Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-06-24DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes June 24, 2014 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott Board Vacancies: None. Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Applicants Attending: 305 Taylor Pl. ― Minor Subdivision Ken Walker, Applicant Hector St. ― Major Subdivision Marilyn Ryan, Applicant 140 College Ave. ― Student Housing Addition Project Jason Demarest, Jason K. Demarest Architect; Betsy Po, Owner 120 S. Aurora St. ― Downtown Marriott Hotel Mathew Jalazo, URGO Hotels 358 & 370 Elmira Rd. ― Maguire Import Vehicle Display Lot Tom Schickel, Tom Schickel Architects 314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building) ― Renovations & Addition Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties; John Snyder, John Snyder Architects 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Cornell Health Services Facility John Keefe, Cornell University; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Grace Chiang, Chiang O’Brien Architects 323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project Steve Flash, Rampart Real, LLC; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative 327 Eddy St. ― Sketch Plan Review Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects; Steve Fontana, Owner Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Mayor Svante Myrick thanked Chair Govind Acharya for his service on the Planning Board and the Board of Public Works (BPW), and expressed how much he has appreciated his leadership. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke regarding Inlet Island, and the need to develop it. He also asked about the future of Simeon’s after the tractor trailer accident and expressed concern with the overall safety of the Commons. Dennis Stein, Historic Ithaca, President, commented on the Carey Building Renovations and Addition Project, noting that Historic Ithaca opposes the Area Variance for the project. The project documentation does not provide enough information to justify the variance; and approving the variance would obstruct the aesthetic appearance of the existing historic structure. The massing of the new addition would overwhelm the original Carey Building. Ed Finegan, 403 E. Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the Carey Building Renovations and Addition Project, in terms of its massing and scale. It would be out of scale with the rest of East State Street in that area. 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3. Subdivisions A. Minor Subdivision, 305 Taylor Pl., Kenneth & Sarah Walker. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Consideration of Subdivision Approval. The applicants are proposing to subdivide existing 3.64-acre site into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Applicant Ken Walker recapitulated the salient details of the proposed subdivision. He indicated that he received the County’s GML comments letter containing the County’s recommendation for a minimum 50-foot no-disturbance buffer for the stream. Cornish explained that in its letter the County is quoting from the General Municipal Law (GML) and is arguing that, if construction continues to take place right up to the borders of City streams, the community will cumulatively begin to see significant negative impacts in terms of storm water management, erosion, sedimentation, etc. Stream buffers would prevent that from happening. Schroeder added that the nature of the County’s recommendation is routine. Walker asked what the rationale is behind the County’s request for a 50-foot buffer, as opposed to some other distance. Randall replied that a 50-foot buffer is a standard mininum buffer width. Various buffer widths are employed for various purposes, but a standard mininum buffer should be nothing less than 50 feet. Cornish noted that, even if a buffer were established, it should not make the lot unbuildable. Any future structure would simply need to be appropriately sited to make room for the buffer. Schroeder observed that it looks like the existing house is fewer than 50 feet from the stream. Acharya asked if Board members believe the buffer should instituted. He would not personally be inclined to pursue the issue. Jones-Rounds asked what possible mechanism could be employed, since the Board is only considering a Subdivision application at this time. Acharya replied it would simply mean that whover happens to buy the land would be required to comply with the buffer. 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Fernández indicated she does not see a problem with including the buffer. Schroeder indicated his only potential concern would be that it appears to place the footprint of the existing house in the buffer area, although the existing house would certainly be grandfathered. Jones-Rounds noted she supports the County’s recommendation. Walker asked what the definition of the “top of the bank” is supposed to be. Fernández replied it would depend on the GML’s own definition. Schroeder remarked that instituting the buffer would make Parcel B un-developable (and would also include a portion of the existing house). Given that any potential development on the site could not be intensive, by any measure, he does not see a reason to include the buffer. Fernández suggested the buffer could be placed 50 feet from the center line of the stream (as opposed to the top of the bank). Acharya replied that would seem to work fine. Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández: 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 #57.-1- 2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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 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 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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 #57.-1-2.2, located at 305 Taylor Place in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Acharya explained that a supermajority of votes will be required for the resolution to pass, since the Board will not be accepting the County’s recommendation as written. CEQR Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández: 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 #57.