Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-03-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes March 26, 2013 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock (6:08 p.m.); Jack Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C. J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Board Vacancies: 1 Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning & Economic Development Applicants Attending: Cornell Laundry (527 W. State St.) Brian Buttner, Applicant, ADR Associates Maguire Fiat Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect; Tim Maguire, Owner Klarman Hall Cornell University, Goldwin Smith Hall Addition Fred Koetter, Architect, Koetter Kim & Associates, Inc.; Mark C. Deshong, Architect, Koetter Kim & Associates, Inc.; Gary Wilhelm, Senior Project Manager, Cornell University Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Acharya indicated Zoning Appeal #2902 (108 Homestead Avenue) should be reviewed earlier in the meeting, since the appellant is already present. Nicholas remarked the Lake Street Pocket Neighborhood Sketch Plan originally listed on the agenda will not be reviewed at this time, at the applicant’s request. Schroeder added he would like to discuss issues relating to the current Board vacancy. No objections were raised to any of proposed adjustments to the agenda. 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2. Privilege of the Floor Tom Shelley, Conservation Advisory Council member, invited the Board to the Climate Smart & Climate Ready regional conference he has been helping organize, on April 18-21, 2013. He stressed the conference is specifically designed to include participants from local governments and their boards/committees. 3. Special Order of Business ― Collegetown Zoning Presentation by Megan Wilson Wilson walked through an overview of the Collegetown Working Group’s recent efforts. Much like previous proposals, she noted, the Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) proposal is a hybrid code, combining elements of form-based zoning with use and density regulations. As noted in her 3/20/13 concept memorandum to the Planning Board, Wilson remarked the CAFD plan is intended to: • Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction; • Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher- density and lower-density zoning districts; • Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established residential neighborhoods; • Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban environment; and • Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of transportation. Schroeder remarked that former City Historic Preservation Planner Chatterton believed funding would be available to hire a consultant for some streetscape drawings for the CAFD plan. Cornish replied that is not correct; there is no money available for that purpose. Schroeder suggested adding CAFD to the Planning Division’s annual workplan, so it can be moved up on list of City planning priorities. If funding can be obtained, Cornish replied, she agreed that would be worth doing. Wilson noted it will probably take 8 weeks to complete the document, once a contract for the drawings has been signed. In addition to updating the drawings, the consultant will also generate graphical renderings for each of the zoning district categories. Cornish indicated the current intent is to have the CAFD plan adopted at the July 2013 Common Council meeting. 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3. Site Plan Review A. Shipping/Receiving Annex for Cornell Laundry, 527 W. State St., Brian Buttner, Applicant for Owner, John Gorsky. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 2,304 SF distribution and storage facility, at the rear (Green St. side) of the existing building. The proposed building will have four loading bays and a forklift entry on the east façade. The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the existing island between the two driveways and widen the eastern curbcut to 28’. The project also includes relocation of a utility pole, installation of a vegetative screen, and a rolling gate at the southwest corner of the building. The project site has recently been consolidated. The project site is in the B-2d Zoning District. An area variance is required for the project, for relief from the required two-story minimum in the B-2d Zoning District and a tree permit will be required to remove a City tree. 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 applicant has received permission from NYS DOT for the size and configuration of the curbcuts. Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that the applicant finally reached an agreement with the state Department of Transportation to permit two 28- foot driveways, with an island in between. Cornish asked if the island would be curbed. Buttner replied, yes, with concrete curbs. Cornish remarked that standard City guideline call for granite extending to the sidewalk, with curbing around the entire island. Buttner responded that would be done. Schroeder asked for revised drawings that would clearly labels the curbs, which Buttner agreed to provide. Cornish asked if the fence, labeled on the west side of the site, exists there currently. Buttner replied, yes, although it will be shortened slightly. Cornish asked if fencing would be installed on both sides. Buttner replied, no, just on one side. In that case, Schroeder remarked, curbing should be installed on the east side to protect the shrubs. Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for an addition to Cornell Laundry, by Brian Buttner, applicant for owner, John Gorsky, and 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 2,304 SF distribution and storage facility at the rear (Green St. side) of the existing building. The proposed building will have four loading bays on the south façade and a forklift entry on the east façade. The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the existing island between the two driveways and widen the eastern curbcut to 28’. The project also includes relocation of a utility pole, installation of a vegetative screen, and a rolling gate at the southwest corner of the building. The project site has recently been consolidated. The project site is in the B-2d Zoning District and will require a tree permit to remove a City tree. The project has received approval from NYS DOT and the required area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), 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: on March 27, 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 the 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 March 27, 2012, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in accordance with §176-6 D. of the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, did on February 26, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Proposed Storage/Shipping Annex (Site Plan),” with revision dates of 3/26/12 and 10/5/12, and “West Elevation ― Shallow Sloping Site,” and “South Elevation ― Proposed Storage/Shipping Annex,” dated 11/20/12, and “Existing Shipping/Receiving Area” (undated), all prepared by ADR Associates; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board did, on February 25, 2013 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on March 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a revised “Proposed Storage/Shipping Annex (Site Plan),” with revision dates of 3/26/12, 7/8/12, 10/5/12, 11/20/12, and 2/20/13, prepared by ADR Associates; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to Cornell Laundry to be located at 527 West State Street, subject to the following condition: • Submission to staff of a revised site plan, showing curbing around the center island between the two entry drives and defining the landscape area at the west edge of the west entry drive and the east edge of the east entry drive. The latter curb shall continue east on the inside of the east hedge, to the east property line. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancy: 1 [See section “5. Zoning Appeals,” below, for the associated recommendation to the BZA.] B. Maguire Fiat, 308 Elmira Rd. (formerly, GreenTree Nursery), Thomas Schickel, Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Partnership. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 second-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; 6 display spaces facing at the front of the site; 7 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: close 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 has received the required area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that the project received two area variances from the BZA. He noted there have been just a few changes to the project, since it was last reviewed by the Board, including the addition of granite curbs, a bike rack, and the submission of revised site details and grading. All the elevations are identical to the ones presented at the last meeting. Cornish remarked that having wheelstops in the display parking area had also been discussed. Schickel replied that the applicant was planning on adding lawn mounds in the display parking area. Cornish asked why the applicant could not install actual wheelstops, instead. 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Maguire responded that the drawback to wheelstops is that rest of the parking lot does not have them, so there would be a lack of consistency. Cornish noted that the City’s primary concern is to keep tires off lawn areas. Maguire replied that the applicant would do whatever needs to be done to prevent that. Schroeder inquired into the rooftop mechanicals. Schickel replied there will probably be some, but the applicant has not determined precisely how they would be masked. Schroeder asked if the vines on the north elevation could also be made to appear on the landscape plan. Schickel replied, yes. Schroeder remarked that the Board would also like the opportunity to review the building material samples (which could simply be submitted to staff), which Schickel agreed to do. Schroeder inquired into the issue of remediating the soil, as requested by City Forestry Technician Jeanne Grace, wherever trees are being planted. Schickel indicated the applicant would do that. Preliminary & Final Approval Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a parking lot, building expansion, and renovations 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 second 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: 18 new parking spaces (16 display spaces facing Elmira Road and a private road); 7 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 close the continuous curbcut along the access drive, add landscaping and additional street trees, as well as two planting islands with shade trees on the adjacent property. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District and has received an area variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: on November 27, 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 January 22, 2013, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 26, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings entitled “Topographic Map, No.312 & 318 Elmira Road,” dated 8/16/11, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and “Layout Plan (C1),” dated 1/4/13, with revision dates of 1/8/13 and 2/8/13, “Floor Plan (A1),” dated 1/4/13, “Elevations (A2),” dated 1/4/13, with a revision date of 1/18/13, and “Planting Plan (L2),” dated 1/22/13, with a revision date of 2/11/13; and “Layout Plan (color rendering) (C1),” “Layout Plan (C1),” and “Planting Plan (L2),” all with a revision date of 2/20/13, and all prepared by Schickel Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on February 26, 2013 issue a negative declaration of environmental significance for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on March 26, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate, new, revised, and previously unrecorded drawings entitled: “Layout Plan (C1),” dated 1/4/13, with revision dates of 1/8/13, 2/8/13, and 3/20/12, “Planting Plan (L2),” dated 1/22/13, with a revision dates of 2/11/13, 2/20/13 and 3/2013; “Pavement Plan (C3),” “Grading Plan (C4),” and “Utility Plan (C5),” all dated 9/20/12 with a revision date of 3/20/13; and “Site Details (C6),” dated 9/20/12 with a revision date of 3/20/13; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant preliminary and final site plan approval to the proposed Maguire Fiat project to be located at 308 Elmira Road, subject to the following conditions: i. Applicant shall use remediated soil in the new planting areas, as per a recommendation of the City Forestry Technician, and ii. Submission to staff of a revised “Planting Plan (L2),” showing the vines intended to grow on the north building wall, per color drawing “Elevation (A2),” and iii. Submission to staff of a revised “Layout Plan (C1),” showing curbing along all Maguire Fiat project site green spaces, and 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD iv. Staff to review building materials samples, and v. Any rooftop mechanicals shall be architecturally integrated into the building or screened from public view. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancy: 1 C. Klarman Hall, 232 East Ave., Cornell University, Cornell University, Applicant & Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a 67,511 SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear of Goldwin Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re- roof the building. Klarman Hall will contain classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space. The two buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of the hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both for exterior walls and the roof, and includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area behind Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between Goldwin Smith Hall and Lincoln Hall. This is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4(b.)(9), and requires environmental review. The project is in the U-1 Zoning district and the Arts Quad Historic District and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). Chair Acharya asked each Board member to divulge any potential conflict(s) of interest she/he may have, involving the project: • Acharya indicated his wife works at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS). • Schroeder indicated he is a Cornell alumnus. (He also works for the Cornell Daily Sun, but it is unaffiliated with the university.) • Elliott indicated he is Associate Professor of Design and Environmental Analysis, at the Cornell College of Human Ecology. • Blalock indicated he is Associate Professor at the Cornell School of Applied Economics and Management. • Jones-Rounds indicated she is a Cornell alumna. Her husband is employed by the Cornell Human Development EEG and Psychophysiology Laboratory. • Randall indicated she is a Cornell alumna. 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Wilhelm recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He indicated the design team is working towards Platinum LEED certification. Wilhelm asked what requirements would need to be fulfilled for the review of the roof project. Schroeder responded the Board would simply need documentation of the building materials, along with images of the samples. Schroeder remarked the roof project appears beautifully done. Cornish remarked the roof would ordinarily be a part of the Site Plan Review process, but since the applicant needs to move forward with it, it will be acceptable to forego formal approval of it. Acharya observed the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) will also review it. Deshong remarked the design team took particular care in designing the project not to block sight lines. He noted the circulation of people in the new building would continue to connect the Ag Quad with the Arts Quad; and the public space will still permit the ‘U’ shape of Goldwin Smith Hall to be recognized. Envisioned as a piazza, the ground floor space will be almost entirely accessible to the public. Jones-Rounds inquired into the accessibility of the ground floors. Deshong replied there would be three accessible entrances. Deshong noted that at the June 2013 Planning Board meeting Schroeder suggested creating stonework that is more compatible with Goldwin Smith; so the applicant has created a textured, sandblasted stone panel system. Acharya remarked he works in an Ithaca College LEED Platinum building, which experienced a number of temperature-control problems; he would strongly recommend troubleshooting the Klarman Hall temperature controls, in advance. Wilhelm responded that the project schedule allows the applicant some time to work those kinds of issues out. (The applicant is working with an expert engineer who worked on the Physical Sciences Building, which has worked almost perfectly as a model.) Blalock asked if the Admissions Office outdoor counseling space could be made publicly accessible during non-work hours, since it seems a waste of space otherwise. Wilhelm replied he would explore that. Elliott observed that honeysuckle is an invasive plant; the applicant may want to re-assess that choice. Deshong indicated the applicant would look into that. 