Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-01-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes January 22, 2013 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (6:19 p.m.); Noah Demarest; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning & Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning & Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning & Development Applicants Attending: Holiday Inn Expansion James Boy, RSB Architects (Roberts, Shackleton, & Boy) 150-154 Cecil A. Malone, Dr. (Vehicle Sales Lot) Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect; Tim Maguire, Owner Maguire Fiat Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect; Tim Maguire, Owner 130 Clinton St. (Apartments) Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; Jagat P. Sharma, Jagat P. Sharma Architect David A. Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C.   Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project) Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; 700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream John Snyder, John Snyder Architects Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1. Agenda Review Acharya suggested adding an agenda item to discuss Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas’ 1/10/13 memorandum, regarding the 2012 Planning Board Annual Report. There were no objections. 2. Privilege of the Floor Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave., and City Historian, spoke regarding the proposed elimination of the Minimum Parking Requirements. While not categorically opposed to the proposed measure, she strongly recommended any action on the proposed changes be postponed until the City has a broader understanding of its potential impacts. 3. Site Plan Review A. Holiday Inn ― Conditions of Final Site Plan Approval Applicant James Boy indicated he was prepared to answer any questions the Board may have. Rudan asked if the noise impact assessment study results would alter the project in any way. Boy replied, no. The new building will actually be producing less noise than the current building. Marcham noted her surprise to see that the new building looks so different from the old. Boy replied that the owners wanted to make a statement with the new tower. B. Vehicle Sales Lot, 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr., Thomas Schickel, Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 SF (0.808 acre) parking lot, and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot, for a total area of 54,950 SF (1.26 acres) with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion of the lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install a landscaped buffer with trees and grass along the front of the property, and to remove the easterly curbcut. The applicant is proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’5”-wide sidewalk across the length of the property. The gravel lot is designed to drain on site, with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project requires area variances from the BZA. The project is on two separate tax parcels and requires consolidation. 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Applicant Tom Schickel reported that the project received its zoning variance. The current plan is exactly the same as the one presented to the Board last month. Demarest remarked that the City Forestry Technician recently submitted additional comments on the project, which will need to be addressed. Schickel replied he would work with Planning staff to resolve those issues. Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Rudan: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a vehicle sales lot by Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 (0.808 acre) parking lot and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot for a total area of 55,850 SF (1.282 acres) with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion for the lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’-wide sidewalk across the length of the property and install additional vegetative buffers with trees, shrubs, and grass. There will be two curbcuts. The gravel lot is designed to drain on-site with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project has received the required area variances from the BZA. The project is on two separate tax parcels and requires consolidation, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on December 18, 2012, 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 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on December 18, 2012 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a drawing entitled “Site Plan (L1),” prepared by Schickel Architects and dated 12/18/12; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on December 18, 2012 determine that the proposed Vehicle Sales Lot to be located on 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr. 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, and WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals did on January 9, 2013 grant the project the required variances, and WHEREAS: the Board has on January 22, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised drawings entitled “Layout Plan and Grading Plan (C1)” and “Planting Plan (C2),” and “Site Details (C3)” dated 1/8/13; and “Layout Plan (C-1),” dated ¼/13, all prepared by Schickel Architects and dated 12/14/12; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the above-referenced project, subject to the following conditions: i. A Street Permit is required for any work done in the City-owned right-of-way, and ii. Planning Department staff shall approve signage, and iii. Applicant shall work with City staff to choose a replacement tree species for the tree lawn, that will mature at no more than 20 – 25 feet in height ( as per the City Foresters recommendation), and submit a revised planting plan showing the replacement, and iv. Submission of documentation showing consolidation of the two tax parcels. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None C. Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd. (formerly, GreenTree Nursery), Thomas Schickel, Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Partnership. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 1,300 SF building (formerly, GreenTree nursery) and construct a new 8,165 SF building (GSF 10,210, including 2nd floor office space). The new building will include a showroom, customer service area, offices, and service bays. The site work will include: the addition 15 new parking spaces; 4 display spaces facing Elmira Road; 6 customer parking spaces at the front and side of the building; and 5 service and employee spaces at the rear of the building. Site development will require removal of all accessory structures, vegetation, and chain-link fence. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the continuous curbcut along the access drive; add landscaping and additional street trees, and add two planting islands with shade trees on the adjacent property. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and requires an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and an easement from the adjacent property owner for the two-way driveway on the access road. 