Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-08-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 Planning & Development Board Minutes August 26, 2014 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: C.J. Randall Board Vacancies: One. 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; Ari Lavine, City Attorney Applicants Attending: 400 Spencer Rd. (Stone Quarry Apartments) Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP; Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS); Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS); Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects; Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Tim Seeler, Seeler Engineering, P.C 120 S. Aurora St. (Marriott Hotel) Matt Jalazo, URGO Hotels; Andres Rubio, Cooper Carry; John Kabat, William H. Lane Incorporated 314-320 E. State St. (Carey Building) ― Renovations & Addition Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties; John Snyder, John Snyder Architects 323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project Steve Flash, Rampart Real, LLC; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 205 Dryden Rd. ― Dryden South Mixed-Use/Apartments Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect; Pat Kraft, Owner 307 College Ave. (Collegetown Crossing) ― Mixed-Use Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect; Josh Lower, Owner; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC 327 Eddy St.. Mixed-Use/Apartments Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect; Steven Fontana, Owner Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Max Weisbrod, spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, noting the applicants are being asked to surrender land for an easement, which he does not think is warranted since the project will be beneficial to the community. He urged the Planning Board not to delay approval any longer. Weisbrod also spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project. John Graves, 319 Pleasant St. and South Hill Civic Association member, spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, noting it will provide much-needed housing and amenities in the Collegetown area, including a grocery store. The project should not be delayed any further. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project. He also urged the expeditious approval of the Ithaca Marriott Hotel project. Teresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, including having a grocery store within walking distance of her house in Collegetown. Neil Golder, 203 College Ave., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project and having a grocery store in Collegetown. He urged the expedited approval of the project. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 Todd Saddler, 302 Cascadilla St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project and locating a grocery store in Collegetown, as well as the bicycle parking, bus stop, and pedestrian accessibility the project would provide. Tom Hanna, 215 N. Cayuga St., spoke in support of the Collegetown Crossing project, noting he is grateful the Planning Board approved the first version of the project. He urged the Board to approve the current proposal as quickly as possible, although he appreciates the complexity of the approval process. He recommended the City increase staff and decrease the complexity of the approval process as much as possible. He also suggested the Board favor locally-developed projects. 3. Subdivisions A. Minor Subdivision/Consolidation & Consideration of Changes to Approved Site Plan, 225 Elmira Rd., Tax Parcel #117.-3-1 (Stone Quarry Apartments), INHS, Applicant & Brian Hunt, Owner. Public Hearing, Amendment to 10/23/12 Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, and Consideration of Changes to Approved Site Plan. This subdivision/consolidation, along with the site plan, was considered in the environmental review for Stone Quarry Apartments, for which the Planning Board, acting a Lead Agency, issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 23, 2013. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel I, will measure 0.585 acres and will be sold and consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10 and #123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site (the location of the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project that received Site Plan Approval in November 2012). Parcel II will measure 3.485 acres with 236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain the existing one-story building. The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard requirements of 10, 10/ 5, and 15% or 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, for which environmental review was completed. The applicant received Site Plan Approval with conditions in November 2012. Funding is now in place for the project. The applicant is seeking approval for changes to the approved site plan regarding building façades, internal circulation, and grading. Applicant Walters explained the current status of the proposed project, noting that since it was originally approved the project team has been putting together the financing for the project and making minor changes to the site plan (primarily, the larger building). He explained that the subdivision is necessary to create a single development lot. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Walters remarked the applicants have laid out all the facts relating to the environmental issues associated with the site in a Letter of Intent and its attachments. The applicants believe the most appropriate action would be to re-open the CEQR process and issue an amended Negative Determination of Environmental Significance that addresses the issues raised since the project was approved. He also noted that all the project changes the Planning Board requested have been made and the plans resubmitted. Trowbridge noted that the last Planning Board meeting discussion primarily focused on the Spencer Road side of the project. As a result of that meeting, the applicants made the following changes: • reinforcing the connection between the entrances on Spencer Road and the sidewalk • simplifying the fence and entrance gate • re-incorpotating the louver wih panels that created porches on the Spencer Road side that were in the initial 2012 project proposal • reducing the fence height from 48 inches to 42 inches (the required minimum). • altering the horizontal/vertical boards on the fence • straightening out the jogs in the lower portion of the sidewall to create more greenspace on the Spencer Road side Walters further explained the need for the subdivision. There is a large parcel on Elmira Road that backs up onto the project’s existing Spencer Road parcels; so that back end needs to be subdivided to create a full development parcel. It is a straight-forward process, which was also cited as a requirement in the original Site Plan Approval resolution. Regarding the environmental issues associated with the project, Walters observed there was considerable confusion at the last Planning Board meeting. He explained the process and the timeline associated with the environmental asessment: • Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was generated in 2012 by Tim Seeler, Seeler Engineering, P.C ― it is a standard process for evaluating potential environmental contaminants. • Six environmental contaminants were identified. • Seeler performed a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment to further investigate the site. He found limited contamination associated with an underground storage tank and some outside oil drums. A second round of Phase 2 testing properly delineated the contamination. This was then reported to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). • Since there were two property adddresses, the DEC opened two separate spill files, which it should not have done. • Seeler met with the DEC which indicated to him that the contamination was a relatively simple environmental concern and that the DEC did not need to be involved. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 • The DEC then closed the spill file ― however, the second, duplicate file remained open and it appears no action was every taken with it. It was an honest mistake. • The DEC kept the file open and asked for a remediation plan, which INHS provided. The remediation plan received approval from the DEC Regional Director. • INHS also submitted a map to help visualize the test results, with boring holes identified on the site. The project does not involve a complicated remediation process. The potentially contaminated soil simply needs to be excavated and removed off-site. All the excavated soil is tested when it is removed. • After the excavation, the sides of the excavation holes would also be tested. The DEC would then review those test results and determine if the process has been properly followed. • Seeler and the DEC will be involved throughout the remediation process. Walters explained that the last update to the Environmental Assessment was done in 2013 and there will be another update. The applicants do not expect any further contamination to be uncovered, since there were no changes to the use of the site since the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was conducted. Walters remarked that HUD’s environmental investigation was also re-opened. One public comment that was submitted to HUD as a result of that process mentioned a nearby above- ground motor oil storage tank cited in the 2000 Phase 1 report. (HUD regulates how close above-ground storage tanks can be to a project, due to the risk of explosion.) That public comment claimed the tank was too close to the proposed project and that walls would need to be erected around it; however, INHS investigated the situation and HUD ultimately agreed no further action need be taken, since the proposed eight-foot tall wooden fence along the rear property line would provide adequate protection. Jones-Rounds noted that she asked at the last meeting if it would be possible for the City to ask DEC to issue a final formal approval after the construction, and if that could submitted for the Building Division’s official property file. Walters replied the applicants can certainly provide that documentation. Seeler will be submitting a detailed report to the DEC. Walters noted the only caveat would be that the applicants would not want to see that become a condition for obtaining a Certificate of Compliance, since they have to obtain Building Permits beforehand. Jones-Rounds replied that would be fine. Lavine explained that the pivotal issue in this case is the environmental review process. The original Negative Determination of