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds inquired into the number of bicycle parking spaces. Deshong replied that the applicant surpassed the LEED requirement by a considerable number. Jones-Rounds remarked that there is a shortage of bicycle spaces in the city and 28 does not necessarily seem such a large number, for such a large building. She suggested contacting Cornell Big Red Bikes. Wilhelm replied they did speak with them briefly and they would follow up with them. Elliott observed the sunshading system might be an opportunity for some additional solar panels. Deshong replied they had actually explored that; they determined they really could not do that and retain the overall quality of lighting they we were looking for. Blalock inquired into the project’s impact on birdlife. Deshong replied that the applicant has an Audubon Society report and the bosque is what was recommended for bird protection. The applicant consulted with Avian Flyaway, which assessed the design. He noted the building’s atrium roof slopes at too uncomfortable an angle for birds to perch on. Elliott indicated his only major problem with the project is that the entrance could be made larger and grander. The entrance box appears a little understated for the kind of grandeur the rest of the building evokes. Deshong responded that the appearance of the entrance on the drawings is a little deceiving, since the whole first floor and the entrance lie at the same elevation. If the entrance were to be made larger, it would compete too much with the rest of the building. Jones-Rounds indicated she had similar concerns as Elliott, the first time she saw the entrance. She suggested making it a slightly different shape. Schroeder agreed, although he suggested making the entry a little more expressive instead, in order to differentiate it. 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 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 Klarman Hall to be located at 232 East Avenue by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 67,511 SF addition (Klarman Hall) to the rear of Goldwin Smith Hall, as well as add dormers and re-roof the building. Klarman Hall will contain classrooms, office space, a 330-seat auditorium, and an enclosed public gathering space. The two buildings will be connected by enlarging five existing windows on the ground floor of the hemicycle of Goldwin Smith Hall. The proposed design makes extensive use of glass, both for exterior walls and the roof, and includes green roofs and multiple outdoor terraces on several levels. The project includes landscaping, outdoor seating areas, and reconstruction of the sidewalk contiguous to the building site. The project site is located in the lawn area between Goldwin Smith Hall and East Avenue. Construction staging will extend into the area between Goldwin Smith Hall and Lincoln Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District and the Arts Quad Historic District and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (b), (h) [4], and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4(b.)(9), 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 Klarman Hall to be located at 232 East Avenue in the City of Ithaca. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancy: 1 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2901, Area Variance ― 1204 N. Cayuga St. Appeal of Andrew Willford and Vasantha Narayanan for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 11, front yard, Column 12, side yard, and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an addition in the rear yard of the property located at 1204 N. Cayuga Street. The foot print of the addition will extend into the area where an existing garage is currently located. The garage will be demolished and the new addition will be constructed for the purpose of a therapy room for their disabled daughter. The attached new addition will increase the lot coverage from 42.4% to 48.9%. The ordinance requires a maximum of 35% lot coverage. In order to allow enough floor area for the proposed use, the applicants would like to position the addition 3’ from the side lot line. The ordinance requires a minimum of 10’ for the side yard. The rear yard dimension will also be 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD diminished to .06% or 4’8” of the required 25% or 50’ of the zoning ordinance. The property has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. The Board agrees that the applicant’s intent is reasonable; however, a drawing of the proposed addition would be needed to comment on neighborhood compatibility. Appeal #2902, Temporary Accessory Apartment Permit ― 108 Homestead Ave. Appeal by Brian Buttner, the owners’ agent and architect, for a temporary accessory apartment permit allowing the construction and occupancy of a second dwelling unit at 108 Homestead Avenue in accordance with accessory apartment regulations under