Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-03-25Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Planning and Development Board Minutes March 25, 2014 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (arrived 6:08 p.m.); 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; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Jeanne Grace, City Forester Guest: Nina Bassuk, Shade Tree Advisory Committee Applicants Attending: 313 Auburn Street Subdivision John Tomkiewicz, Owner’s Representative Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road Andrew Terragnoli, Optima Design & Engineering, PLLC; Jeff Hazel, Silvestri Architects 735 & 740 S. Meadow Square ― Addition of Parking & Landscaping Matthew Oates, Ithaca Development Associates, LLC (Benderson) Ridgewood Road Apartments Steve Bus, CA Ventures, LLC; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch Architects; Eric Haggstrom, Shepley Bulfinch Architects; Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP; Rebecca Hoffman, Phillips Lytle, LLP; David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E. Seneca Way Apartments Aaron Baker, Ithaca Sign Works Bryan Warren, Developer 1 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Acharya announced that proposed signage for the 140 Seneca Way project would also be reviewed by the Board, in accordance with the conditions of the October 25, 2011 Site Plan Approval. No other changes were suggested to the agenda. 2. Special Order of Business — Jeanne Grace, City Forester and Nina Bassuk, Shade Tree Advisory Committee City Forester Jeanne Grace and Nina Bassuk of STAC briefly walked through Ithaca’s Trees: Master Plan, Inventory, & Arboricultural Guidelines for the Public Trees of the City of Ithaca, New York, noting that it has been updated over the years and recently overhauled. The plan comprises three parts: (1) vision and goals; (2) arboricultural policies and guidelines for planting and maintenance; and (3) tree inventories. They said it is highly technical, and that STAC hopes it will become part of the guidelines for City projects, as well as projects reviewed by the Planning Board and staff. Bassuk noted the guidelines include specifications for such things as nursery stock, planting sources, trees surrounded by pavement, minimum spacing for trees, and so on. (Blalock arrived at 6:08 p.m.) Grace noted it would be particularly important for the document to be used by the Planning Board, since it oversees so much new development. Cornish agreed it will be very helpful, especially for staff, which holds the initial conversations with applicants. Schroeder observed that the City Forester has in the past frequently recommended soil remediation under certain conditions ― however, he believes this should be a standard requirement without needing to be specifically flagged as a Site Plan Review condition. He suggested including this provision in initial materials provided to Site Plan Review applicants. Cornish noted that one added complication is on-site enforcement of soil remediation requirements. Grace agreed, noting that many times such things do not end up actually being done. She added that the master plan also contains tree protection specifications (e.g., standards for protection around trees that are not to be moved during construction). Archarya observed that the completion of the updated document comes at a good time, as it coincides with the introduction of the 2014 Sidewalk Improvement District Work Plan. 2 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 3. Privilege of the Floor Charleen Heidt, 107 W. Falls Street, spoke against the 128 W. Falls Street project. She called the Board’s attention to a petition of 1,153 community members opposing the project. Kathy Bartell, 102 W. Falls Street, spoke in opposition to the same project, noting she also supported the petition. Much of feedback associated with the petition asks about the City’s general plans for development and heightened density in the Fall Creek area. There seems to be pressure to significantly increase density without any kind of defined plan. Acharya explained that the City Zoning Code in fact does specify in detail what is and is not possible for every part of the City, limiting the rights of people to build certain kinds of structures in a given area. He said it is not the case that there is no zoning or plan in place for the Fall Creek area. Blalock added that he read a considerable number of petitioner comments, which appeared to assume the project had already been approved, which is entirely false. Jason Bartell, 102 W. Falls Street, also spoke in opposition to the above project, noting that it represents a larger issue than just W. Falls Street. He said that while zoning regulations may be in force, some community members are concerned with a perceived a lack of transparency, as many developments seem to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, without any regard to how they impact neighborhoods. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the 128 W. Falls Street project, cautioning the Planning Board that it should brace itself for considerable opposition to the project. He remarked that no one in Ithaca wants to see any kind of change, adding that Ithaca has earned an unfortunate reputation as a CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) community. Laurie Damiani, 108 W. Falls Street, expressed opposition to the same project, stating that 411 E. Lincoln Street is an example of a tall building that should not be permitted. She said any new development should be compatible with the character of the existing homes in that neighborhood and not negatively impact people. (Note: Another segment of Privilege of the Floor was held later in the meeting for the Ridgewood Road Apartments project.) 4. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 313 Auburn Street (Tax Parcel #27.-1-15), Susan Mehr, Owner. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 0.206-acre (8,950 SF) tax parcel into 2 lots: Parcel A, measuring 5,336 SF with 41 feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,614 SF with 28 feet of frontage on Auburn Street. The parcel is in 3 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 have been granted 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. Owner’s representative John Tomkiewicz summarized the proposed Subdivision. Jones-Rounds asked if the forthcoming Site Plan Review application would simply be reviewed at staff level, since it is single-family home. Cornish replied, yes. Nicholas noted the owner addressed the concerns raised previously regarding the north elevation and front porch, and said she will send the revised plans to Planning Board members. