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 7 feet, a side yard deficiency of 3 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. The applicant proposes to site the new house at 317 Auburn Street so that it also has a front yard setback of 5 feet. The applicant believes that a 5-foot front yard setback is more characteristic of the neighborhood than a 10-foot setback. The sub-divided parcel at 317 Auburn Street has no parking proposed, 1 space is required. The property at 317 Auburn Street is in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the street width, front yard, and the side yard deficiencies at 317 Auburn 15 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal. The proposed single family home maintains the essential character of the urban context.   Appeal #2933 — 128 West Falls Street: Area Variance Appeal of Lawrence Fabbroni for the owner, Heritage Park Town Houses, Inc. for an area variance for 128 West Falls Street from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard setback, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located at 128 West Falls Street is in a R2b zoning district. The applicant wants to subdivide the property at 128 West Falls Street into several new buildable lots. However, the only building currently located at 128 West Falls Street has a front yard deficiency of 4.8 feet. It has a front yard setback of 5.2 feet where a 10-foot front yard setback is required. General Municipal Law Article 3, Section 33, states that a subdivided plat must comply with a Municipality’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, compliance can be achieved if the BZA grants this variance for the front yard deficiency. The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal as it is a small existing deficiency that has existed for over 50 years. The Board looks forward to reviewing the larger project during site plan and subdivision review. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Elimination of Transition Zones When Zoning District Lines Bisect Lots Cornish remarked that currently in the Zoning Ordinance a building located on a lot with a zoning district line running through it can follow the zoning requirements of the less restrictive zone for 30 feet into the more restrictive zone. This allowance is eroding residential neighborhoods (e.g., between Elmira Road and Spencer Road, commercial projects have been allowed to go 30 feet into the residential zone). City staff has thought for many years this should be corrected. The current proposal would fix this situation City-wide. It was noted that the Planning Board had previously requested Common Council to make this change. It was suggested, therefore, that the Board’s support for this proposal be reiterated at the next Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting. 16 Approved at the March 25, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Ithaca Commons Repair & Renovation Project Cornish reported that City staff is exploring value-engineering options to cut costs and identify substitutes for the most expensive features (e.g., granite pavers) of the project. She will continue to regularly send updated information to the Board for its consideration. Comprehensive Plan ― Land Use Map & Chapter Cornish reported that the Future Land Use Map & Land Use Narrative will be released next week and circulated to the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), Natural Areas Commission (NAC), Common Council, and appropriate City staff. The subject can also be placed on the March 2014 Board meeting agenda for discussion. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Acharya reported that BPW is exploring abandoning the odd-even parking system (probably adopting a once-a-week system where one would have to move one’s vehicle once a week). BPW is also exploring eliminating the need to turn in trash tags after a certain amount of time, as well as increasing the snow removal penalty fee (which is only $50, now). 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, the revised draft January 28, 2014 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 9. Adjournment On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. 17