Section 325-10 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Jennifer and Clay Birkhall reside in a single family home located at 108 Homestead Avenue. They are looking to add a new apartment and had the applicant Brian Buttner design this new unit. The new accessory apartment will be approximately 427 SF. The Accessory Apartment Ordinance states that the second dwelling unit cannot be more than 1/3 the size of the habitable space in the main unit. As designed, the accessory apartment will be approximately 18.5% as large as the habitable space in the main unit as the total habitable space in the existing building is 2,301 SF. This second apartment will be located above the garage on the second floor of the house in the north east corner of the building. A new stair enclosure will begin on the upper story’s side yard deck. Inside the enclosure, a new flight of stairs will bring a tenant up to a shared enclosed landing where a person can either access the apartment or enter into the primary living quarters. The new apartment has been designed as a one person studio apartment as and because under Ithaca’s Housing Standard the bedroom area is only large enough for one person. The property at 108 Homestead Avenue is in an R- 1a zoning district where the proposed use is a permitted accessory use; however, Section 325-10 states that the Board of Zoning Appeals must grant a temporary accessory apartment permit before the dwelling unit can be constructed and occupied. The Board recommends approval of this appeal provided that there are no unresolved neighborhood concerns. Appeal #2903, Area Variance ― 309 E. Court St. Appeal of Anna Sears, owner of the property at 313 E. Court St., for area variances from Section 325- 8, column 7, lot width, 325 -8, lot coverage, 325 -8, column 11, front yard setback and 325-8, Column13, other side yard setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to resubdivide two adjacent properties at 309 E. Court St. and 313 E. Court St. so that approximately 1,776 square feet of 313 E. Court Street’s, rear yard can be given to 309 E. Court St.. The reason the applicant wants a portion of the rear yard at 313 E. Court St. to be given to 309 E. Court St. is so that Anna Sears can preserve the Victorian garden in the backyard of these two properties. Before Anna Sears became the owner of two properties her mother, Joan Sears, a landscape architect owned both properties. Joan Sears developed the Victorian garden. Her daughter, now the owner, must sell both properties because she lives in Rochester; however, she intends to resubdivide the two properties 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD through the subdivision process so her mother’s garden can be saved. To keep the garden is a testimony to her mother’s skill. She also wants to keep the garden so that then nearby community can enjoy her work. The property as subdivided would increase its size by approximately 1776 square feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 6,065 to approximately 7,840 square feet. Required Is 7000 square feet. It will no longer be deficient in percentage of lot coverage. Currently the percentage of lot coverage is 41.6%, proposed is 32.6%. It is deficient in lot width. Required is 50 feet, lot width is 48.96 feet. It is deficient in front yard setback. Required is 10 feet. The front yard setback is 5 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback. Required is 5 feet. The existing deficiency is 2 feet. 313 E. Court St. is in an R3 a use district. Section 290 – 17 requires that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The applicant cannot re subdivide 313 E. Court St. and 309 E. Court St. without the BZA granting area variances for the deficiencies listed above. Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal. The garden is accessed only from 309 Court Street. Granting this appeal will insure the preservation of the garden as a continuous unified landscape and a testament to Ms. Sears, who was a longtime patron of the arts in Ithaca. The Board looks forward to reviewing the forthcoming subdivision application. Appeal #2904, Area Variance ― 313 E. Court St. Appeal of Anna Sears, owner of the property at 313 E. Court St., for area variances from Section 325- 8, column 6 lot size, 325 -8, column 7, lot width, 325 -8, column 10, percentage of lot coverage, 325 - 8, column 11, front yard setback and 325-8, Column13, other side yard setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to resubdivide two adjacent properties at 309 E. Court St. and 313 E. Court St. so that approximately 1690 square feet of 313 E. Court Street’s, rear yard can be given to 309 E. Court St.. The reason the applicant wants a portion of the rear yard at 313 E. Court St. to be given to 309 E. Court St. is so that Anna Sears can preserve the Victorian garden in the backyard of these two properties. Before Anna Sears became the owner of two properties her mother, Joan Sears, a landscape architect owned both properties. Joan Sears developed the Victorian garden. Her daughter, now the owner, must sell both properties because she lives in Rochester. However she intends to resubdivide the two properties through the subdivision process so her mother’s garden can be saved. To keep the garden is a testimony to her mother’s skill. She also wants to keep the garden, so that then nearby community can enjoy her work. Before resubdividing the property at 313 E. Court St. the property would not be deficient in the percentage of lot coverage. The proposed deficiencies would be lot