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Applicant Tom Schickel walked through the layout plan and the topographical map, highlighting the recent project modifications, recorded in the applicant’s 1/4/13 letter to the Board. Schroeder asked if the applicant will be building a sidewalk up to the property line. Schickel replied, yes. Schroeder asked that this be illustrated on the drawing, which Schickel agreed to do. Schroeder remarked that the December Project Review Committee meeting included some discussion about adding street trees to the gap on Elmira Road. He asked if the applicant could add another two trees to that portion of the site. Schickel replied that this would actually be a problem for the applicant, since it would obscure the building too much. Owner Tim Maguire remarked that the whole purpose of the project is to create a display lot for the vehicles and he would prefer not to obscure them unnecessarily. Cornish inquired into the appearance of the roof mechanicals. Schickel replied the applicant has not quite determined what that would look like, yet; however, he is aware they need to be concealed or architecturally incorporated, in some manner. Adopted Lead Agency Declaration Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for Maguire Fiat to be located at 308 Elmira Road by Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to remove the existing 1,300 SF building (formerly, GreenTree nursery) and construct a new 8,165 SF building (GSF 10,210, including 2nd floor office space). The new building will include a showroom, customer service area, offices, and service bays. The site work will include the addition of: 15 new parking spaces; 4 display spaces facing Elmira Road; 6 customer parking spaces at the front and side of the building; and 10 service and employee spaces at the rear of the building. Site development will require removal of all accessory structures, vegetation, and chain-link fence. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the continuous curbcut along the access drive, add landscaping, additional street trees, two planting islands with shade trees on the adjacent property, and a sidewalk and tree lawn along the access road. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and requires an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and an easement from the adjacent property owner for the two-way driveway on the access road, and 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires 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 Maguire Fiat to be located at 308 Elmira Road. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Rudan, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. D. Apartments, 130 E. Clinton St., Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp. Update Only ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to construct three 3-story apartment buildings, each containing 12 units (four on each floor) ― for a total of 36 units and 48 beds. The buildings are proposed to be wood-frame with overhanging hipped shingled roofs, wood siding and trim, and gabled entry points. Vehicular access is from a new service drive commencing at the existing parking lot on Prospect Street. Pedestrian access will come from two new stairs, one on Clinton Street and the other from the new service drive, both connecting to a new wooden boardwalk along the west sides of the buildings. The 1.748-acre project site contains steep slopes and project development will require extensive regrading and removal of a large area of vegetation, including several mature trees to form level building pads. The buildings are also built into the slope. The project is in the B-1a Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(k), B(2) and B(5), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Applicant Scott Whitham highlighted the following outstanding issues associated with the project: (1) the placement of the buildings in proportion to the slope; (2) the composition and quality of the underlying soil; and (3) the nature of the trees that have not yet been successfully identified. 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Whitham noted that, in response to earlier Board comments, the applicant tried to move the buildings up the slope, but this proved too difficult. Architect Jagat Sharma added that moving the buildings even further up precludes making the walkway from Clinton Street accessible. Consultant David Herrick reported that the geotechnical analysis has been completed and the results suggest that the top 6-8 feet contain fill, but beneath that lies a combination of gravel and soil. The excavation of the building foundation should not encounter bedrock. Marcham asked if any pile-driving would be necessary. Herrick replied this has yet to be fully determined. In either case, he added, some noise would undoubtedly be generated. Sharma indicated he does not believe the buildings will require pile-driving. Nicholas asked if any blasting would be necessary. Herrick replied, no. Herrick indicated the applicant has also been holding discussions with Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson about the project and determined that a basic Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. Schroeder remarked he would still like to see a connection to the downtown area, if at all feasible. E. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St. (The Commons), Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Update Only ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 10-story, mixed- use building of approximately 132,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,000 SF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (41,200 SF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential (up to 72 units). The residential portion of the project is in the tower, set back 75’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one on Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is on the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires an area variance for height. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176- 4 B(1)(h)[4], B(1)(k) and B(1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(9) and is subject to environmental review. Applicant Scott Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted there is a State code issue, regarding the distance from the parking garage ― the current proposal is 15 feet from the garage, while the State requires 20 feet. The applicant is currently investigating what is required for a State variance. 