-1- 2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on June 24, 2014 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Subdivision, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested parties have have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in offical GML comments, recommended that the City require a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer measured from the top of an intermittent stream passing along the parcel’s northern boundary, and WHEREAS: in the Planning Board’s judgment, such a buffer would have rendered Parcel B either difficult or impossible to develop, and so the Board is therefore instead requiring a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer (to be maintained as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of this stream, and WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on June 24, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision Map, No. 305 Taylor Place, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 5/8/14; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-1a 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, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution 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 #57.-1- 2.2 in the City of Ithaca, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, applicants/owners, and WHEREAS: the applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 3.64-acre site into two parcels: Parcel A, measuring 2.88 acres with 225 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing a single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.756 acres with 120 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, a minimum street frontage of 75 feet, and minimum front, side, and rear yards of 25, 10, and 25% or 50 feet but not less than 20 feet, respectively, 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 WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the parcel to be subdivided has been properly posted and circulated in accordance with Chapter 290, §290-9.C. (2), of the City Code, and WHEREAS: a legally advertised Public Hearing for this Subdivision was held on June 24, 2014, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Ed Marx, in offical GML comments, recommended that the City require a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer measured from the top of an intermittent stream passing along the parcel’s northern boundary, and WHEREAS: in the Planning Board’s judgment, such a buffer would have rendered Parcel B either difficult or impossible to develop, and so the Board is therefore instead requiring a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer (to be maintained as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of this stream, and 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 27, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Subdivision Map, No. 305 Taylor Place, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 5/8/14; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 24, 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 resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-1a 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 #57.-1-2.2, by Kenneth and Sarah Walker, subject to the following conditions: i. Subdivision map to be revised to show on both Parcel A and Parcel B a 50-foot no- disturbance buffer (to exclude any disturbance including driveways and be maintained as natural vegetation) measured from the centerline of the intermitten stream which follows the parcel’s nothern boundary, and ii. Submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat (including the above no- disturbance buffer), all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None B. Major Subdivision, Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, Hector St., Marilyn Ryan. Re- Affirmation of Final Approval. The applicants are proposing to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres (11,569 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres (11,497 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres (11,663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD for which the Board issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 28, 2013. The applicant received final approval for the subdivision on May 28, 2013, which expired because the subdivision was not filed. Applicant Marilyn Ryan recapitulated the salient details of the proposed subdivision. Nicholas indicated she verified that it is the precisely the same subdivision that was approved by the Board on May 28, 2013. Re-Affirmation of Final Subdivision Approval Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández: WHEREAS: on May 28, 2013, the Planning and Development Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for a Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and WHEREAS: the approved subdivision consisted of the following: to subdivide the existing 4.68-acre parcel into 4 parcels: Lot 1, measuring 0.266 acres (11,569 SF) with 100 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 2, measuring 0.264 acres (11,497 SF) with 72 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; Lot 3, measuring 0.268 acres (11,663 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Hector Street; and Lot 4, measuring 3.863 acres with 169 feet of street frontage on Hector Street and 157 feet of street frontage on Campbell Avenue. The parcel is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, and a minimum width at-street of 75 feet, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Board did, on April 23, 2013 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published, property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 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 April 23, 2013, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April 23, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; a plan entitled “Survey Map Showing Portion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 10/11/12, with a revision date of 4/1/13, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and additional application materials, and 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: Tompkins County, the Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to review the information for this project and the Planning Board considered any comments received, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognized that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicated the resultant parcels conform with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-1a Zoning District, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on April 23, 2013 grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by Dorothy Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on May 23, 2013 grant Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, submitted by Dorothy Sturtevant and Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor, and WHEREAS: final approved and signed plats must be filed with the County Assessor within 90 days of Planning Board approval, and WHEREAS: the applicant has on June 24, 2014 submitted paper copies of the approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor, for signature, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby reaffirm the granting of Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, submitted by Dorothy Sturtevant and Marilyn Ryan, owners and applicants. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None 4. Site Plan Review A. Student Housing Addition ― Transportation Demand Management Plan, 140 College Ave., Jason Demarest for Betsy Po. Approval of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The applicant received Site Plan Approval for the project in April 2011 and was granted an extension in April 2013. In January 2014, the City adopted §325-45, Collegetown Area Form Districts, which changed the zoning of the parcel from R- 3b to CR-4. Under provisions of the CR-4 District, no off-street parking is required, if: (1) buildings fully comply with New York State Building Code for new construction; and (2) a TDM plan is accepted by the Planning and Development Board. 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Nicholas indicated the applicant could not be present tonight. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Approval Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández: WHEREAS: the Planning Board granted site plan approval for a Student Housing Addition at 140 College Avenue in April 2011 and an extension was subsequently granted in April 2013, and WHEREAS: in January 2014, the City adopted §325-45, Collegetown Area Form Districts, which changed the zoning of the parcel from R-3b to CR-4. Under the provisions of the CR-4 District, no off-street parking is required, if: (1) buildings fully comply with New York State Building Code for new construction; and (2) a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is accepted by the Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS: the applicant has submitted a proposed TDM Plan by Jason Demarest, applicant for owner, Po Family Realty, and WHEREAS: the new and existing buildings fully comply with New York State Building Code for new construction, and WHEREAS: the Board did on May 27, 2014 review and accept as adequate a document entitled: “Traffic Demand Management Plan – 140 College Ave.,” prepared by Jason Demarest and dated 5/22/14, with the understanding that this plan would be modified by adding a provision requiring annual submission of a letter to the Building Division verifying compliance with the TDM; and a letter of commitment from property owner Ching Po to the Planning and Development Board, dated 5/21/14, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution approving the TDM Plan for the Student Housing Addition Project, 140 College Avenue, subject to the following conditions: i. The TDM shall be modified to add a requirement that the applicant, including applicant’s successors or assigns, submit an annual letter to the Building Division for the 140 College Avenue property file (along with accompanying carshare receipts) that documents compliance with the TDM plan, and ii. A revised “Traffic Demand Management Plan – 140 College Avenue” document including the above added requirement shall be submitted to planning staff for inclusion in the project file. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD B. Downtown Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora St., Mathew Jalazo, URGO Hotels. Approval with Conditions of Façade & Materials Modifications. Applicant Mathew Jalazo explained that the applicant understands the Planning Board’s previously expressedconcerns and will try to address all of them as best it can. Schroeder noted he would like to tighten the language in the resolution regarding the curtains in the windows of the northeast corner rooms, so that they require Planning Board approval. He believes there are also conditions from the 2012 approval that have not been met. Nicholas replied that all the conditions which could feasibly be met by the applicant, at this point in the process, have been met. Schroeder remarked that the Board never received a drawing showing the wider sidewalk width. Nicholas replied, that is correct, but the applicant actually did submit it; she simply did not forward it to the Planning Boad. Schroeder asked if the applicant will be screening the transformer that is set into the retaining-wall area, south of hotel, as requested. The applicant was supposed to work with Planning staff on that issue. Jalazo replied the applicant did submit that document, but since the land upon which it would be situated does not belong to the applicant, that will be submitted to NYS DOT for its approval. He added the applicant did submit an overall landscaping plan for that area. Jones-Rounds requested that, given some of the sensitivities associated with the project, all submissions be provided together, so the Board has the opportunity to discuss them all at a single meeting, rather than separately. Acharya agreed that is a good idea. There were no objections. Blalock noted the resolution should call for submission and approval of all outstanding documents. Fernández noted the Green Street elevation suggests the project would have a significant negative impact. Jalazo replied those particular elevations are difficult to generate electronically, so the actual renderings were not updated. The Green Street façade, however, has not changed. It will not be pink brick, as illustrated on the rendering. Fernández responded that it is the blank unadorned façade she opposes, not the color. She also opposes the transformers on that façade. 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Cornish explained that those details were already approved by the Board. The Board is only charged today with approving the subsequent modifications to the previously approved site plan. Schroeder also pointed out that the transformers will be screened and the applicant will be submitting a planting plan for that slope, as required in the resolution. Jones-Rounds asked the City Attorney to provide a brief overview of which project components the Board is legally authorized to approve or reject tonight. City Attorney Aaron Lavine replied the Board can choose to approve or reject the project for various reasons, but a court of law would review any denial of the Site Plan Review application and determine if the reasons cited have a rational basis in the record. For example, the Board could reject the project because it believes it will generate intolerable additional traffic volume or because it does not comply with the City Zoning Code. Jones-Rounds asked if if would hold up in court if Fernández were to reject the project on the basis that she does not think the design is attractive enough. Lavine replied that serious aesthetic concerns are an appropriate criterion for review of a project; however, generalized community opposition to the project would not be an appropriate criterion. Cornish reiterated the Board already approved the project ― except the project modifications that took place since that approval. Some of the objections Fernández has raised, therefore, cannot be considered, at this stage in the process. Fernández noted she only objects to the Green Street façade. She would at least like to state for the record that, while she loves the project in principle, she really dislikes the Green Street façade. Jones-Rounds asked if the applicant would be able to move forward with the project as it was originally approved, if the Board were to reject the modifications tonight. Lavine replied, in theory, yes, but in actuality, no. Acharya noted he is personally swayed by the fact that the project is so superior to the current conditions of the site. Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could require landscaping for the façade. Schroeder replied, that is on NYS DOT property. 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds asked if there were any conceivable reason the state would not approve the landscaping. Cornish replied it would depend on the results of a visibility study, among other things. Jalazo noted that landscaping was part of the original site plan submission. Only the state DOT and NYSEG approvals remain to be obtained for that to move forward. Schroeder suggested situating taller plantings on the DOT property. Jalazo replied that could be done, as long as it would not negatively impact the area under the bridge. Schroeder also suggested requiring revised elevations and perspectives showing the exact color(s) being used to replace the previous brick pattern (on all four sides). Jalaza indicated the applicant is perfectly willing to update the renderings, as long as those changes are limited to the items listed in the resolution. He also remarked that the Nichiha cement board system has already been approved, but its design has not. Schroeder agreed that is the case. The resolution would only call for approval of the proposed color and pattern of Nichiha panels. Cornish asked if the applicant has selected a particular stonework. Jalazo replied, yes, a Coronado Stone product. Façade & Materials Modifications Approval Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials, lighting, and building façade changes for the Marriott Hotel at 120 S. Aurora Street, which was approved by the Planning Board on November 13, 2012, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review application, and WHEREAS: the changes consist of the following: reduction in the projections on the second- floor and roof levels; substitution of Llenroc cladding with Coronado Stone; replacement of metal panel system with Nichiha cement board system; change in signage; elimination of projecting brick pattern around windows, LED lighting, flagpoles, and site retaining wall and Llenroc planters on south side of the building; and relocation of Commons-facing door and addition of canopy to said door, and 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Board did on June 10, 2014 review a memo from Mathew Jalazo to JoAnn Cornish dated May 10, 2014 titled “Project updates narrative” describing applicant’s proposed changes to the project; and elevations illustrating these changes, entitled: “Elevation – Aurora Street,” “Elevation – North,” “Elevation – West,” “Elevation – Green Street,” and “Materials,” all prepared by Cooper Carry, and dated June 10, 2014, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions and modifications: i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations of all building facades and of street-level perspectives showing darker / lighter alternating brick color ― to replace previously alternating projecting brick pattern ― around all windows in all portions of the building with brick cladding, and ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations showing canopy above redesigned north door, and iii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials boards (and photos of boards) showing all building materials, including glass, proposed color and pattern of Nichiha paneling system, and color and arrangement of the proposed Coronado Stone product as it will be installed, and iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of cutsheets, samples or illustrations, plus a partial rendering, showing proposed curtains to be located in the windows of the northeast corner rooms, these curtains to have a pattern presenting an abstract waterfall- like effect as viewed from exterior; said curtains (including substantially similar replacement curtains as needed) shall be a permanent part of the building design, and v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised landscape plan showing plantings of varying heights in location of eliminated Llenoc planters, and The following applicable, unsatisfied conditions from the November 13, 2012 Modified Final Site Plan Approval: vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing increased clear sidewalk width at the Aurora Street hotel entrance — to facilitate free pedestrian movement north and south along Aurora Street, easy movement in and out of the hotel entrance, and adequate space for loading and unloading operations at the adjacent loading zone — by means such as further recessing the revolving door into the building, and/or repositioning the curb here somewhat to the east by straightening its alignment and/or reducing the width of the adjacent loading zone lane on Aurora Street from twelve feet to eleven feet, and vii. Submission to Planning Department staff of screening of transformer set into retaining- wall area south of hotel, and 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD viii. Applicant to seek approval from the NYS Department of Transportation for implementation of a planting plan on the hill below the northwest corner of the Aurora Street bridge similar to that shown on drawing C300 dated 09/05/12, and ix. The Planning Board urges the applicant and the Board of Public Works to cooperate so that applicant may install signage on streets near the hotel informing motorists that the hotel can be entered directly from the Green Street Parking Garage decks, and x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and xi. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: Fernández, Jones-Rounds Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None C. Maguire Imports Vehicle Display Lot, 358 & 370 Elmira Rd., Schickel Architecture for Maguire Family Limited Partnership. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing vehicle display and service lots, pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot, add four tree islands, and a bio-retention area. The project will increase parking by 188 spaces, from 664 to 852, on the 10-acre site. Site development will require removal of approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(d) and B.