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder: 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 5,336 SF with 41’ feet of frontage on Auburn Street and containing an existing single-family home; and Parcel B, measuring 3,614 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, 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 have been granted for existing and new deficiencies; and 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 4 Approved at the April 22, 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: legal notice was published and 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: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on February 25, 2014, 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 did on February 25, 2014 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates the applicant received the required 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 does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed minor subdivision of 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 5. Site Plan Review A. Holiday Inn Express ― 4-Story Hotel, 371 Elmira Road, Optima Design for Ithaca Hotels, LLC. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant has made numerous revisions to 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 5 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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 of both buildings and the removal of approximately 0.25 acres of vegetation. Site improvements include retaining walls, a privacy fence, a water feature, 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 both 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.  Applicants Andrew Terragnoli and Jeff Hazel updated the Board on the project’s current status, noting they have been working with different City departments to modify the plans to meet City requirements. They presented updated project renderings, responding to all the received comments. They still expect feedback from some City staff and anticipate being able to accommodate those comments as well. The applicants also presented the Board with some proposed building material colors, textures and physical samples. Schroeder noted he agrees with County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx that the Southwest Area Design Guidelines should be followed along Elmira Road with respect to 10-foot tree lawns and new sidewalks linking smoothly into existing ones, to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort. Doing so would require modifying the site plan for this project to include such a minimum 10-foot Elmira Road tree lawn. He noted the standard Planning Board requirement is an 8-foot tree lawn. He added that since there are no parked cars along Elmira Road to protect and distance pedestrians from moving traffic, the c. 5-foot tree lawn shown on the current project drawings would place pedestrians too close to this moving traffic. Schroeder noted City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue also raised the issue of sight lines, which will need to be resolved so the street trees can be correctly situated. Jones-Rounds expressed confusion at the seemingly opposing viewpoints of the City Transportation Engineer and County Planning Commissioner regarding the sidewalks. She asked if the Transportation Engineer’s comments carry more weight than the Planning Commissioner’s. Cornish replied, no. Jones-Rounds indicated, in that case, she agrees with Schroeder. Nicholas explained the City Transportation Engineer either wants the sidewalk to be on City property, or for the applicant to grant the City a permanent easement on the portion of the sidewalk that would be located on private property. Schroeder observed it appears the Elmira Road right-of-way line extends straight up and down from this project’s Elmira Road property line, in which case the sidewalks to the north and south of this project site are already on private property. He said a safe and comfortable pedestrian infrastructure should take precedence over necessarily having the sidewalk on City property, since a permanent easement for a sidewalk located on private property would still give the City all the rights it requires. Terragnoli responded he would be pleased to handle it however the Planning Board would like, as long as everyone is in agreement. 6 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Fernández noted the trees should remain where they are and the sidewalk should align with the existing sidewalks along the road. Elliott replied it looks like that would change the building footprint. Fernández responded it would only push the plantings back 5 feet. Nicholas asked the applicant if he is authorized to speak on behalf of the owner regarding the easement. Terragnoli replied, yes. He would just be concerned with changing the building footprint, given the setback requirement. Hazel added it would be very difficult to change this footprint without losing guest rooms. Schroeder said that if the sidewalk were located one foot away from the side of the building, on the portion of the building closest to street, it appears from the drawings that there would then be room for at least an 8-foot tree lawn. He emphasized that there would be no need to change the building footprint to accomplish this. Elliott asked if the applicant could treat the façade near the sidewalk with more detail. In other words, rather than having a blank wall, it could be humanized in some way with some additional details, recesses, plantings, etc., to give pedestrians something to look at. Terragnoli asked for clarification on the absolute minimum distance to which the Board would be willing to agree for setting back the sidewalk from the curb. Schroeder replied, the 5-foot wide sidewalk should be 1 foot away from the portion of the building closest to Elmira Road; judging from the drawings, this would allow at least an 8-foot-wide (and perhaps somewhat wider) tree lawn. Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project, saying it is an attractive building and the City needs more hotels. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones- Rounds, 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: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a 4-story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with approximately 76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.58-acre project site contains two contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting Elmira Road, an auto-body shop in the rear with access from Spencer Road, and large paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition of both buildings and 7 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 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. Parcel consolidation will be required, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, 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 Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on March 25, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Site Plan Layout (C-1.0),” “Dimensional Site Plan (C-1.1),” “Site Details (C-1.2 to C-1.7),” “Water Feature Details (C1.8 to C1.10),” “Site Grading Plan (C-2.0),” “Site Drainage Plan (C2.1),” “Drainage Details (C2.2 to C 2.4),” “Site Utility Plan (C 3.0),” “Utility Details (C 3.1 & 3.2),” “Site Landscape Plan (C4.0),” “Landscape Details (C4.1),” “Site Demolition Plan (C 5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C5.1),” and “Erosion Control Details (C5.2),” all dated 10/15/13, with a revision date of 2/21/14, and prepared by Optima Design and Engineering, PLLC, and “Exterior Elevations (A-201 & 202),” dated 2/17/14, plus undated color renderings and drawings titled “Colored Elevations” and “Exterior Materials” (i.e., materials board), and prepared by Silvestri Architects, P.C.; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General Municipal Law §239 review comments, recommended this project be modified to provide a ten-foot tree lawn adjacent to the existing Elmira Road street curb, and the Planning Board responded by requiring the applicant to move the proposed rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the portion of the building footprint that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a significantly wider tree lawn, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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 8 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a 4-story hotel to be located at 371 Elmira Road, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 11,769-SF hotel with approximately 76 rooms and 76 parking spaces. The 1.58-acre project site contains two contiguous tax parcels, containing a +/-7,500-SF commercial office building fronting Elmira Road, an auto-body shop in the rear with access from Spencer Road, and large paved parking areas. Project development will require demolition of both buildings and 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. Parcel consolidation will be required, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 26, 2013 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, 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 March 25, 2014, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on March 25, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Site Plan Layout (C-1.0),” “Dimensional Site Plan (C-1.1),” “Site Details (C-1.2 to C-1.7),” “Water Feature Details (C1.8 to C1.10),” “Site Grading Plan (C-2.0),” “Site Drainage Plan (C2.1),” “Drainage Details (C2.2 to C 2.4),” “Site Utility Plan (C 3.0),” “Utility Details (C 3.1 & 3.2),” “Site Landscape Plan (C4.0),” “Landscape Details (C4.1),” “Site Demolition Plan (C 5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C5.1),” and “Erosion Control Details (C5.2),” all dated 10/15/13, with a revision date of 2/21/14, and prepared by Optima Design and Engineering, PLLC; and “Exterior Elevations (A-201 & 202),” dated 2/17/14, plus undated color renderings and drawings titled “Colored Elevations” and “Exterior Materials” (i.e., materials board), and prepared by Silvestri Architects, P.C.; and other application materials, 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 9 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in N.Y.S. General Municipal Law §239 review comments, recommended that this project be modified to provide a ten-foot tree lawn adjacent to the existing Elmira Road street curb, and the Planning Board responded by requiring the applicant to move the proposed rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the portion of the building footprint that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a significantly wider tree lawn and smooth connections to the existing Elmira Road sidewalks on the adjacent properties, and WHEREAS: on March 25, 2014, the Planning and Development Board determined the proposed project would result in no significant impact on the environment, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed project subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including signage, lighting, landscape stairs and railing, retaining wall materials and paving materials, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of revised site plan showing sidewalk at base of stairs that descend from Spencer Road ending at internal parking lot area (rather than at parking space), and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of revised drawings showing (1) final placement of the Elmira Road street trees and (2) realignment of the proposed rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk away from the curb, to one foot away from the portion of the building footprint that is closest to this curb, in order to provide a significantly wider tree lawn and smooth connections to the existing Elmira Road sidewalks on the adjacent properties, and iv. Submission to the Planning Board of revised elevations showing location and proposed treatment of all exterior utilities, and v. Submission to the Planning Board of a rooftop plan showing any proposed mechanicals, and — if these would be visible from the street — drawing(s) showing either architectural integration of said mechanicals into the building or screening of them from public view, and vi. Submission of documentation that the two original parcels have been consolidated to one parcel, and vii. Submission of documentation that an easement has been provided to the City for all portions of the rebuilt Elmira Road sidewalk located on applicant’s property, and 10 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting viii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Elliott suggested the Board may want to be more proactive about the tree requirements for the project, given the City Forester’s earlier comments. Jones-Rounds noted the Board could just ask the applicant to give special consideration to the Master Plan. B. Modified Site Plan Review ― Addition of Parking & Landscaping, 736 & 740 S. Meadow Square, James Boglioli for Ithaca Development Associates, LLC (Benderson), Public Hearing & Modified Site Plan Approval. The applicant is requesting changes to the site plan approved in 2009. The modifications consist of the removal of an existing landscaped area to add 7 parking spaces, add / extend an architectural wall to screen the parking spaces, add 3 street trees, and replace other landscape plantings. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Staff has determined the project is consistent with the environmental review completed for the project on May 26, 2009. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. Applicant Matthew Oates described the proposed project, noting it would consist of adding 7 parking spaces and screening them from Route 13 by adding a new wall consisting of brick pillars and open metalwork. Shrubs would be planted between these brick pillars. Three trees would also be added in the vicinity. Jones-Rounds observed that the view from the street would definitely be improved. Public Hearing On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Acharya closed the Public Hearing. Elliott observed there would be new screening for cars, but not for the people on the patio. He suggested adding plantings in front of the patio to humanize it a little more. Oates replied they could certainly look into that possibility and see what might fit between the sidewalk and the patio; however, there is not much space to work with. Certainly, he said, they could probably at least plant some shrubs. Elliott responded they could also use movable pots for the screening plantings. 11 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder suggested this be added as a condition of approval: that the applicant collaborate with Planning staff to explore the possibility of extending the plantings to include the patio area. Adopted Resolution for Modified Site Plan Approval On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: a site plan and associated site improvements for the South Meadow Square Outparcel retail development, located at 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, received Final Site Plan Approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on May 26, 2009, and WHEREAS: the approved site plan for 740 South Meadow Street consisted of a 28,663 SF of retail and restaurant space in two new buildings and a total of 95 new parking spaces, and WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting modifications to the approved plan consisting of the removal of an existing landscaped area to: add 7 parking spaces, add / extend an architectural wall to screen the parking spaces, add 3 street trees, and replace other landscape plantings. The parcel is in the SW-2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS: on May 26, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, made a Negative Determination Of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: the proposed modifications are consistent with the City’s CEQR findings issued on May 26, 2009 for 736 and 740 South Meadow Street, therefore, it is not necessary to reopen or amend those findings, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on March 25, 2014, and WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Planning Department and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on March 25, 2014 review and accept as adequate plans entitled “Demolition Plan (C3),” “Site Plan (C4),” “Site Details (C4.1),” “Grading Plan (C5),” and “Landscape Plan and Details (C6),” dated 2/13/14, all prepared by T.Y. Lin International; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it 12 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Modified Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, with the following condition: i. If feasible, applicant shall extend the proposed new wall and plantings to the north, so that these provide an attractive edge to the existing patio, and be it further RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board urges the property owner to consider closing the access road in the future. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Student Housing, 7 Ridgewood Road, Steve Bus for CA Ventures, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct three 3-story residential buildings with a total of 45 units and 114 beds on the 2.43-acre parcel. A total of 57 parking spaces is proposed, of which 42 will be under the buildings and 15 will be surface parking screened with a pergola. Bicycle parking and trash receptacles will also be underground. Building design is based on a Prairie architectural style and will feature green roofs. Site development includes construction of an access road, retaining walls, raised walkways, exterior common spaces, landscaping, lighting, signage, and other site amenities. Vehicle access is proposed via a driveway on Ridgewood Road and pedestrian access via walkways to both Ridgewood Road and Highland Avenue. The site is largely undeveloped woodland, with an abandoned pool and small adjacent outbuilding. Construction will require removal of 95 trees and 1.4 acres of associated vegetation. The eastern side of the parcel, along with the naturally landscaped portion of a neighboring parcel at 150 Highland Avenue, will be maintained in an undeveloped state. The project is located the R-U Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Historic District, and will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h){4}, (k) & (n), and B.(2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review. Developer Steve Bus explained the current iteration of the proposed project. Architect Finley gave an overhead slide presentation of the project. He explained that, when the original Site Plan Review Application was submitted, the City originally appeared to be moving forward with proposed re-zoning of the area; so the project was specifically designed to meet those requirements. The applicants now understand that the re-zoning is no longer planned, for the time being, so the zoning remains R-U. He said the project’s zoning analysis has been updated accordingly. Trowbridge emphasized the proposed design would actually meet both R-U and R-3aa zoning requirements. Jones-Rounds inquired into the status of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) approval for the project. 