Environmental Significance was made by the Planning Board; and the new information that has been received appears to suggest that Negative Determination of Environmental Significance was properly issued. At this juncture, the appropriate approach would be to simply amend the original Negative Determination of Environmental Significance. Lavine emphasized the newly received information does not DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 constitute an adverse significant environmental impact, which is the legal question before the Planning Board today. It is the Planning Board’s role to conduct the environmental review, but it is the DEC’s role to ensure the remediation process complies with state standards. The existing case law strongly suggests any challenges to the Planning Board’s decision would most likely fail, since the law defers to the DEC. Public Hearing: On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Lucy Brown, 515 N. Albany St. and former INHS board member, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she served on the INHS loan committee that reviews affordable housing clients (and has also had some experience with the INHS rental committee). She stressed that INHS clients are the very best tenants. They have to undergo a very extensive process before being selected. George McGonigal, Common Council Member and representing the Spencer Road neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting that although he respects INHS he believes the project is ill-conceived. It was designed to meet the criteria of the grants funding it. It is too big and too dense for the site; and it is also isolated from its neighbors. Furthermore, the only driveway into the project connects to Spencer Road near a dangerous intersection on Stone Quarry Road. He urged the applicants to modify the project and scale it down. Mike Cannon, 409 W. Buffalo St. and INHS board member, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting that a tremendous amount of work has gone into it. It would be a great step forward for Ithaca, since Ithaca has one of the least affordable housing markets in the country. He urged the Board to approve it, noting that INHS recently completed two similar projects that were widely-acclaimed: Cedar Creek Apartments and Breckenridge Place. Sadegh Deljoo, 215 Dubois Rd., inquired about the 205 Dryden Road project, noting he received a notice about it in the mail andwould like to know how it might affect his property in the future. Emily Nester, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she disagree with the contents of the applicants’ 8/12/14 Letter of Intent. (She also submitted detailed written comments.) Jean Sutherland, 410 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. (She also submitted detailed written comments.) DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 Mary Yetsko, 409 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. (She also submitted detailed written comments.) Jennifer Cleland, 333 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. (She also submitted detailed written comments.) Ben Kirk, 351 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. (He also submitted detailed written comments.) Bob Stundtner, 333 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project. (He also submitted detailed written comments.) Svante Myrick, Ithaca City Mayor, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has never verbally addressed the Planning Board about a specific project, prior to this evening ― however, he feels strongly that the Planning Board should proceed with consideration of the project. It is a project that is personally important to him. Affordable housing is not something he merely supports as a concept or in the abstract. It is critical for him to follow through on his support of it for individual projects. He has had personal experience with homelessness and knows first-hand the vital role affordable housing projects, like this one, can play in improving people’s lives. Unfortunately, building affordable housing is not something people often receive much credit for pursuing, in many neighborhoods. Myrick stressed that affordable housing is not just an act of altruism for a few individuals and families ― it represents a real long-term investment in the wider community, as well. J.P. Vico, 338 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting it would encircle his property. He noted that he spoke to DEC Regional Spill Engineer Richard Brazell, who remarked the DEC does not have the resources that it used to have and that in the past the DEC would have had someone on the project site. Vico remarked that INHS selectively bored where it wanted to and the DEC has no authority to require additional bores. Vico concluded that he supports affordable housing, but the way this project is being designed involves too many negative impacts. Brendan Wilbur, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) employee, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has worked with numerous low- to moderate-income people as a housing counselor. Far too many low- to moderate-income people simply have no place to live in the city and are ultimately forced to live out of town, away from the services they need. This project is located exactly where it is most needed. He added that INHS clients are good tenants and INHS is a good landlord. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Beth Prentice, 102 Irving Pl., spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting there is a pressing need for affordable rental housing in Ithaca. The Brookings Institution even identified Ithaca as only being able to accommodate 10% of its affordable housing demand. As a result, there are long waiting lists. It is a horrendous situation for many low- to moderate-income families. Compounding this shortage is the less than 1% local rental vacancy rate. (5% is considered healthy.) Most existing affordable rental units are in very poor condition and are not healthy places for people to live. Assuming the environmental issues are resolved and the City is aware of the other traffic/safety issues in the neighborhood, it is very difficult to understand that there is a legitimate basis for the objections to the project. Prentice added that people should understand that INHS is a ‘gold star’-level organization. Thys Van Cort, 102 Irving Pl. and former City Planning and Development Director, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has been involved in many projects on once-contaminated sites, exactly like this site. Businesses have routinely stored a variety of products on their properties. Places like Cinemapolis and Cayuga Green, among others, both contained leaking underground storage tanks. Before construction could begin, the contamination had to be identified and remediated. That kind of contamination is not particularly toxic and can easily be remediated to safe levels, with oversight and approval by the DEC. They are small-scale and lightly contaminated sites ― the average person is a greater risk from exposure to domestic solvents, paints, cleaners, etc., than living on one of these formerly-contaminated sites. Mary Lynn Ripa, 100 W. Seneca St., Breckenridge Place, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she has been an INHS tenant for the past 5 years. She is filled with gratitude to the INHS staff. Breckenridge Place is home to a diverse community and it is an amazing project. She is passionate about housing issues and the need for more affordable local housing. Evan Perin, 530 Chestnut St., spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he also lives in an INHS property. For a long time, he encountered tremendous difficulty finding affordable housing in the area that was run by responsible landlords. His entire life changed when he found 530 Chestnut Street. Norman Hodge spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting he has had to grapple with exorbitant rental prices for years. He used to live in the ‘Jungle’. Finding affordable housing is a real problem in Ithaca. Many poor people in Ithaca are forced to live in places owned by veritable slumlords; and there are still so many homeless people. Aleta Coggin, 1113 Glenwood Heights Rd., submitted a letter in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Cynthia Brock, First Ward Common Council Member, spoke in opposition to the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she spoke with City Engineering Diector Tom West and City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue who informed her the City’s RFP for the neighborhood would only be for improving pedestrian connectivity from Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road. The City does not currently plan to address vehicular traffic and safety in the neighborhood. She also pointed out the remediation plan is only focused on contamination under the buildings themselves. It would leave any potential contamination under the playground in place. She noted that, unlike the Emerson Power Transmission site where trichloroethene (TCE) contamination was dispersed, the Stone Quarry Apartments contamination resulted from contamination dripping below ground, which can easily be excavated and removed. She is also concerned with what she sees as crucial safety, traffic, scale, and massing concerns associated with the project. She urged the Board to extend the Public Hearing timeframe to allow the community to provide further written comments regarding the CEQR process and incorporate all those concerns into the CEQR review. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting the project is another unfortunate victim of the NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) mentality that seems to have plagued so many other projects in the area. The city definitely needs more livable and affordable apartments. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Blalock asked if the applicants would like to respond to any of the public comments. Walters responded that the applicants believe they already addressed most of the issues in their 8/12/14 Letter of Intent and accompanying documents. He stressed the remediation plan requires constant monitoring of the site, by every means available, and that all work would stop if any further contamination were to emerge. Elliott noted that the last Planning Board meeting prompted a suggestion that the applicants hold another meeting with the community; however, he heard that did not happen. Bowes replied that the applicants did not hold a meeting with the community since the last Board meeting; however, they did reach out to the community by providing the 8/12/14 Letter of Intent and accompanying documents, including the DEC’s response to the remediation plan. They also encouraged everyone to come to this meeting and expess their views. Jones-Rounds expressed concern with the way the discussion has been framed. It has seemed a little too antagonistic. The Planning Board, the City Attorney, the DEC, and the applicants have all been asking a lot of questions to get to the root of all the objections to the project. She commended the neighbors for the research they conducted, but it seems the discussion DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 has been skewed to focus on all the negative potential impacts of the project ― to the exclusion of everything else. She stressed the Planning Board would like to move forward in improving the city for everyone and it has been examining all the information it has received about the project as thoroughly as everyone else. When the Board makes its decision, it will be in the most informed and respectful way possible. Schroeder remarked that the Board tabled further action on the project at the last meeting, because it needed more information. He believes all the questions that were raised have now been satisfactorily answered and it is time to move forward. Jones-Rounds noted the Planning Board is very interested in identifying solutions to the vehicular traffic and safety concerns associated with the site (e.g., a possible resolution sent to Common Council and the Board of Public Works urging them to thoroughly explore various solutions, like a traffic light for the intersection). Fernández asked if the playground would be raised, as she suggested at the last meeting. Trowbridge replied, yes. Although the applicants have not yet provided the new grading plan, the playground would be graded as a mound. Schroeder observed the current Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, indicates the City’s Capital Project feasibility study would include the intersection, whereas Council Member Brock just reported otherwise. One way or the other, the language in the Part 3 should reflect what is actually the case. Blalock remarked he believes the Board now has all the information it needs to move forward in considering the project. Jones-Rounds suggested adding a “Whereas” clause to the proposed resolution indicating the applicants agreed to ensure all environmental reports are submitted to the City, when they are generated. Nicholas replied that should go into the “Approval of Project Changes” resolution. CEQR Resolution (AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: on October 23, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project ― consisting of the site plan, subdivision, and variance ― at 400 Spencer Road would 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, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 WHEREAS: the project consists of the construction of 35 units of new rental housing that will be affordable to low-to-moderate-income households. The units will be in one 3-story building and two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include: a 36-space parking area with two ADA-compliant spaces; pedestrian walkways throughout; a recreation area with a playground; basketball court; a lawn; and landscaping. The applicants are also proposing to install a sidewalk, tree lawn, and street trees along the property on Spencer Road. The project site consists of three separate tax parcels in the R-2a and B-5 Zoning Districts, currently containing all commercial uses. The project has received a use variance for a 3-story apartment building in the R-2b District, and WHEREAS: the applicants are also proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel I will measure 0.585 acres, and will be sold and consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10 and #123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site. Parcel II will measure 3.485 acres with 236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain the several one-story buildings and a house . The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard requirements of 10, 10/ 5, and 15% or 20 feet, respectively, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: pursuant to 617.4(b)(11) of the SEQRA regulations, this action is treated as a Type I Action for purposes of SEQRA, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that (1) new information has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on August 26 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate the new information consisting of: a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA), dated September 2012; a Phase II ESA, dated October 2012; a supplemental Phase II ESA, dated October 18, 2012; and an Environmental Management (Remediation) Plan, dated 8/4/14, all prepared by the Seeler Engineering, P.C.; and other supporting materials provided by the Project Sponsor dated August 12, 2014, and WHEREAS: the above-mentioned Phase I, II, and supplemental II ESAs identify two contained areas of concern, as identified in red on the drawing titled “Pathstone Corporation Phase 2 – ESA, Site Plan (1),” dated 9/14/12 and prepared by Seeler Engineering, P.C. The above-mentioned Environmental Management (Remediation) Plan outlines the remediation work program, including: (1) Procedures for cleaning up the contamination and monitoring of the contamination removal; (2) Procedures for addressing unanticipated conditions discovered during other site DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 work; (3) Design specifications for an active vapor mitigation system; and (4) Requirements for long-term monitoring of the mitigation system, and WHEREAS: the Lead Agency recognizes that the site remediation, as well as the standard for which clean-up is required for the intended end use, is under the jurisdiction of higher levels of government than the City of Ithaca. These include NYS DEC, NYS Department of Health, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Lead Agency recognizes that, based on the information available at this time, the applicant and these agencies are working in partnership to address these issues on the site, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby amend the Negative Declaration issued on October 23, 2012 to include the above-mentioned information in the environmental record, and be it further RESOLVED: that based on all supporting documentation, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby determine that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project at 400 Spencer Road 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: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 Schroeder observed the draft subdivision approval resolution indicates Parcel II will retain one existing one-story building, but there are actually several one-story buildings, so that language should be corrected. 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 #117.-3-1 in the City of Ithaca, by applicant Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.043-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel I will measure 0.585 acres, and will be sold and consolidated with tax parcels #123.-1-10 and #123.-1-8 to form a new approximately 1.6-acre site (the location of the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project that received Site Plan Approval in November 2012). Parcel II will measure 3.485 acres with 236 feet of frontage of Elmira Road and will retain several one-story buildings and a house. The subdivision is in the B-5 Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF, minimum street frontage of 40 feet, and minimum front side and rear yard requirements of 10, 10/ 5, and 15% or 20 feet, respectively, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 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 WHEREAS: on October 23, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project ― consisting of the site plan, subdivision and variance ― at 400 Spencer Road would 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, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR) and §617.7(e) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency determined that (1) new information has been discovered and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014 amend the Negative Declaration issued on October 23, 2012 to include the new information in the environmental record, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 26, 2014 issue an amended Negative Declaration of environmental significance, 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 August 26, 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 by the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on August 26, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: plans entitled “Subdivision Map, Lands of Brian Hunt, Located at No.225 Elmira Road,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 8/12/14; and other application materials, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 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 B- 5 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Approval for the proposed Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #117.-3-1, by INHS, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor, and ii. That the subdivided parcel is immediately consolidated with Tax Parcels #123.-1-10 and #123.-1-8, and that documentation of the consolidation be submitted to Planning staff. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 Fernández suggested the approval resolution include a line about the raised playground and that the Planning Board will need to see that reflected in a revised grading plan. Schroeder noted some drawings have been submitted that are not mentioned in the draft resolution (e.g., revised frontage, site plan, perspectives, overlay). A “Whereas” clause should also be added to re-articulate the language in the Part 3 that begins with “In spring of 2014…” and ends with “…and entrances for four units.” The resolution should also reflect Jones-Rounds’ request for the applicants to submit documentation demonstrating that remediation has been completed. Schroeder also suggesed adding a “Resolved” clause urging the BPW and Common Council to implement pedestrian and intersection improvements near the site. Cornish replied the Board can certainly make that suggestion, but there are other city intersections that more urgently need improvement. Jones-Rounds remarked the Planning Board can simply urge that it be made a priority. Schroeder noted it could be the same language the Planning Board used two years ago. Elliott agreed it would be particulaly important since only a segment of sidewalk will be installed at the site. Cornish replied the City does now have the Sidewalk Improvement District Program in place, so perhaps the Spencer Road neighborhood would rise to the top as a priority. Schroeder suggested that be added to the resolution as another “Resolved” clause. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 Fernández noted she shares the same opinions as Jones-Rounds about the way the project has been represented by some people in the community. She believes the applicants are developing the site in good conscience and that, taken as a whole, the project will be a good thing for the community. Schroeder noted he is pleased the applicants resolved so many of the issues the Planning Board brought up at the last meeting. It is now much more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Blalock agreed. Approval of Project Changes Resolution On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting grading and architectural changes for Stone Quarry Apartments at 400 Spencer Road, which was approved by the Planning Board on November 27, 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: grading and site layout changes consist of the following: • townhouses step down in elevation 4 feet from north to south, and • change in elevation from Spencer Road to the back door of the townhouses that requires a 4-foot retaining wall and a change in the sidewalk connection on five westernmost units from individual connections to a shared internal walkway, and • the change in grading requires the rear set of townhouses to be 2 feet lower than the front townhouses and, therefore, one interior winding walkway has been replaced with two direct walkways and a series of stone planting beds, and • multi-family building ― the changes in grade resulted in removal of two doorways on the multi-family building, and • loading zones have been reduced in size, allowing for a more usable sidewalk and additional space for a bike rack, and • balconies on multi-family building have been replaced with windows, and • southern façade of the multi-family building now has three vertical bays instead of four, and • Spencer Road façade of multi-family building has been refined and a pergola added, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on August 26, 2014, reviewed revised and updated plans entitled: “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” “Drainage Plan (C103)” and “Details (C201),” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C; “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Sections (L5 01),” and “Site DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Details (L601, L602, and L603),” all dated 6/13/14, and “Illustrative [Site Plan]” with revision dates of 7/24/14 and 8/15/14, all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and “Elevations (AP101),” “Multifamily Building Elevations (AP102),” “Townhouse Elevations (AP103),” “MultiFamily Perspectives (AP104),” all dated 6/11/14 and “Townhouse Perspectives (AP105),” dated 6/11/14 and dated stamped 8/26/14, and “Townhouse Front Porch (AP 107) dated 8/13/14, all prepared by HOLT Architects; and other materials to satisfy conditions of the November 27, 2012 approval; and WHEREAS: in spring of 2014 the applicant requested project changes to the approved site that included removing the separate entrances and architectural screening between units on the Spencer Road-facing townhouses. The proposed change arose from the need to lower the grade on the portion of the site containing the townhouses, resulting in a stepping down of the townhouse units a total of 4 feet from east to west. The Lead Agency felt that this change negatively impacted the project’s residential character and subsequently required the applicant to explore a way to restore the previously proposed entrances. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan with a final revision date of 8-15-14 that shows separate entrances restored at sidewalk level at four units and a below grade walkway and entrances for four units, and WHEREAS: the Board finds that materials submitted satisfy conditions i. and iv. of the November 27, 2012 approval, 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: i. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit documentation to the Planning Board demonstrating that site remediation has been completed as per NYSDEC standards and that NYSDEC has closed the spill file, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised grading plan showing the play area being slightly raised, and The flowing remaining unsatisfied conditions from the November 27, 2012 Site Plan Approval: iii. Submission of drawing and/or a narrative indicating planned route for construction traffic, and iv. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and v. Submission of a rooftop plan demonstrating that no substantial rooftop mechanicals are visible from the public right-of-way, and vi. Applicant shall paint any exterior vents to match adjacent building materials, and vii. Applicant shall work with NYSEG to ensure transformers are located for minimal visibility or in such a way as to allow for screening. Any such screening shall be approved by Planning Division staff, and viii. Soil for street trees and trees surrounding parking areas to be remediated, as recommended by the City Forester, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and x. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the Board of Public Works (BPW), as expeditiously as possible, to: (1) develop and implement a plan for providing pedestrian connections between the project site area on Spencer Road and nearby transit stops and shopping areas; and (2) develop and implement a plan for improving the operation of the Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road intersection, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the BPW to prioritize sidewalks on Spencer Road in the 2015 Sidewalk Improvement District Program work plan. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 4. Site Plan Review A. Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora St., Urgo Hotels. Conditions of Site Plan Approval & Project Changes. The Board approved changes to the project on June 24, 2014 with conditions. The applicant is returning to satisfy those conditions. Jalazo explained the current status of the proposed project and walked through an overhead presentation, highlighting the following items: • additional landscaping • alternating brick around windows • relocated entrance to restaurant (which updated renderings depict) • removed the planters • submitted a drawing showing landscaping around the transformers (also submitted to the NYS Department of Transportation) Schroeder noted the Board does not have the key to the landscape plan. He asked if evergeens would be planted in front of the transformers. Rubio replied, yes. Schroeder asked if there would be multiple heights of vegetation. Rubio replied, yes, although he is not absolutely sure which species, but he can provide it. Jalazo noted the bus stop has now shifted slightly to the north to accommodate an electrical panel necessary for the Commons renovation (the result of an agreement with the Department of Public Works and the Commons project management team). A second planter will also be removed from that location. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 Jones-Rounds expressed concern that vehicles in front of the building would block traffic. She asked if the City Transportation Engineer approved the most recent changes. Cornish replied he actually recommended the change. Jalazo clarified the bus stop location itself has not changed, nor the actual bus stopping point. Only the bus shelter was moved. Fernández asked if it would be a rollover curb. Jalazo replied, no. Fernández asked if the applicants planned to install bollards in front of the hotel, in that case. Jalazo replied, no. It would be the same curb as the one on Aurora Street. Fernández cautioned that safety is a highly sensitive issue ever since the fatal accident at Simeon’s on the Commons. Cornish reported two new task forces are examining the issue and exploring different ways to address it. Fernández suggested the two task forces be included in the distribution for the Marriott Hotel landscape plan. Cornish replied she would make sure that happened. Rubio pointed out that this particular lane is for vehicular drop-offs only, so any proposed bollards would need to be coordinated accordingly. Jones-Rounds observed she sees no curb bump-out on any of the renderings. Rubio replied the actual location of the curb fluctuated for a while, so the renderings may not depict the precise location. Jalazo noted the drawing that includes the curb bump-out is the official document of record. Cornish noted the applicants have been working very closely with the City Transportation Engineer on all these kinds of details. Jalazo noted the applicants studied the issue extensively with the City Fire Department and Engineering Division, including testing all conceivable situations before situating the curb bump. Jones-Rounds replied that sounds acceptable. Regarding the material samples, Schroeder noted the orangish bricks appear a little on the pink side on the renderings. He would like to make it clear for the record that the material sample represents the color to be used (i.e., a rusty-orangish-brownish color), and not the pink color on the renderings. Fernández asked if it would be real brick. Jalazo replied, yes. Schroeder noted he likes the color variety of the Nichiha panels on the west elevation. He wondered why there is not a similar amount of variety on the other elevations. Rubio replied for that particular pattern to look aesthetically correct to the human eye requires a larger surface area which is absent on the other elevations. Jalazo explained it would have looked too ‘busy’. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 Schroeder insisted the Green Street façade looks too blank near the very top. Jalazo asked if Schroeder was indicating he would like the same pattern in the panels at the top of the Green Street façade. Schroeder replied, yes, or at least some kind of articulation ― it just it looks very plain, with only the two windows. Elliott agreed with Schroeder that the façade needs to be further ‘humanized’. Elliott also remarked the building should really have more than just 3 shades of curtains to faithfully represent the waterfall effect being sought. There are eight floors, so there should probably be eight shades. Jalazo replied the curtains would be custom-fit, so having eight different shades would be a problem. It would not be enough volume for the supplier. Elliott recommended either adding more gradients or abandoning the waterfall concept altogether. He simply does not foresee it will work with only three shades. At least, the applicant could agree to further investigate the issue. Schroeder agreed with Elliott that the applicant could identify a better way of producing the desired effect (e.g., even using the same three shades, but in different configurations). Cornish noted she would like the applicant to confirm that all the utilities are accurately and completely depicted on the building elevations (i.e., that there will be no surprises, like exhaust pipes). Rubio replied there is large mechanical louver on the north elevation that would be architecturally treated and screened, to minimize its impact. The louver would be oversized to make it look more in proportion to its surroundings. There would be no other mechanicals on the roof. Jalazo added there would be no PTAC (packaged terminal air conditioner) units on the building, which would have been too obtrusive. Elliott suggested exploring using different tints of glass or other artitectural features to further articulate portions of the building. Jalazo stressed the applicants really need to be able to start construction in September 2014. Schroeder noted the applicant will most likely receive the Board’s approval to move forward this evening; but he would ask that a complete planting list be submitted to the Board and that the applicants investigate a way to include more color gradations on the ‘waterfall’ curtain. Jalazo replied the applicant would definitely explore that and communicate its findings to the Planning Board. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 Schroeder observed the only remaining isue is the signage installation on the streets near the hotel, informing motorists it can be entered directly from the Green Street Parking Garage. Jalazo replied that the applicants met with the City Engineering Director and Transportation Engineer and they are receptive to the idea. The City Parking Director would need to be involved, as well. It remains an ongoing discussion with the Department of Public Works. B. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State St., Carey Building Associates , Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 has received 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. The project has received Design Review. Applicants Snyder and Travis explained the current status of the proposed project. Snyder noted the renderings were revised since the Project Review Committee meeting, in response to a request to emphasize the horizontal lines on the cantilevered portion of the addition’s front façade. The third floor railing detail was also changed to a butt-glazed glass handrail system to downplay the new building and lend more importance to the orginal Carey Building façade. The third-floor height has been altered to 25 inches above the existing concrete deck. Snyder then distributed the materials samples to the Board. Travis reported the applicants received the Area Variance for the project, as well as letters of support from four neighboring properties and Historic Ithaca. Schroeder noted there is just one remaining condition to be discussed: the submission of a drawing depicting the actual colors on the sides of the building. Schroeder asked if the applicants could use three alternating colors. Snyder replied that the product being used already has some natural variance. Schroeder suggested another alternative would be to have less variation between the two. Snyder replied, yes, the applicants would explore that. Schroeder asked about the planned signage. Snyder replied that Cornell University hired Iron Design to create the signs for the second-floor space, so the applicants are considering a sign that wraps around the corner, as well as a sign that projects from the building face. Travis added that the applicants also reached out to the City Public Art Commission and the Community Arts Partnership. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 Travis reported the applicants investigated a possible greywater system, as discussed at the last Planning Board meeting, but the space requirement for the basement would have been too great. Snyder noted the applicants have been working with NYSEG towards a solution to the transformer issue. There will most likely be some kind of transformer somewhere, but there is no more to report at this time. Cornish responded that the Planning Board and staff should be notified once a final location is identified. Schroeder asked about the pavement for the repaved walkway. Snyder replied it would be concrete in the score pattern shown on the site plan. Travis added it will require coordination with the neighboring hotel project, since it is part of a whole entry system for the hotel. Schroeder remarked it would be nice to have colored concrete. Travis agreed. Elliott asked about the possibility of humanizing the walkway and entrance area on the north edge of the site with some kind of living material. Travis replied that may be possible. Schroeder suggested a simple trellis or low wall, as long as there is some separation between the walkway and the parking lot. Fernández suggested something similar between the east edge of the east walkway and the adjacent parcel. Travis replied the building will be set back five feet from the property lot line, so that walkway will be wider and there should be opportunities to do something like that. Elliott asked if the glass railing on the third floor balcony would be capped. Snyder replied it would probably just be glass. Schroeder noted the Project Review Committee discussed it possibly being a greyish glass. The more the balcony railing disappears, the better. If it were darker glass, rather than clear glass, it would help it recede more from view. The only bright elements should be the brick and the top part of the existing Carey Building. Snyder agreed that is the intent. Travis remarked it would seem safer to have some kind of structure for that railing. He asked if it would make sense to borrow the aluminum color from the window frame for part of the railing. Schroeder replied, yes, as long as it is not white or light-colored metal. Schroeder indicated the approval resolution will include a number of conditions, including a condition that the original Carey Building walls should be cleaned and repaired as needed and the sidewalk in front of the project site should remain open to pedestrians during construction, as much as possible. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 Blalock asked about the easement rights extension issue mentioned at the last meeting. Cornish responded there did not appear to be much interest on the City’s part in pursuing it, but it would not be ruled out. Blalock remarked he would strongly urge the City to make it possible. Cornish replied the City is constrained by its legal obligation to obtain a fair- market-value. Schroeder suggested the applicants pursue an easement agreement with the neighboring hotel project. Travis replied he would check with the hotel project team and explore it with them; however, he cannot promise anything. Elliott asked if the transformer could be concealed in an internal room. Snyder replied he does not think that would be possible, given all the associated regulations. The applicants will certainly explore the possibility. Preliminary & Final 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 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 has received the required 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: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 24, 2014 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 WHEREAS: in official GML comments, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx requested “an assessment of the traffic and parking impacts of the project,” and in response the applicant provided a trip-generation analysis prepared by SRF Associates, dated July 22, 2014, which concluded the “Carey Building addition will have very little impact on transportation in the vicinity of the site,” and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff, and the following drawings: “Site Plan;” two untitled drawings showing north/south and east/west colored building elevations; one untitled drawing showing a photo simulation of the existing buildings on the entire north side of the block with the proposed addition, as well as a conceptual rendering of the proposed future hotel to the north; “Aerial View – Looking Northeast,” “Aerial View – Looking Northwest,” “Perspective Looking West,” “Perspective Looking West from Third Floor Exterior Terrace,” “Perspective Looking East from the Commons,” “Perspective Looking Northwest from the Aurora Street and State Street,” and “Perspective Rear Entrance,” all dated 7/22/14, and four revised perspectives each titled “Carey Building Overbuild – Exterior Materials Rendering,” all dated 8/26/14, and all prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on July 22, 2014 make a negative determination of environmental significance for the project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations showing further refinement of the lower level of the west elevation, and showing more emphasis of the horizontal elements on the cantilevered portion of the front façade of the addition (per the depiction in the August 26, 2014 set of four revised perspectives), and ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and iii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a materials board and revised colored building elevations with keyed materials. These drawings are to (1) include a detail of the pattern and coloring of the principal east and west façade siding material, and (2) show the mechanical housing in a gray (instead of white) color, and iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a final section showing the relationship between the parapet of the existing building and the proposed glass railing on the third floor balcony, and a detail illustrating the materials and construction of this glass railing, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a revised site plan including a note stating that any required transformer shall be located and / or screened to minimize visibility from the public view, and vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing: (1) some attractive form of separation (e.g., a low wall or low planters) between the east edge of the proposed east walkway and the adjacent parcel, and (2) some means of enhancing the appearance of the walkway and residential entrance area proposed on the north edge of the site (perhaps involving cooperation with the adjacent property owner), and The following are required mitigations stated in the adopted FEAF, Part 3 (Note: The other required mitigations therein have already been fulfilled.) vii. The exterior walls of the original Carey Building are to be cleaned and repaired as needed, including removal of old electrical conduit on the front facade, and viii. The sidewalk on the north side of E. State Street (in front of the project site) shall remain open to pedestrians during construction, except for any brief periods when closure is temporarily essential; protective scaffolding with overhead protection over this sidewalk is acceptable, provided that pedestrians continue to have free passage under any such protective scaffolding, and ix. The applicant shall work with the City to secure the provision of bicycle parking on the north side of this block of E. State Street, said bicycle parking to be located in such a manner that it serves the entire block and does not constrict existing pedestrian movements. x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and, be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the Applicant to work with the owner of the adjacent parcel to the east to try to secure easement rights extending the full height of Applicant’s project, thereby allowing the current project’s east façade to be provided — subject to Planning Board review and approval of any revised elevation — with larger and more numerous windows featuring transparent glass, rather than the current elevation’s limited provision of glass block windows. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 C. 323 Taughannock Blvd. ― Mixed-Use Project, 323 Taughannock Blvd., Steve Flash. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary Approval. 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), and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. This project will require approval from the Board of Public Works, for modification to the parking lot, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NYS Canal Corporation. Applicants Demarest and Flash explained the current status of the proposed project. Demarest highlighted a few minor changes: • The renderings were updated to show a couple of windows that were inadvertently omitted from the front of building (which has changed very little). • There is new outdoor asphalt paving for parking (six 90-degree parking spaces), with the majority of the parking under the building. • There are three additional spaces which could either be used as parking spaces or loading zones, which is up to the Board of Public Works since they sit on City property. • The site plan was updated to reflect granite curbing and the extended concrete sidewalk. • There will be a sidewalk on the north side and two bike racks. • A planting bed will run along the entire north side; and a lawn area will be situated on the waterfront side, including three ornamental trees. • The applicants determined the bulkhead would not need to be upraded. Cornish asked if the project will include a transformer. Demarest replied he does not believe it will be necessary. Demarest remarked there will now be balconies on the east side, projecting over the property line. The parking area will be screened and the drive aisle will remain open through building. Kayak racks have also been added to the exterior wall. A private pergola structure will be placed on the top floor, with an adjoining rooftop terrace shared by all the tenants. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26 Schroeder remarked it would look better if it were more three-dimensional on top. Demarest replied he believes he could do that. Demarest noted there will now be real windows on the north elevation; and some cables have been added on the south elevation for vines. The roof will also feature solar panels. Public Hearing: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3 Schroeder noted the third impact listed under question 18 (“Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.”) should be checked off as a potential large impact. Schroeder remarked more detail should be added to the Part 3. Under “Impact on Growth and Character,” language should be added recommending a portion of the project parcel be left open for a future pedestrian/bicycle bridge. Nicholas noted a reference to the County’s GML concerns that the project would eliminate the possibility of constructing a new bridge over the Cayuga Lake Inlet should be added to the Part 3 and resolutions. Elliott asked what the target housing market is for the project. Flash replied: market rate. It is too expensive to build affordable housing on the site given the soil conditions. Demarest added it would, at least, include a wide mixture of unit types. CEQR Resolution On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds: 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 27 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 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 Board of Public Works for modification to the parking lot; the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the NYS Canal Corporation, all of whom have consented to the Planning Board’s being Lead Agency, 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 any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on August 26, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing Site Survey (L101),” “Site Layout Plan (L201),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site Details (L501),” “Elevations (A3 & A4),” “West Perspective (A5),” and “Inlet Perspective (A6),” all dated 8/14/14, and “First and Second Floor Plan (A1),” and “Third and Fourth Floor Plan (A12),” dated 6/1/14, and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines 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: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 Preliminary Approval Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 28 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 trees. The project is in the WF-1 Zoning District and has received 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 Board of Public Works for modification to the parking lot; the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; and the NYS Canal Corporation, all of whom have consented to the Planning Board’s being Lead Agency, 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 July 22, 2014 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 August 26, 2014, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on August 26, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing Site Survey (L101),” “Site Layout Plan (L201),” “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site Details (L501),” “Elevations (A3 & A4),” “West Perspective (A5),” and “Inlet Perspective (A6),” all dated 8/14/14, and “First and Second Floor Plan (A1)” and “Third and Fourth Floor DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 29 Plan (A12),” dated 6/1/14 and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: in a letter dated August 26, 2014, from Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning and Community Sustainability to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined that the project would have inter-community or county-wide traffic impacts in that it would effectively eliminate the option for future development of a bridge over Cayuga Lake Inlet connecting Route 89 with Fulton Street at the existing Court Street intersection. Such a bridge was a recommended strategy of the 2009 Route 96 Corridor Management Study for reducing long- term traffic impacts on the west end of the City, and WHEREAS: in response to the county comments, the Planning Board considered the high cost and feasibility issues of such a bridge. It was determined the proposed project could be the catalyst for long-awaited development on the waterfront, would provide much-needed housing opportunities, and would add to the City’s tax base, all leading to a decision to abandon the idea of a bridge in this location at this time and to allow the proposal to move forward, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of revised color elevations with keyed building materials, showing future rooftop greenhouse and window on the ground level of the west facade, and ii. Submission of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, lighting, exterior trellis system, and kayak rack, and iii. Addition of two bike racks, located in consultation with the City Junior Transportation Engineer, and iv. Submission of one record copy of revised elevations, and v. Submission of a revised site plan showing preferred location of future transformer and a note indicating all efforts will be made to locate any future transformer ― to the greatest extent possible ― outside the public view, and vi. Submission of a revised landscape plan showing replacement of proposed birch adjacent to Taughannock Blvd. with a sycamore or London plane tree. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 30 D. Dryden South, 205 Dryden Rd. ― Mixed-Use/Apartments, Jagat Sharma for Pat Kraft. Public Hearing and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing wood-frame structure and construct a 64’ six- story, plus basement, mixed-use building with a footprint of 3,655 SF. The bottom floor will have 2,112 SF of retail space to be occupied by the business currently on site. The upper five floors will have two four-bedroom apartments per floor, for a total of 10 apartments and 40 bedrooms/occupants. The building includes an inner court for light and ventilation, located on the west side of the building. Building construction will require a steel-pile foundation system. The project site is in the MU-2 Zoning District. In compliance with district regulations, the building is set back 5 feet from the front property line. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project has received Design Review. Applicants Sharma and Kraft explained the current status of the proposed project. Sharma noted a bike rack was added in the basement and the site plan now reflects the removed curb- cut. Elliott urged the applicants not to employ split-face blocks, or at least only use them as accents. Public Hearing: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a mixed-use building, to be located at 205 Dryden Road in the City of Ithaca by Jagat Sharma, applicant for Pat Kraft, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish the existing wood-frame structure and construct a 64’ six-story, plus basement, mixed-use building with a footprint of 3,655 SF. The bottom floor will have 2,112 SF of retail space to be occupied by the business currently on site. The upper five floors will have two four-bedroom apartments per floor, for a total of 10 apartments and 40 bedrooms/occupants. The building includes an inner court for light and ventilation, located on the west side of the building. Building construction will require a steel- DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 31 pile foundation system. The project site is in the MU-2 Zoning District. In compliance with district regulations, the building is set back 5 feet from the front property line. The project has received Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on July 22, 2014 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 all received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on July 22, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Existing Site Plan (L101),” dated June 15, 2014, “Site Plan,” “Site Section,” and a project rendering, all on a sheet titled “Drawing 1;” and “North Elevation,” South Elevation,” “West Elevation,” “East Elevation,” “Typical Floor Plan (2-5),” “6th Floor Plan,” and a perspective drawing, all on a sheet titled “Drawing 2,” dated July 15, 2014, and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma Architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on July 22, 2014 make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, 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 August 26, 2014, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on August 26, 2014 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised drawings titled “Rendering (R.01& R.02),” and “Building Elevations (A301),” dated August 19, 2014, and “Site Section, Site Plan (L102),” “Utility Plan, Disturbance Plan, Demolition Plan, Signage, Details (L103),” and “Floor Plans (A201),” dated August 26, 2014, and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma Architect; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, subject to the following conditions: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 32 i. Exterior bike racks serving this project and other properties on this block will be provided in a consolidated location to be determined, rather than in front of every individual parcel, and ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials sample sheet keyed to the elevations, and iii. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: 1 E. Collegetown Crossing ― Mixed-Use, 307 College Ave., Jagat Sharma for Josh Lower. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a new mixed-use building (with an 8,600 SF footprint) on the 0.285-acre parcel. The building will contain 4,202 SF of commercial space and resident entrances on the ground floor and a mix of unit sizes on the 2nd through 6th floors. There will be a total of 46 apartments and 96 residents. The existing three-story wood-frame multiple-dwelling unit on Linden Avenue will be retained; however, the back and side porches will be removed. This structure contains three units with 10 bedrooms, bringing the total number of units proposed on the parcel to 40, and the total number of residents to 106. The project site traverses the block with frontage on both College and Linden Avenues and is within both the MU-2 and the CR-4 Zoning Districts. The new building steps down to four stories in the CR-4 Zoning District. The project includes a public cross-block walkway and a bus shelter. Building construction will require a steel-pile foundation system. The existing 15 parking spaces currently on the site will be removed. Parking for portions of the project within the CR-4 Zoning District will require either: (1) a variance; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new construction and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved by the Planning Board. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B.(1)(k.) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review. Schroeder indicated he would need to leave shortly. He remarked he strongly believes there should be an easement along the walkway. He also has the same concerns as before about the bus stop location ― it would create too much congestion there. Cornish responded there was some discussion about moving it further to the west, but that still needs to be explored. (Schroeder departed at 10:22 p.m.) DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 33 Applicants Lower, Sharma, and Whitham explained the current status of the proposed project. Whitham noted the bus stop issue should be addressed first. He met with the City Fire Chief to discuss the fire station and also had a productive discussion with the City Transporation Engineer, who was open to moving the bust stop south. TCAT has also been supportive of the idea. It sounds like a good solution. The applicants will explore it at length and generate a drawing. Blalock remarked the Planning Board would like to see the project move forward as fast as possible and in the most productive manner. Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3 Nicholas explained the Board cannot consider the CEQR resolution this evening, since too many questions remain unanswered in the Part 3 (although they could probably be answered relatively easily). Most of the questions relate to the bus stop, vehicular deliveries, and the overall configuration/functionality of that portion of the site. The Part 3 enumerates all the information the Board currently lacks (and also contains some proposed mitigations from the previous Part 3, approved in 2012, which may be applicable). Whitham noted the applicants will provide answers to the City Transportation Engineer’s questions. The loading/servicing plan and trip-generation analysis would be easy to provide. The applicants examined the crosswalk area easement issue, but a permanent easement to the City is not something they are willing to agree to. The crosswalk area could, however, be designated a public-private pocket park. Jones-Rounds asked if the Planning Board could at least review and approve the Traffic Demand Management Plan (TDMP) this evening, even if it cannot approve the CEQR resolution at this time. Nicholas replied she does not see how that would move the project forward in any meaningful way. Blalock asked if GreenStar would have any objections to relocating the bus stop further to the south. Lower replied he knows GreenStar would prefer to have it closer to its store; however, that is not a condition of the agreement and he does not anticipate GreenStar would oppose that. Blalock asked if a connection is still planned between College Avenue and Linden Avenue. Whitham replied, yes. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 34 Whitham asked if the Board had any additional requests or questions about the TDMP. Cornish replied she had not yet had the opportunity to review it, but she would let the applicants know as soon as possible. Elliott remarked he has one major design-related concern with the project. Given that Fire Station No. 9 will be permanent, that means the building’s north elevation will remain visible. But the building as depicted on the rendering shows one block on the north façade that looks well-differentiated and fully designed, while the other two blocks on that façade appear entirely blank and undifferentiated. He suggested designing those two blocks using a similar treatment as the first, to make them look more like people actually live in them, with windows and so on. Sharma replied the Building Code prohibits any openings on a zero lot line. In that case, Elliott recommended, perhaps niches could be incorporated into those blocks, or at least the thicknesses of the bricks could be alternated. Sharma replied he would explore some options. F. 327 Eddy St. Mixed-Use/Apartments, 327 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma for Stephen Fontana. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two-story structure and construct a six-story apartment building with 1,800 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The building will have 28 units in a mix of sizes and approximately 64 occupants. Due to a twenty-eight foot grade change on the small site, the building will be constructed in three six-story sections. The building features light wells on the north and south sides. Exterior finishes include brick, colored metal panels and limestone. This is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k.) and an Unlisted Action the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review. Applicants Sharma and Fontana explained the current status of the proposed project. Declaration of 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 a mixed-use building to be located at 327 Eddy Street in the City of Ithaca, from Jagat Sharma, applicant for Steve Fontana, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish the existing two-story structure and construct a six-story apartment building with 1,800 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The building will have 28 units in a mix of sizes and approximately 64 occupants. Due to a twenty-eight foot grade change on the small site, the building will be constructed in three six- DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 35 story sections. The building features light wells on the north and south sides. Exterior finishes include brick, colored metal panels, and limestone. The project is in the MU-2 Zoning District and requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (k.) and an Unlisted Action 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 327 Eddy Street in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds Opposed: None Absent: Randall, Schroeder Vacancies: 1 Sharma indicated the building was flipped, as suggested by the Project Review Committee. Bike racks have also been added to the rear. Jones-Rounds asked if the Board could see the signage on the front and rear of the building. Sharma remarked the applicants have now identified the locations for the transformers, as well as the basement plan. They were also asked to provide the construction plan, which they are working with their general contractor to complete (and which should be submitted soon). Fontana added they were also asked to continue the limestone cap across the top of the building, which they have done. He asked if the Board can think of anything else it would like to request. Nicholas noted the project will need to go before the Design Review Committee (DRC) before the next Board meeting. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2953 ― 1108 N. Cayuga St.: Area Variances DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 36 The Appellants wish to modify the variance below, approved by the BZA on August 5, 2014. Specifically, they wish to add an additional 1 foot to the width of the entryway and an additional 1 foot to its length. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 37 Appeal of Charles Izzo, owner of 1108 North Cayuga Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Columns, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, lot width, percentage of lot coverage, front yard ,side yard, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 27’ x 22’ family room addition and enclosed entryway in the rear yard of 1108 North Cayuga Street. To make sufficient room for this addition, the applicant will remove an existing one story addition and deck from the rear yard. The new addition will increase the property’s current deficient side yards. On the south side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing house has a side yard setback of 8.2 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback. The “L “shaped addition will positioned at the 8.2 foot setback and extend an additional 16 feet along the side yard. On the north side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing building’s other side yard is approximately 2 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires this other side yard to have a 5- foot setback. On this side, the applicant proposes to have the addition setback 3.5 feet for the length of the addition, which, on the north side is approximately 26 feet. The current lot coverage for the building at 1108 north Cayuga street is 31%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%. The proposed addition will increase the lot coverage to 38%. The property has two existing area deficiencies that will not be increased by this proposal. The existing street frontage is 32.88 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street frontage of 35 feet. The front yard is only 3.5’ deep; required is a front yard setback of 10 feet. The property at 1108 North Cayuga street is in an R2b use district where the proposed addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. APPEAL #2956 ― 115 Orchard Pl.: Area Variance Appeal of Graham Kerslick and Jennifer Wilkins, owners of 115 Orchard Place for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard Setback, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants propose adding a new entry porch and open trellis to their single-family home at 115 Orchard Place. The property is located on the corner of Blair and Orchard Streets; per City Zoning regulations, this property has two front yards. Both front yards have a setback requirement of 25 feet. The proposed addition will be located in the front yard facing Blair Street, where the house at 115 Orchard Place is set back four feet from the front yard property line. The proposal is to add the new entry porch flush to this side of the house extending the existing deficient front yard an additional seven feet to the south. This will allow approximately 127 SF of the porch trellis structure to be located in the required front yard setback. The front yard setback facing Orchard Street is also deficient. This front yard setback is 3 feet, but this deficiency will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. 115 Orchard Place is located in the R-1b Use District where the proposed addition is a permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Area Variances be granted for the deficiencies prior to a Building Permit being issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 38 APPEAL #2958 ― 203 Third St.: Area Variance Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), owners of 203 Third Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Minimum Lot Size in Square Feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home on a vacant lot located at 203 Third Street. The property will be compliant with all district regulations, except lot size. The parcel’s lot size is 2,813 SF, 187 SF less the minimum required lot size of 3,000 SF. 203 Third Street is located in an R-2b Use District, where the proposed single-family home is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that an Area Variance be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. APPEAL #2959 ― 714 N. Aurora St.: Area Variance Appeal of Stream Collaborative for Judith and William Thomas, owners of 714 North Aurora Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column11, 12, and 13, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a handicapped ramp in the south side yard of 714 North Aurora Street. The ramp and a portion of its landing will encroach 3’10” into the required 10-foot side yard setback, decreasing the side yard to 6’2” for approximately 34 feet. The property also has two other area deficiencies, but these will not be exacerbated by the addition of the ramp and landing. The existing front yard has a setback of 9’8”, a 4” deficiency from the required 10-foot front yard setback. The existing setback of the other side yard is 2’6”, which is half the required 5-foot setback. The property at 714 North Aurora Street is located in an R-2b Use District where the proposed ramp and landing are permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. APPEAL #2960 ― 120 Valentine Pl.: Area Variance Appeal of Valentine Visions Associates, the owners of Collegetown Terrace Apartments, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, Width At Street requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing parcel of land and create two separate lots. The purpose of this subdivision is to secure long-term financing for two completed buildings and secure financing for the construction of a new building located at 120 Valentine Place. The parcel indicated as 3B will be subdivided into lots 3B and 3C. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel that contains recently completed Buildings 5 and 6, known as 112 and 113 Valentine Place, and locate Building 7, which is 120 Valentine Place, on the newly formed 3C lot. The proposed 3C DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 39 lot has no street width on a public way. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum width of 50’ at the street line. In order to mitigate the deficiency in width at street, the applicant is providing a 20’ wide roadway along the northern property line of lot 3C, which will extend 92’ to the access point of the public way on Valentine Place. This roadway will provide direct access to the building located at 120 Valentine Place. The property is located in an R-3a/P-1 Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however, General City Law, Article 33.3, states that lots eligible for subdivision must be in compliance with City zoning regulations before subdivision can be approved. Compliance will be achieved if the Board grants the applicant’s variance request. The Board supports granting this appeal. 120 Valentine Pl. Subdivision Cornish informed the Board she recently learned the applicants have a deadline to close on the loan associated with the subdivision, which requires the subdivision approval. Since the applicants will be going before the BZA next week, they need the Planning Board approval of the CEQR resolution before then. Cornish prepared the draft Declaration of Lead Agency and CEQR resolutions for the Planning Board to consider at this time, if it is amenable, so the Zoning Appeal review can move forward as scheduled. There were no objections. Declaration of 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 a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #83.-2- 15.4 in the City of Ithaca, by VVA Phase III LLC, applicants/owners, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8.535 acre lot into two parcels: Lot 3B measuring 4.948 acres and containing the existing Buildings 5 and 6 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments, and Lot 3B measuring 3.587 acres and to contain the proposed/future Building 7 of the same project. The proposed Lot 3C has no frontage on a public way. The project is on the R-3a and P-I Zoning districts which require minimum street width of 50’ and front, side and rear yard setbacks of 1, 10/5 and 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’ respectively. The project requires an area variance for a deficiency in width at the street, 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 40 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 #83.-2-15.4 in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds Opposed: None Absent: Randall, Schroeder Vacancies: 1 CEQR 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 a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #83.-2- 15.4 in the City of Ithaca, by VVA Phase III LLC, applicants/owners, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8.535 acre lot into two parcels: Lot 3B measuring 4.948 acres and containing the existing Buildings 5 and 6 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments, and Lot 3B measuring 3.587 acres and to contain the proposed/future Building 7 of the same project. The proposed Lot 3C has no frontage on a public way. The project is on the R- 3a and P-I Zoning districts which require minimum street width of 50’ and front, side and rear yard setbacks of 1, 10/5 and 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’ respectively. The project requires an area variance for a deficiency in width at the street, 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 WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, has, on August 26, 2014 declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review, and WHEREAS: this Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review has on August 26, 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 “Amended DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 41 Subdivision Plat showing the Lands of Valentine Vision Associates LLC, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., with a revision date of 7/17/2014; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require a variance to conform to area requirements in the R-3a and P-I 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: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds Opposed: None Absent: Randall, Schroeder Vacancies: 1 6. New/Old Business A. Planning Board Comments on Proposal to Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and Related Standards,” of Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) [revisited] None. (Deferred due to time considerations.) B. Planning Board Vice-Chair Election None. (Deferred due to time considerations.) C. Schedule Next Design Review Committee (DRC) Meeting The Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled for September 9, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair (verbal) None. (Deferred due to time considerations.) B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal) None. (Deferred due to time considerations.) C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal) None. (Deferred due to time considerations.) 8. Approval of Minutes (none) DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 42 9. Adjournment On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.