area. The property as subdivided would decrease its size by approximately 1690 square feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 5987 square feet to approximately 4225 square feet. Required Is 7000 square feet. It will be deficient in lot width. Required is 50 feet. The lot width is 45.3 feet. It will be deficient in percentage of lot coverage. Currently, percentage of lot coverage is 26% proposed is 36.6%. It is deficient in front yard setback. Required is 10 feet. The front yard setback is 8 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback. Required is 5 feet. The existing deficiency is .5 feet. 313 E. Court St. is in an R-3 use district. Section 290-17 requires that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The applicant cannot re subdivide 313 E. Court St. and 309 E. Court St. without the BZA granting area variances for the deficiencies listed above. 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal. The garden is accessed only from 309 Court Street. Granting this appeal will insure the preservation of the garden as a continuous unified landscape and a testament to Ms. Sears, who was a longtime patron of the arts in Ithaca. The Board looks forward to reviewing the forthcoming subdivision application. Appeal #2905, Area Variance ― 310 First St. Appeal of Carl Feuer and Carol Cedarholm, 310 First Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8, column 11, the front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants, Mr. Feuer and Ms. Cedarholm, have owned the property at 310 First Street for over 30 years and wish to redesign the existing front portion of the house converting it from a duplex to a single family home. The redesign of the house includes a new wraparound porch in the front yard and at the south side of the house. The new porch will replace an existing porch in the front yard that extends approximately 5 feet into the required 10 foot setback. On the south side of this house, this approximately 5 foot wide porch will also extend approximately 5 feet into a 10 foot required front yard setback. This will extend the existing 5 foot deficiency in the front yard by approximately 25 SF. The portion of the front porch that will extend into the front yard is approximately 17 feet x 5 feet or 85 square feet. The property at 310 First Street is in a R-2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a use variance can be granted. The Board strongly recommends approval of this appeal. The proposed changes improve the aesthetics of the house and benefit the neighborhood. 6. Old Business A. Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements Proposal ― Comments to Common Council Cornish remarked that the Board already commented on the Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements proposal last month to the Planning Committee. On a related subject, Schroeder suggested it may make sense to retain the maximum parking requirements in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, for projects over a certain size (e.g., Stone Quarry Apartments). Cornish responded that she believes that all the changes to the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts will be repealed, since they are not enforceable by the Building Division. 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD B. Downtown Rezoning Proposal ― Comments to Common Council Cornish indicated the Planning & Economic Development Committee has requested some changes be made to the proposal, after which it will be circulated to a wider group for comments. Acharya observed that former Planning Board member, Noah Demarest, should probably not be serving on the Collegetown Working Group anymore, given his declared conflict of interest. Acharya asked if the Planning Boar would have enough time to comment, if it waited a month. Cornish replied, yes. Acharya remarked that the main concerns expressed by the Planning Board have been addressed. 6. New Business A. Planning Board Membership Schroeder remarked it recently occurred to him that the Planning Board’s membership appears to be heavily concentrated in Ward 5 and he is concerned with that kind of disproportionate representation. Acharya agreed that is an important concern. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair None. B. Director of Planning & Development Cornish reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has begun the process of convening its designated focus groups, which have elicited some very good discussions and some excellent attendance, so the Comprehensive Plan is making some progress. C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison Acharya reported that the BPW had a very long meeting regarding funding the new City water treatment plant. Acharya also noted he is on the City’s Sidewalk Task Force, which is seeking ways to get sidewalks funded by the community-at-large, rather than individual property owners. Schroeder responded that fewer sidewalks may end up being built, if that were the case. He also wonders if this would hinder the Planning Board’s ability to require sidewalks in the projects it reviews, since it would be obligating the City to build them. Acharya agreed that is an important consideration. 16 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Blalock observed it would also be important to ensure non-profit organizations contribute towards the construction of new sidewalks by the City, since they do not pay property taxes. 8. Approval of Minutes No minutes were approved. 9. Adjournment On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.