(2), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Applicant Tom Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the applicant already added 12,000 SF on the site and added a staff parking lot. The applicant also performed considerable stormwater mitigation for the project. He noted that, while the project is not LEED-certified, the applicant is committed to implementing it in accordance with sound environmental practices. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been submitted to the City Environmental Engineer. Schickel added that there was an issue that was submitted to SHPO for clarification, as well as to NYS DEC, about endangered species; however, the applicant does not anticipate this would be a problem. Schickel noted the applicant has also addressed the City Transportation Engineer’s comments regarding the purpose of the project. The main purpose of the project is that the business has been very successful and has experienced considerable growing pressure on the site (e.g., it is very hard to maneuver on the site, drive in and out, etc.). The current proposed project is intended to alleviate those problems. 16 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schickel explained that a major portion of the project is for expanding the display parking area. In its initial Site Plan Review application, the applicant did not distinguish between old and new paving. That has now been rectified. Schickel noted the entire roof will be employed to harvest rainwater into tanks for use in washing facilities and toilets; so that water would not contribute to the water on the site. The applicant is proposing putting asphalt pavement over one foot of gravel paving. Some damaged trees will also be replanted. Fourteen of the parking spaces would be recaptured from the existing parking lot. A small amount of asphalt paving would be removed for the tree islands. Schickel noted that, while the applicant appreciates the benefits of shade trees, they would be genuinely incompatible with the display purpose of the lot. The applicant initially added a bio-retention area to serve as the primary treatment for water run-off, which would slightly decrease water run-off (although the total run-off would increase slightly over time). Jones-Rounds asked how many staff persons are on site at any one time. Schickel replied there are 315 total, with approximately 150 on site at any one time. (Not all of them perform work related to this particular facility.) The parking lot is very full and the applicant definitely needs the additional space. Schickel mentioned the applicant would be planting numerous trees. Jones-Rounds responded that any newly planted trees should be protected with individual barriers. Randall asked what changes were made in the area of 358 Elmira Road, since the Project Review Committee met. Schickel replied that they added 2 elm trees in the middle of the lot. No other plantings were made. Randall remarked that she assumed the applicant’s photographic aerial submission represented what is actually on the site now; however, the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) now informs the Board that some of the trees that are depicted have in fact been cut down, which she is very concerned about. Schickel replied that those trees had been cut down for months. Randall indicated that is entirely new information for her. Acharya noted it would be helpful to have a brief summary of any trees that have been cut down and when they were cut down. Schickel replied they were cut down sometime in Spring 2014. The owner indicated he had the right to cut them down. Acharya responded that cutting the trees down was definitely not a part of the Site Plan Approval. He asked if the current proposal conforms to the Southwest Design Guidelines, in terms of green space. Cornish replied that 12% is recommended. Schickel noted that the applicant has approximately 20% green space. 17 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds asked what kind of asphalt would be used. Schickel replied it would be largely impervious material. There is considerable traffic on the site and porous asphalt is expensive. The bio-retention area seemed enough to meet the requirements of the Southwest Design Guidelines. Schroeder asked about the City Environmental Engineer’s comments. Nicholas replied she spoke to him and he expressed some comments. He indicated that, while the general approach of the SWPPP was satisfactory, more information is needed. He also believes that the soils on the site do not make porous pavement a good choice. Schroeder noted that the Board is not in a position to move forward with the Preliminary and Final Approval this evening. He reiterated his request that the applicant work with a landscape architect to improve the proposed landscaping. He also encouraged the applicant to follow the CAC’s shade trees suggestions. Cornish added that the applicant should clearly distinguish the existing trees from the proposed trees on the drawings. Schroeder expressed some confusion with the CAC’s comments about the additional bio- retention area. He would like some clarification on that. Nicholas responded that the City Environmental Engineer did not indicate that there actually needs to be another bio-retention area. Schickel noted the applicant would be concerned with adding another bio-retention area. Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a parking and display lot expansion, to be located at 370 and 358 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca by Schickel Architecture, applicant for Maguire Family Limited Partnership, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant recently acquired the 1.34 acre property at 358 Elmira Road (Talmadge Tires) and proposes to increase the total number of parking spaces from 664 to 850, a net gain of 186 spaces. The proposal is to enlarge the existing parking lot by 142 spaces (from 47 to 189 on the newly acquired property), add 44 spaces (from 267 to 311) to the service parking area, and pave the existing 183-space employee parking lot. The project includes a total of 29 new trees; nine within the parking areas and twenty trees along the edges of the property and in the bio-retention area. Site preparation has included the removal of 1.5 acres of vegetation containing over 25 mature trees. The site is within the SW-2 Zoning District and requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and 18 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: this is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1)(d), (2) and B.(2) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 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 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, to be located at 358 and 370 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. D. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State St., Carey Building Associates. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to add 5 floors to the existing 2-story building. The addition will have approximately 3,600 SF of office space on the 3rd floor and 14-16 micro-apartments on the 4th and 5th floors. Design plans call for stepping the building back and providing 2-3 larger units on the 6th and 7th floors. The owner intends to retain retail use on the 1st floor and renovate the 2nd floor for office space, and to provide a new entrance on the north façade of the building. The proposed building includes outdoor terraces on the 3rd and 6th floors. The project is in the CDB-60 and CDB-100 Zoning Districts, and requires an Area Variance for height. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176- 4 B.(1)(h) and B.(1)(k), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review. Applicants John Snyder and Frost Travis recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Snyder reported that the building previously featured an arched front, which has now been pulled back as much as possible. The building will also now feature wing walls. The applicants explored the possibility of having a green roof, but adding all that extra weight would have been too problematic. 19 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Snyder indicated the applicant did explore bringing the side of the building down further, as requested at the last Board meeting; however, it is right at property line and it simply did not make any aesthetic sense to do that within such a small area. Schroeder indicated the first set of submitted drawings showed a 12-foot easement. He asked if that was part of the existing City parking lot. Travis replied, yes. As a result, there would be fewer spaces associated with the project. Jones-Rounds indicated the current project proposal is much improved. She suggested using stone along the top façade. She also recommended adding some architectural detailing above the front window ― something reflecting the style of the original building that would tie the two buildings together. She also observed that the side windows seem dull and suggested adding window sills, to which Snyder agreed. Acharya asked about the rationale for the blank façade on the East Elevation. Snyder replied the applicants could explore doing something further with that. Schroeder agreed that something should be done with it. Travis replied that should be feasible. Schroeder asked why the applicant is not proposing a wing wall on the west side, too. Snyder replied he would explore that. Schroeder noted that viewing the elevator-housing portion of the building makes him want to see the whole top portion of the building brought one floor lower. The elevator-housing portion of the building just makes the entire building look out-of-scale. Schroeder asked if the project requires design review. Cornish replied, yes. Schroeder suggested scheduling the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting before the next Planning Board meeting. Blalock expressed confusion as to why the easement only extends up the existing building. Travis replied that is a Building Code requirement. Schroeder suggested someone discuss that issue with the Board of Public Works. Extending the public easement all the way up could only benefit the city as a whole. Blalock agreed. Fernández asked why the entrance is in the back of the building and suggested moving it to the corner. Travis replied that the plans are already too far along to consider that. The combination of the opening of the business incubator project and the engineering challenges associated with the building would make that alteration particularly disruptive. He does not see how it could be done. 20 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Snyder explained that the applicant already explored numerous configurations for the stairs. The lateral brace frame is already in the best position. Travis noted the applicant has discussed coordinating some components of the project with the proposed new Hampton Inn & Suites project, so the east side of the project will likely become the entry for both buildings. There should definitely be a defined visual sense of the entryway for both buildings. Jones-Rounds asked about the signage. Travis replied it would be in the front, on the State Street façade. Schroeder recommended borrowing some additional abstract architectural ideas from the Carey Building façade. Snyder replied, okay. Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for building renovations and a five-story addition to be located at 314-320 E. State Street, also known as the Carey Building, by Carey Building Associates, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to add 5 floors to the existing 2-story building. The addition will have approximately 3,600 SF of office space on the 3rd floor and 14-16 micro- apartments on the 4th and 5th floors. Design plans call for stepping the building back and providing 2-3 larger units on the 6th and 7th floors. The owner intends to retain retail use on the 1st floor and renovate the 2nd floor for office space, and to provide a new entrance on the north façade of the building. The proposed building includes outdoor terraces on the 3rd and 6th floors. The project is in the CDB-60 and CDB-100 Zoning Districts, and requires an Area Variance for height, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h) and B.(1)(k), 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 21 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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, to be located at 314-320 E. State Street in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Dennis Stein, Historic Ithaca, President, summarized the points he made earlier in the meeting. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project. Julie Schroeder, Carey Building tenant, spoke in opposition to the project, noting it is overwhelming and out of character with the original building. She is also concerned with the additional parking pressure that would be imposed on the area. Ed Finegan, 403 E. Seneca Street, spoke in in opposition to the project, noting it is overwhelming. He would prefer if one of the stories were removed. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones- Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Schroeder asked the applicant for a perspective image of the building that includes the east side of the Commons. E. Cornell Health Services Facility, Cornell University Campus, John Keefe for Cornell University. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to build two additions to the existing building for a total expansion of 73,600 SF. One addition will be a 4-story, 55,000-SF building facing Campus Road and connected to the two wings of the health center. The second addition will be 18,600 SF on the southeast corner of the existing building. The project also includes construction of a new entrance on Ho Plaza and internal renovations. Site development includes a revised drive off Campus Road, landscaping, site amenities, and utility improvements. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(b) and (n), an 22 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Applicants John Keefe, Peter Trowbridge, and Grace Chiang recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Chiang walked through an overhead presentation of the project. Schroeder asked the applicant to modify the pedestrian area near the entrance to give one a sense that it is a continuous sidewalk through the vehicle entrance. Trowbridge replied that the applicant would explore that. Schroeder asked if the project requires design review. Cornish replied, yes. Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for renovations and expansion of the Gannett Health Services Building by owner, Cornell University, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build two additions to the existing building for a total expansion of 73,600 SF. One addition will be a 4-story, 55,000-SF building facing Campus Road and connected to the two wings of the health center. The second addition will be 18,600 SF on the southeast corner of the existing building. The project also includes construction of a new entrance on Ho Plaza and internal renovations. Site development includes a revised drive off Campus Road, landscaping, site amenities, and utility improvements. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(b) and (n), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 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 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, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None 23 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Public Hearing: On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. F. 323 Taughannock Blvd. Mixed Use Project, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 10,592-SF parcel, which currently contains a vacant 1-story building (formerly known as the Tradewinds Lounge) and approximately 10 surface parking spaces. The proposal is to develop a new 3- story mixed-use building with ground-floor office space, bike storage, 18 covered parking spaces, and 20 1- and 2-bedroom market-rate residential apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Site amenities include a rooftop terrace, a publicly-accessible pedestrian promenade contiguous to the Old Cayuga Inlet, lighting, signage, landscaping, and site furnishings. The applicant also proposes to make changes to the adjacent City parking lot in front of the building to allow better ingress and egress, provide 4 additional City-owned parking spaces (9 total), a public sidewalk directly in front of the building, and 2 planting islands with large shade trees. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and B.(1)(k), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. This project will require approval from the Department of Public Works, for modification to the parking lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NYS Canal Corporation. Applicants Steve Flash and Noah Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Demarest walked through an overhead presentation of the project. Demarest explained that the design was inspired by both the history of the waterfront and some existing nearby buildings. The public access to the waterfront would be enhanced, with a walkway, benches, etc. The first floor would comprise masonry, with more traditional wood clapboard siding and a mixture of large windows and balconies above. He indicated the soil condition is very poor, so the entire structure would be made as light as possible. Fernández asked if the applicant could flip the windows from north to south. Demarest replied he explored that, but it would not have been as space-efficient (and the north side would overlook an alley, as well). Blalock asked if the applicant would consider installing balconies over the water, assuming it had the legal right to do so. Demarest replied, yes. That would be a great enhancement and he could explore the possibility. 24 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder remarked that the applicant could ask the BPW to permit the balconies in the City right-of-way. Schroeder observed that both the Comprehensive Plan and the Inlet Island Design Plan (1998) call for a possible vehicular or pedestrian bridge bridge at that location, so that should be kept in mind. Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval for 20 waterfront apartments to be located at 323 Taughannock Blvd., by Steve Flash, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to redevelop the 10,592-SF parcel, which currently contains a vacant 1-story building (formerly known as the Tradewinds Lounge) and approximately 10 surface parking spaces. The proposal is to develop a new 3-story mixed-use building with ground-floor office space, bike storage, 18 covered parking spaces, and 20 1- and 2-bedroom market-rate residential apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Site amenities include a rooftop terrace, a publicly-accessible pedestrian promenade contiguous to the Old Cayuga Inlet, lighting, signage, landscaping, and site furnishings. The applicant also proposes to make changes to the adjacent City parking lot in front of the building to allow better ingress and egress, provide 4 additional City-owned parking spaces (9 total), a public sidewalk directly in front of the building, and 2 planting islands with large shade trees. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning District and requires design review, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and B.