13 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Walters replied that the applicants have attended several meetings of the ILPC. At the last such meeting, Commission members were concerned they did not have enough information to fully evaluate the proposal. It was collectively agreed the applicants would proceed with their Site Plan Review application at the Planning Board, and then formally apply to the ILPC for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Trowbridge stressed that the applicants have tried to minimize the footprint of construction to create a smaller area of disturbance. He said they have used site walls on the north and south to minimize grades, and the buildings have been set into the grade. Finley added they originally intended to combine the adjacent parcel (150 Highland Avenue), but it has been decided that is no longer necessary. Jones-Rounds asked how many living units have been eliminated from the original proposal. Walters replied that the project has gone from 192 to 114 beds. Trowbridge said the applicant has been working with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue to study bicycle / pedestrian issues. They have agreed, said Trowbridge, that a continuous sidewalk connection should be provided from the Fall Creek Suspension Bridge to the project, and Logue appears satisfied. Trowbridge added that all bicycle parking would be undercover in the garages, and would exceed City requirements. He further added that the site would include 42 motor vehicle parking spots in the garages and 15 on site, for a total of 57, and noted that the applicants are meeting all zoning requirements. Jones-Rounds suggested at least one above ground bicycle rack for non-residents. Trowbridge replied, yes, they could do that. Randall asked if the paving would be porous. Trowbridge replied, no, since there is very little area to work with and that would require subsurface containment. Trowbridge noted the applicants have performed a tree assessment and will be mitigating all the vegetative removal. The applicants noted there would be a variety of living units (e.g., studios, 1-4 bedrooms), with a mix of unit types per floor; each building, though, would have the same general floor layout. The buildings would emerge from a stone base, said the applicants, and be characterized by a Prairie-style architectural design, visually reinforcing the horizontal scheme of the buildings and providing a greater articulation of the façades. The applicants said the building materials would include either natural cedar or fiber panels (in a combination of stained and unstained). Schroeder observed he likes the stone; but the quality of the stone would be critical. Real stone, he said would be far preferable to artificial stone. The applicants replied they are exploring a real stone veneer. 14 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting The applicants said they have eliminated previously proposed rooftop mechanical units and will instead simply install more in-unit systems. Jones-Rounds asked if those would protrude from the windows. Bus replied they would be PTAC units with a louver system, so they should not protrude. The applicants said they have also articulated the porches differently. Since the site is so low, with a stone base and natural material / wood rising above that, the intent is to have the buildings blend with the trees as much as possible. Jones-Rounds asked if the green roofs would remain. Trowbridge replied, yes. Schroeder suggested expanding the green roof areas. Trowbridge replied the applicants were planning on having occupiable spaces on the roofs, so they would need to determine if that would be possible. Schroeder said expanding green roof area would be most crucial for the easternmost building, since it would be most visible from the higher elevation of Highland Avenue. Bus noted the occupiable roof areas could have a turf-like area, which would serve the purpose of providing more greenery. Fernández strongly recommended against using artificial turf ― it would be far better to have live plants with real ecological value. Walters replied they would explore that. Walters remarked the applicants have tried to provide the Planning Board with everything it has asked for, or could conceivably need. If there is any additional information the Board would like, he said, it should let the applicants know. Cornish asked if Bob Wesley would update his flora and fauna report. Walter replied, yes. Schroeder asked the applicant to revise the drawings to eliminate the roof-top mechanicals which are no longer intended and to illustrate the aforementioned air- handling louvers. Elliott noted the geotechnical study mentioned nothing regarding radon; he knows there is a strong vein of it running through Cayuga Heights. That should definitely be investigated, since there are some significant hot spots. Bus responded there are no real subsurface areas on the site for radon to collect; however, the applicants will make sure the question is resolved, one way or the other. Schroeder expressed appreciation for the improvements that have been made to the project since it was first presented to the Planning Board last October. He said the Frank Lloyd Wright architectural influences have succeeded in making the proposed buildings look simultaneously modern and traditional. He pointed out, however, that the project would require cutting down a significant number of large, healthy, high-quality trees, which would be a significant environmental impact. He suggested mitigating that loss by 15 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting establishing a binding conservation easement on the steep forested slope descending from Highland Avenue, to permanently preserve the latter as green space. He also suggested, as further mitigation, that the applicant be required to remove any invasive plants on the entire site, including the 150 Highland Avenue lot. Jones-Rounds said she assumes the applicant received City Transportation Engineer Logue’s memorandum, describing his concern about the need for a 5-foot-wide (rather than 4-foot-wide) sidewalk. Trowbridge replied, yes. He said the applicants would address that. At this juncture, Acharya remarked he would like to address the petition organized by a Cornell Heights resident, Walter Hang. He said that, contrary to what may have been implied in the petition, the Planning Board’s Declaration of Lead Agency status would merely represent the formal mechanism through which the Site Plan Review process is initiated. He added that the Declaration of Lead Agency has no other purpose and does not represent any kind of substantive action on the part of the Board. As a result, he said, there is absolutely no legal or procedural basis for postponing the Declaration of Lead Agency. Privilege of the Floor (Continued) Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project, noting that there would be many opponents of the project. Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court (up the block from the proposed project), spoke in opposition to the project and presented some prepared comments. He urged the City to block the project and any others like it in Cornell Heights. He does not believe student housing is appropriate for the neighborhood, which he said is primarily comprised of modest family homes. Walter Hang, 218 Wait Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, asking the Planning Board not to take any action on the project. He noted it is inconceivable the Board should proceed without the final site plans or additional meetings. He noted there is considerable community support for improved protection of Cornell Heights and general opposition to this project. The City should not be approving projects on a case-by-case basis. He concluded by stating that neighborhood residents are considering litigation, if any action is taken by the Board. John Dennis, 893 Cayuga Heights Road, spoke in opposition to the project, saying he has known the site for many years. A former emergency medical technician, he sees too many risks associated with the curve of the road, for the proposed additional density. It is a particularly dangerous road, with a very steeply sloping landscape. He noted he also chairs the County’s Environmental Management Council (EMC) and he will supply some written comments. 16 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Jones-Rounds remarked to Dennis that a traffic study has in fact been generated for the project (and it has been posted to the City website). Acharya asked if the applicants would like to move forward with the Declaration of Lead Agency. Walters replied, yes; they would like to move forward with the environmental review and the Planning Board is the appropriate agency. He added the applicants will be meeting with community members and be seeking to develop the project in a way that is both thoughtful and respectful. Schroeder agreed there is no legitimate basis not to proceed with the Declaration of Lead Agency and environmental review. It would, in fact, be improper not to proceed, he added. He noted that the applicants have provided the Board with a substantial amount of information concerning the project and that the project fully complies with zoning. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds: 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: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for apartments to be located at 1 Ridgewood Road, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct three 3-story residential buildings with a total of 45 units and 114 beds on the 2.43-acre parcel. A total of 57 parking spaces is proposed, of which 42 will be under the buildings and 15 will be surface parking, screened with a pergola. Bicycle parking and trash receptacles will also be underground. Building design is based on a Prairie architectural style and will feature green roofs. Site development includes construction of an access road, retaining walls, raised walkways, exterior common spaces, landscaping, lighting, signage, and other site amenities. Vehicle access is proposed via a driveway on Ridgewood Road and pedestrian access via walkways to both Ridgewood Rd. and Highland Ave. The site is largely undeveloped woodland, with an abandoned pool and small adjacent outbuilding. Construction will require removal of 95 trees and 1.4 acres of associated vegetation. The eastern side of the parcel, along with the naturally landscaped portion of a neighboring parcel at 150 Highland Avenue, will be maintained in an undeveloped state. The project is located the R-U Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Historic District, and will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h){4}, (k) & (n), and B.(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review, 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, now, therefore, be it 17 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed project. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. 140 Seneca Way: Signage Review (Site Plan Review Approval Condition) Developer Brian Warren, Warren Real Estate, and Aaron Baker, Ithaca Sign Works, presented the proposed signage designs. Fernández asked if the monument sign must be illuminated. She suggested some subtle LED lighting, so it would not just look like a glowing plastic box. Elliott agreed, noting light pollution should be minimized. Warren replied he does not have a problem minimizing the light. Schroeder said that the overall project’s aesthetic appeal was significantly hurt when the originally proposed projecting sunscreens on the three principal facades were abandoned. He said he thinks the monument sign looks too suburban, and is inappropriate for the site. He suggested a classier, more urban design for some signage on the curving front of the building, rather than a freestanding sign. He said the proposed signage above the front door, on the other hand, looks fine. Acharya suggested installing the monument sign on the east façade. Warren replied it would be difficult to do that, given the placement of the two tenants. Cornish asked if the sign would be double-sided. Warren replied, yes. Fernández suggested a stainless steel material, adding it is mainly the material she objects to. Acharya agreed. Baker replied he could do something along those lines. Schroeder observed the sign would be immediately adjacent to an elegant historic building, so it should be built of natural materials, like stone, metal, wood, etc. Jones- Rounds suggested a flag sign that alludes to the style of the aforementioned Argos Inn. Baker replied he likes that idea, assuming the budget allows it. He also suggested possibly retaining the currently proposed sign materials, but narrowing the sign significantly to give it a more streamlined and elegant appearance. Elliott recommended the sign visually continue the curve of the Seneca Way building, adding that a connecting beam could even be employed between sign and building. 18 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Fernández noted adding landscaping around the sign would significantly improve its appearance. Schroeder observed the site landscaping as a whole needs to be enhanced, anyway. He agreed that continuing the curve, as Elliott suggested, would be good. On a separate subject, Schroeder remarked he is extremely concerned with the white vapor coming from two vents on the front pedestrian level of the building; these vents were not on the approved drawings. He said for pedestrians to encounter such emissions while walking along a public sidewalk makes an exceedingly bad impression in the downtown area, precisely in an area where the City is trying to encourage pedestrian activity. He urged Warren to find some way of re-routing this exhaust. Warren replied he does not know what options would be available to accomplish that. Jones-Rounds agreed with Schroeder, noting the exhaust emerges directly into pedestrians’ faces. Cornish added that the City has received numerous complaints about the situation. Jones-Rounds suggested screening the vents, or re-routing them to vent higher up. Regarding the proposed monument sign, Warren asked how he should proceed. Baker indicated he could work on