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Whitham reported the applicant has been meeting with the Building Division, regarding the remaining Code-related issues, which primarily revolve around the fire separation between the new building and the Sage Building. Another issue that will need to be resolved is how the project will incorporate the Maté Factor building, considerable discussion of which has already taken place. The applicant is seeking to obtain enough square footage from the Maté Factor to allow an opening to the building via Cinemapolis Plaza, thus opening up the entire building more, from the street. The applicant is looking to use the rear portion of the existing Maté Factor building (the kitchen) as part of a joint entryway for the new building. Whitham added that no new elevations have been produced for the project, until these kinds of issues can be resolved. Schroeder suggested that the applicant re-use some of the limestone detailing on the second story of the Race Building (or, at least, borrow from the design). Schroeder asked if the applicant could provide the Board with the various rendered perspective views of the project, which were presented at the last meeting. Whitham replied, yes, although he would need to double check with the design team to ensure those views are as accurate and developed as they need to be. Jones-Rounds reiterated her prior interest in seeing public lavatories in the building. F. Purity Ice Cream Mixed-Use Project, 700 Cascadilla St., Bruce Lane, Applicant & Owner. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to expand its ground floor operations while maintaining the existing Purity Ice Cream building that faces North Meadow Street. The existing industrial structure behind the service area will be demolished to accommodate the expanded service area and new Purity Ice Cream offices on the ground floor. The project will be 5 stories and approximately 36,500 total SF. Four stories will be added above the first story, and will provide between 13 one-bedroom and 26 two-bedroom residential rental units, and potentially 1,000 to 8,500 SF of rental office space. The major structural system will be a steel frame, with friction piles and concrete grade beams as the anticipated foundation system. The project will employ a brick cavity wall on the north façade and the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. The project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District. 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 approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut. Applicant John Snyder appeared before the Board and indicated he was prepared to answer any questions the Board may have about the project. Rudan asked what specific building materials were planned for the project. Snyder replied that the project team has been exploring a wide variety of options (e.g., brick, glass, etc.), but has not firmly identified anything yet. 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds asked how the applicant would address the questions raised in the 1/14/13 City Transportation Engineer memorandum. Snyder replied that the concept is to have the driveway go around Cascadilla Street, to provide people with another means of leaving the site. This approach would also be helpful when the parking lot is completely full, to allow people to leave the site and circle back. Snyder added it is possible that the owner’s facility across Fulton Street could be used as possible overflow parking. The applicant would ultimately like to resolve the often chaotic traffic situation on Fulton Street. Snyder remarked he has not yet consulted at length with the City Transportation Engineer, so he is not ready to respond formally to his comments, at this time. Demarest reiterated he would like to see the new building designed to appear more harmoniously integrated with the original building. Snyder responded the applicant is very sensitive to those kinds of design considerations. He stressed that the renderings do not yet entirely reflect what the building will actually look like. The intent is certainly that the two buildings would be well and fully integrated with each other. Adopted Intent to Declare Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Rudan: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a mixed-use housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street (Purity Ice Cream) by Bruce Lane, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand its ground floor operations, while maintaining the existing Purity Ice Cream building that faces North Meadow Street. The existing industrial structure behind the service area will be demolished to accommodate the expanded service area and new Purity Ice Cream offices on the ground floor. The project will be 5 stories and approximately 36,500 total SF. Four stories will be added above the first story and will provide between 13 to 26 one and two-bedroom residential rental units, and potentially 1,000 to 8,500 SF of rental office space. The major structural system will be a steel frame, with friction piles and concrete grade beams as the anticipated foundation system. The project will employ a brick cavity wall on the north façade; and the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. The project is in the WEDZ-1a Zoning District. The project requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut, and 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1). (k). an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed mixed-use housing project to be located at 700 Cascadilla Street. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 4. Zoning Appeals ― None. 5. Old Business ― None. 6. New Business A. 2012 Planning Board Annual Report (1/10/13) Board members reviewed and discussed the report. Nicholas remarked that 2012 was a particularly active year for Site Plan Review applications; and 2013 appears to be beginning the same way. Demarest asked if staff has historical data for, or simply a general sense of, what the Site Plan Review application fee income was five or ten years ago compared to today, and what trend(s) may or may not be identifiable from that. Nicholas replied that 2010, for example, can safely be characterized as a valley, in terms of the Site Plan Review application activity and income (largely, if not entirely, due to the recession). Moreover, Nicholas remarked, she can also state with a high degree of certainty that 2013 will be another highly active year. Schroeder agreed, observing that there remains considerable unmet/pent-up demand. Blalock asked if any research had been done regarding the number of jobs generated from each project and has there been any exploration of a correlation between Site Plan Review application fees and the number of applications received. Nicholas replied that the applicant does supply the City with the jobs information on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1. She does not have any immediately available data on the correlation between Site Plan Review fees and the number of applications received. 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Blalock observed that it would be helpful to have that kind of information available for the public to see. Cornish replied that staff could certainly look into doing that, moving forward. 2. Privilege of the Floor (cont.) Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the proposed elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements. She remarked that requiring landlords to provide parking is counterproductive, as it unnecessarily builds the cost of parking into the cost of housing, which places low-to-moderate income people at the greatest disadvantage. Wayles E. Browne, II, 206 Eddy St., spoke in support of the proposed elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements. While the present requirement may have made sense some years ago, he no longer believes that to be the case. B. Minimum Parking Requirements Discussion Michael Manville, Professor of City & Regional Planning at Cornell University, made a presentation to the Board that included the following points: • The basic criticism of minimum parking requirements is that they do not, in fact, solve the problem that they are purportedly attempting to solve (based largely on the fear that drivers would use all the curb spaces). • One major problem with minimum parking requirements is that they essentially lead to curb spaces being underpriced. While one can try to solve the problem by building off- street parking spaces, they are far from a perfect solution. Curb spaces still end up being overused and off-street parking is rarely employed to its fullest extent. Moreover, the cost of driving/parking is artificially subsumed into the cost of housing; so minimum parking requirements simply end up being a quiet subsidy for driving. • When municipalities establish minimum parking requirements, the discussion of cost is never addressed. For example, developers may simply choose not to build a particular housing project they would otherwise have been willing to build, because of the additional cost of providing parking. • Minimum parking requirement also neglect the niche market of people who neither need nor want cars. Rudan asked if Manville’s remarks assume that parking is bundled. Manville replied his arguments would apply in either case, although parking is far more likely to be bundled, nationwide, than not. Rudan responded that parking in Ithaca is far less likely to be bundled. Not having data on the actual cost of parking construction, she added, complicates the situation. 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Manville noted that as an area develops, and remaining available parcels become harder and harder to build on, the cost of parking inevitably increases. Blalock noted that one can examine buildings that have underground parking garages to shed light on the situation. If there are a lot of empty spaces, one can reasonably assume the cost of parking is less than the cost of rent. He noted that he has not seen many garages in Collegetown that appear overbuilt. Schroeder remarked that the pedestrian infrastructure in Collegetown is unsatisfactory. For that reason, the City’s proposed Payment-in-Lieu-of-Parking (PILOP) system was a real step forward, since it specifically designated the use of PILOP funds for infrastructural improvements. If one totally eliminates parking requirements, however, there will be no dedicated source of funding to improve and maintain the pedestrian infrastructure. Although in theory Schroeder supports removing minimum parking requirements in Collegetown, the city needs a system that does what PILOP was designed to do. Blalock agreed with Schroeder; however, he noted that a system like PILOP seems too much like a tax. He sees no reason to target a specific population of developers, when the entire city could be contributing. Manville conceded PILOP systems can be a big improvement; however, they seem to work best in places where developers work on small parcels, have considerable cash, operate in relatively dense areas, where they can get high returns, so they can convince a potential lender to finance the in-lieu fee. Lenders want to know they can recoup their investments, if something goes wrong, and they cannot do that with in-lieu fees. Manville went on to stress that eliminating minimum parking requirements is not equivalent to prohibiting parking. The assumption that people would end up building nothing but buildings without parking is false. He added that parking meters remain a viable means to generate revenue, for funding infrastructural improvements. Manville noted that there is no science to predicting the need for parking. Every building is different and building uses can vary significantly over time. Minimum parking requirements, therefore, include a large arbitrary component. Rudan observed that it would be helpful to frame the current discussion within a larger, city- wide context (e.g., via the Comprehensive Plan). Cornish responded that it is in fact being discussed on a number of different levels. Demarest noted that Cornish’s memorandum on the subject poses a lot of excellent questions, so coming up with some answers to those questions would be a good first step. 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Acharya remarked that the Board should decide how it would like to proceed. Demarest responded that the Board should simply draft a resolution containing its recommendations, and be prepared to act on it at its next meeting. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Acharya noted that the Collegetown Working Group has been meeting consistently and made progress on some proposed zoning amendments. Acharya has been working on some FAQs, summarizing numerous anticipated concerns. He projects that Common Council would likely not receive the proposed zoning amendments until May 2013 (to the Planning and Economic Development Committee). Rudan expressed her concern that no information has been provided to the affected property owners. Cornish replied that would take place once the Planning and Economic Development Committee has approved the final draft for distribution, after which it would go before the City Administration Committee and the Planning Board. B. Director of Planning & Development Cornish remarked that all Planning Board members should have received the Comprehensive Plan status report from Planner Megan Wilson. Cornish indicated that Focus Groups are in the process of being formed and will be meeting in March-April 2013. Regarding the proposed elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements, Cornish reported that the subcommittee will be meeting tomorrow. Several remaining issues need to be cleaned up by the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Schroeder remarked he has also concerns with maximum parking requirements, in a situation like the recent Stone Quarry Apartments project. He is not sure it makes sense to have maximum requirements in certain cases. There ought to be an exemption when there are more than a certain number of units on one lot. C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison Acharya remarked the BPW had discussed the issue of installing pavements on the 400 block of Spencer Road, as well as improving the safety of that intersection. BPW members indicated it may be possible to address that issue in 2014. Acharya noted BPW also made progress moving towards approval of the Elmira Road sidewalk improvement project. 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 Acharya announced the new City Waste Water Plant has now reached the 90% design stage. Former Superintendent of Public Works Bill Gray will be staying on to oversee the project. A search committee has also been established to fill the Superintendent vacancy. 7. Approval of Minutes: 11/27/12 & 12/18/12 On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Demarest, the draft 11/27/12 and 12/18/12 meeting minutes were approved, with no modifications. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None 9. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.