(1)(k), an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: this project will require approval from the Department of Public Works, for modification to the parking lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NYS Canal Corporation, now, therefore, be it 25 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None D. 327 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma ― Sketch Plan Applicants Jagat Sharma and Steve Fontana presented a brief overview of the project, noting the amount of square-footage would not have been possible without the new Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) zoning. Sharma explained that one lot would extend from Eddy Street to the right-of-way. It would be a 6-story bulding and would be stepped back at ground-level. Composed of three layers, the architecture would be borrowed from 309 Eddy Street, fitting the context of the surrounding brick buildings. The crown of the building would feature a balcony and corner windows. Fernández remarked that the air-conditioning vents seem particularly unsightly on the façade. Sharma replied that he discussed the issue with his engineers, who indicated that a central air system would be extremely expensive. Schroeder suggested finding some alternative, at least for the front-facing systems. Sharma replied that all the surrounding building have similar vents. Flash noted that providing free air conditioning for the tenants would end up being very wasteful. There would be no incentive to save energy. Acharya agreed that renters should be made to pay for all their electricity use. Fernández urged the applicant to find another more creative solution. Jones-Rounds suggested installing some attractive balcony-like grates that could shield the units. Schroeder asked about the building connector at the top. Assuming there is no need for it, the applicant could remove it so the buildings would look like different buildings. Sharma replied he would remove it. 26 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds suggested adding a cornice along the top of building. Sharma replied he could do that. Schroeder asked for more color variations on the building. Sharma replied he would do that, as well. Blalock suggested using some aluminum or steel flashing for the grating over the air- conditioning units. He also asked about the status of the utility pole. Sharma replied that a single property owner is not authorized to remove the pole. Schroeder recommended asking Common Council to require the utility to remove it. Jones-Rounds asked about the parking situation. Sharma replied there would be no parking, although there would be bike racks. Jones-Rounds asked if one bike rack could be placed in the front of the building. Sharma replied, yes. Schroeder asked if the applicant could have the limestone bands continue on through, across the sides of the building. Sharma replied, yes. Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could see the rear façade design. Sharma replied, yes. Fernández suggested the applicant fully explore installing energy-efficient fixtures and ways of maximizing water efficiency, and so on. Flash replied, absolutely. 5. Zoning Appeals APPEAL #2947, Area Variances ― 418 W. Court Street Appeal of Andrea Volckmar, owner of 418 W. Court Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8 Columns 4, 7, 12, and 13, Off-Street Parking, Width-at-Street, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove and replace an existing 13’ x 5.75’ deck in poor condition, located in the rear yard of 418 W. Court Street, with a new 18’ x 16.5’ deck. The proposed new deck will not create any zoning deficiencies; however, the property has no parking and has existing yard deficiencies. Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-32 C. (2), requires non- conforming structures with no parking to obtain variances for the zoning deficiencies, before any addition to the property is approved for construction. The property at 418 W. Court Street has no parking spaces; and one parking space is required. The street-width of the property is 33.3’; and a street-width of 35’ is required. Finally, the house has existing side yard deficiencies. One yard is 3’ deep; and a side yard of 10’ is required. The other existing side yard is 2’ deep; and required is a side yard of 5’. 27 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD The property is located in the R-2b Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this variance because all the deficiencies are preexisting. APPEAL #2948, Area Variance ― 441 N. Aurora Street Appeal of Norbert Nolte for Meryl and Bailey Phipps, owners of 441 N. Aurora Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column, 4, 11, 12, and13, Off-Street Parking, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove approximately 98 SF from the front porch at 441 N. Aurora Street, a 4-bedroom single-family home. This will allow an 11’-wide x 19’7”-deep parking area at the southwest corner of the property. According to Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20 D. (5) (a), the minimum dimensions of a parking space are 8’ x 18’. The four-bedroom home currently has no parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces for dwellings with 4 to 5 bedrooms. The property also has existing front and side yard deficiencies. The front yard is setback 0.5’ from the front yard property line; and a 10’ front yard is required. The side yard is 2’ deep and the other side yard is 0.65’; and side yards of 10’ and 5’ are required. The property at 441 N. Aurora Street is located in the R-2b Zoning District, where accessory parking is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Zoning Variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board does not support removing a porch to add front yard parking. The front porch contributes largely to the attractiveness of the house and contextuality in the neighborhood. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Acharya announced this meeting will be his last Planning Board meeting. As far as he knows, a replacement for his seat has not yet been identified. B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison Acharya reported that the City’s Odd-Even Parking regulation was discussed. The regulation is being proposed for elimination by the Odd-Even Parking Task Force. One possible alternative would be to prohibit parking on every street, one day a week (so that about one fifth of Ithaca City streets would be closed to parking on any given weekday). 28 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD C. Planning Division Director Cornish reported that the County will be soliciting RFPs for development of the former Tompkins County Public Library building. There has been considerable interest on the part of local residents who want condominiums. Cornish noted she will be participating in the meetings regarding the feasibility study and financial plan for the relocation of the NYS DOT Maintenance Facility. The intent is to identify a consultant for the the feasibility study by the end of July 2014. Schroeder suggested the Board draft a letter to the owners of the Simeon’s building, encouraging them to preserve it as much as possible. There were no objections. 7. Approval of Minutes: May 27, 2014 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft May 27, 2014 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Jones-Rounds, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None 8. Adjournment On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 29