accommodating the Board’s requests. He suggested altering the sign so that light is only allowed to escape through the cut-out lettering, but retaining the same materials. Elliott responded that would still produce light pollution. He suggested simply using downlighting and using a greater number of smaller lights, rather than big ones. He recommended consulting HOLT Architects, since they designed the rest of the project. Warren indicated he is amenable to doing something along the lines of a hand-drawn design Elliott had just given him (using the extension of the front building curve idea). He asked how long it would take for the Board to approve the sign; he would prefer it be as soon as possible. Acharya replied, approval could be given as soon as the applicant sends the final design (which could be e-mailed). Baker agreed to do so. Elliott said the new sign should be illustrated within the broader context of the existing building façade (with a point of view further back so the drawing shows the existing building along with the proposed sign). Baker asked about the façade sign above the main west entry. Schroeder replied that particular design is fine. There were no objections. 6. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2935 ― 409 Campbell Avenue: Area Variance Appeal of Cheryl Thompson, architect for Raymond Craib and Cynthia Brock the owners of 409 Campbell Avenue, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 11, front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 19 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting The property owners of 409 Campbell Avenue discovered some time ago that their garage foundation is in serious disrepair and negatively impacting the house and garage structure. The only way to repair the attached garage is to demolish the garage, build a new foundation and then rebuild the garage. Since the garage is attached to the main building it is imperative that the garage be located in the same location when it is rebuilt. However, the southwest corner of the garage is 18.9 feet from the front yard property line. This is 6.1 feet short of the 25 foot required front yard setback. In addition to rebuilding the garage the applicant proposes adding more living space to the back yard portion of the garage and the northeast corner of the house. These additions will not impact the rear and side yard setback requirements or any other required district regulation. The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-1a Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted, however Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted for the deficient front yard before a building permit can be issued. Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal. Appeal #2939 ― 409 Campbell Avenue: Special Permit Appeal of Cheryl Thompson for Raymond Craib and Cynthia Brock owners of 409 Campbell Avenue for a temporary special permit for an accessory apartment, as required by the Zoning Ordinance under Section 325-10 Accessory apartments. The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is a legally non-conforming use. It is a two family residence in an R-1a zone. This zone limits residential uses to single family homes. It also allows accessory apartments by a special temporary permit granted by the BZA. The owners want to repair the foundation of the garage and increase the garage and house footprint. As a non-conforming use, the owner’s would have to be granted a use variance to enlarge the garage and living space. To avoid the more stringent requirements of a use variance and the possibility of being denied by the Board, the applicant proposes changing the existing apartment to a legal accessory apartment which is a permitted use in the R-1a use district. This would then allow the applicant to appeal to the Board for an area variance for the front yard deficiency caused when the garage is rebuilt in its current location. According to the applicant, the current apartment meets the specifications required for an accessory apartment. The owners of an accessory apartment must have owned the house for 5 years before they can apply for an accessory apartment permit. The property was purchased in 2001. The size of the apartment must be less than 33% of the main living area. The applicant states that the proposed accessory apartment occupies only 24% of the main living area. The apartment can be used by not more than 2 persons. The apartment is used by one – an in-law. If the street façade is changed, the façade must retain the appearance of a single family home. The applicant has stated that the appearance of the street façade, which will be slightly altered when the garage is demolished and rebuilt, will still appear to be a single family home. Off-street parking is required for the accessory apartment and the main living unit. The house and apartment require two parking spaces. There are 4 spaces on site. The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-1a zone where accessory apartment is a permitted use. The variance for an accessory apartment must be granted in order for the owners to be able to repair and enlarge their property. The BZA must use the standards of 325-9D in considering the decision to grant or deny this special permit request. 20 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal.   Appeal #2936 ― 202 Second Street: Area Variance Appeal of Laura Taylor owner of 202 Second Street for area variance from Sections 325-8 Column 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard other front yard, and rear yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is seeking to build a porch and an addition, for a total of 276 SF, to the north side of her single-family home located at 202 Second Street. The property at 202 Second Street has several existing deficiencies. These are deficient lot size, excessive lot coverage, two deficient front yards, and a deficient rear yard. The proposed porch and addition will have a deficient front yard and will increase the already excessive lot coverage. The property at 202 Second Street has an existing lot area deficiency. Required is a lot that is 3,000 SF. The existing lot is 2,897 SF, 103 feet less than the minimum lot size required for a single family home in the R2b zoning district. Moreover, the existing buildings at 202 Second Street have a lot coverage of 41% where 35% is the maximum lot coverage allowed in the R2b use district. The proposed porch and addition will increase this deficiency by 6% creating a lot deficiency of 47%. The property at 202 Second Street is a corner lot and has two front yards. One faces Monroe Street and the other faces Second Street. These front yards are required to be 10 foot deep. The front yard facing Monroe Street is 1.6 feet away from the front yard lot line. This is an existing deficiency of 8.4 feet. On Second Street, the existing front porch is .9 feet from the front lot line. This is an existing deficiency of 9.1 feet. The new porch and addition will also face Second Street. The porch will be setback 7 feet from the front yard lot line, a deficiency of 3 feet. The existing single family home also has a deficient rear yard. Required is a 20-foot rear yard setback. The existing rear setback is 17.5 feet and is 2.5 feet shy of meeting the minimum 20- foot rear yard requirement. Finally, the garage on the lot does not meet the setback requirements for framed accessory buildings under Section 325-25 of the Zoning Ordinance. Accessory wood frame structures are required to have a three-foot rear yard and three-foot side yard. As built, the garage is approximately one foot from the rear yard and two feet from the side yard; these are deficiencies of two feet and one foot respectively. The property at 202 Second Street is in an R-2b zone where the proposed use is permitted. However, Zoning Ordinance Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted by the BZA for the deficiencies before a building permit can be issued. Members of the Board recommend approving this appeal as the proposed changes will improve the property and make it look more contextual. Appeal #2937 ― 4 Hudson Place: Area Variance Appeal of Jalil and Ariana Buechel owners of 4 Hudson place for a use variance from Column 2 permitted primary uses, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 21 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting After looking for a home in Fall Creek for three years in order to be near their grandchildren, the Jalil and Ariana Buechal purchased 4 Hudson Place in 2008. The following year, the house next door to their grandchildren in Fall Creek was listed for sale and the Buechels purchased this house. The Buechel's then began renting the house at 4 Hudson Place. Since 4 Hudson Place is in an R2a zone, the Buechel's are restricted to renting this house to three unrelated persons or to a family or functional family. The Buechel's have been renting to three students, but have been losing money every year even though they are receiving $625/ month from each tenant for the 3 bedroom furnished house which includes utilities. To date they have already lost $18,512. They also tried to sale the house in 2012, but received no purchase offers. The property is in an R2a where the maximum number of unrelated persons in a single family home is restricted to three persons. The Buechel’s are seeking approval to rent 4 Hudson Place to four unrelated persons. However, renting a house to four unrelated individuals is only a use permitted in zones allowing multiple dwellings. The use of a single family home for four unrelated persons is not a permitted use in the R2a zone and the Buechal's would have to be granted a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for an additional occupant to legally reside at 4 Hudson Place. The Board cannot recommend approval of this variance, in part because the application contains conflicting financial information.   Appeal # 2938 ― 143 Maple Avenue: Sign Variance Appeal of Coal Stove Ventures, LLC, owners of 143 Maple Avenue for variances from the Sign Ordinance from Section 272-6B (1), size of sign and 272-9A, minimum setbacks for signs from public highways and public right-of-ways and the requirement that a sign cannot be located in the required side yard setback. Coal Yard Venture has erected two signs at 143 Maple Avenue. One sign is for Coal Yard Café, the other is for Coal Yard Apartments, also located at 143 Maple Avenue. The sign for the Café is 7.25 SF in size and the apartment sign is 4.375 SF. Section 272-2B(1) limits each sign in a residential district to 5 SF apiece if the property where the sign is located has a building frontage of 50 feet or less. The property at 143 Maple Avenue has 44 feet of street frontage. The sign for the Café is 2 feet from the front yard property line, which is where the Maple Avenue’s right-of- way ends. Section 272-9A states that such signs shall be located 10 feet from any public highway or street right- of- way. The sign for the Coal Yard Apartments is one foot from the side yard property line and the Recreation Trail. It is also located 9.3 feet South of Maple Avenue. Section 272-9A requires that this sign be set back 10 feet from public highways or street right-of- ways. Therefore, this sign violates the provision, being less than 10 feet from the Maple Avenue street right- of -way and being only one foot from the Recreation Trail, a public highway. Also, Section 272- 9A states that the required side yards cannot be diminished by a sign being located in the required side yard. The required side yard setback is 10 feet, which is measured from the side yard lot line to the nearest building. The sign is one foot from the east side yard lot line, which cause a side yard deficiency of 9 feet. 22 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting The property 143 Maple Avenue is in an R-3b use district where the proposed signs are permitted. However, Sign Ordinance Section 272-18 states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances for Sign Ordinance deficiencies guided by the general “purpose” of the Sign Ordinance Chapter, as well as: 1. Size of Sign; 2. Number of letters; 3. Other signs; 4. The Character of the neighborhood and; 5. Public interest Members of the Board recommend approval of the café sign only. 7. New Business A. Appointment of New Comprehensive Plan Committee Members Adopted Resolution Appointing New Comprehensive Plan Committee Members On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: vacancies due to resignation and changes in the composition of Common Council have reduced the originally intended number of Planning Board and Common Council members on the Comprehensive Plan Committee, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby appoint C. J. Randall (Planning Board member) and Stephen J. Smith (Common Council member) to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Committee. In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Abstained: Randall Absent: None Vacancies: None 8. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development No report. C. Board of Public Works Liaison No report. 23 Approved at the April 22, 2014 Planning and Development Board Meeting 9. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, the revised draft February 25, 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 10. Adjournment On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. 24