Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2013-07-23DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes July 23, 2013 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: C.J. Randall Board Vacancies: None. Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning & Economic Development Applicants Attending: Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project) Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; David Lubin, Owner/Applicant; Craig Jensen, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects 130 Clinton Street Apartments Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects; David A. Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C.; Gary L. Wood, Engineering Consultant 700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream John Snyder, John Snyder Architects 605 W. State Street (Finger Lakes Beverage Center) Pat Moe, Owner; Tom Fritz, Fritz Contracting, LLC Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1. Agenda Review (No changes were made to the agenda.) 2. Privilege of the Floor Dan Hoffman, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) member, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project. He added that the NAC should be treated as an involved agency, for the purpose of environmental review. Rima Shamieh, Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) Chair, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project. Noting she is not speaking on behalf of the CAC, she expressed concern the Planning Board is considering a Negative Declaration of environmental significance. In fact, it is the first project she has personally reviewed that may genuinely deserve a Positive Declaration of environmental significance. She also objected to the lack of opportunity to review all the project documents, prior to the Board’s making its decision. Michael Culotta, CAC member, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project, noting he and other CAC members are concerned with the project’s visual impact. In addition, he remarked, the area across from the project (behind the Urban Outfitters store) was originally been envisioned as a public space, which would now be threatened if that plan were ever implemented. Culotta noted the steep slope is also a significant concern; and he is concerned the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was never made publicly available. Brian Eden, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) member, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project. He objected to the fact that, once the Public Hearing has taken place, the public is effectively sidelined from the entire process. He is also concerned that interested parties are not being given enough opportunity to review all the project documents, which should always be submitted at least one week before Planning Board meetings. Applicants should be held to firm deadlines and not permitted to provide materials the day before a meeting. Joel Harlan, Newfield, spoke in support of the 130 Clinton Street project, remarking that too many community members regularly express unnecessary opposition to local development projects, with little or no demonstrable basis for their claims. 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD John Dennis, 893 Cayuga Heights Road, spoke in opposition to the 130 Clinton Street project. It represents an egregious use of the site. (The original subdivision should never have been permitted.) It seems to him that ― if developers simply appear enough times before the Board and merely respond in some fashion to Board member comments and recommendations ― the Planning Board concludes the developers have become vested and feels obligated to approve their projects. Dennis indicated he believes the project has generated enough opposition to merit some kind of legal action. He suggested the Planning Board and staff consult with the City Attorney to evaluate the integrity of the whole Site Plan Review process. 3. Site Plan Review A. 130 Clinton Street Apartments, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp. Potential Review of FEAF, Part 3, and CEQR Discussion ― No Action. The project consists of constructing three, 3-level residential buildings, each of which will contain 12 units, four on each of the three floors for a total of 36 units (twelve studios, twelve 1-BRs, and twelve 2-BRs). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the Ithaca Police Station to the west and Six Mile Creek to the north. The site is steeply sloped with areas over 30%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope. The project will occupy 1.1 acres for the site between the City of Ithaca Police Department and the owner’s buildings located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include the removal of over an acre of vegetation, including 27 mature trees, and the excavation of approximately 3,500 CY of soil. The project includes retaining walls, a concrete walkway from the lower parking lot (on Clinton Street), an elevated walkway for access to the bottom level of the building, and several sets of stairs connecting the various levels of the project. 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). Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 2 Acharya asked if the City Traffic Engineer signed off on the revised version of the project proposal. Nicholas replied, yes. 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Jones-Rounds suggested the Board address the statement in Section #18 (“Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood”) that says: “Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions.” She asked if the project would not, in fact, have a future impact on steep slope-related issues. Acharya replied, yes, unless the City passes steep slope legislation, the project most likely would have an impact. Cornish agreed it is a good point and it should probably be addressed somewhere in the Part 3. Schroeder agreed. No changes were made to the Part 2. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3 Schroeder indicated it is his understanding the current proposal does not include tie-backs. Engineering Consultant Wood replied, that is correct. Schroeder observed that one of the most significant mitigations requires a certain portion of the site remain undisturbed. Acharya asked if Board members had any comments about the proposed mitigations. Jones- Rounds asked how the “third-party registered landscape architect” would be selected, for reviewing the stabilization/landscape plan. Cornish replied Planning staff could do that. Schroeder proposed some language regarding the installation of slope-monitoring devices. Acharya agreed that is a good mitigation. Jones-Rounds asked what procedure would be followed to ensure the appropriate City Departments/staff are kept informed of slope- monitoring activities. Cornish replied the Building Division would be responsible for the project, once the final site plan has been approved, and would be notified of anything amiss as part of its standard inspection process. Blalock asked what repercussions would arise if the applicant started construction on the project, but ultimately determined it is not feasible. He can envision a situation like the former Ithaca Gun site, which is half-completed, but too expensive to return to its original condition. Cornish responded that is a good point (although the former Ithaca Gun site was a different situation). Acharya remarked there does not appear to be anything the City could do in such a situation. Cornish indicated the applicant would be required to return the site to its original condition. Architect Sharma indicated the applicant would certainly re-establish the original vegetation, in such a scenario. 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Elliott asked who would monitor the water-related impacts during construction. Cornish replied, both the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and City Environment Engineer are responsible for that. Acharya asked if the SWPPP is a public document. Nicholas replied, yes. Elliott observed that a lot of construction equipment uses diesel fuel (and many of the cheapest contractors employ poorly-maintained equipment), which would negatively impact the air quality in the downtown area. He asked if there had ever been any issues associated with this before and what air-monitoring practices are generally employed by the City, the DEC, or other parties. Cornish replied that is an interesting point. To her knowledge, the City does not have any air-monitoring procedures or standard in place, beyond what the DEC itself requires. That is certainly something the Planning Board should address. Jones-Rounds suggested adding visual screening along the Creek Walk, especially if an open public area were ever to be established there, as was mentioned earlier. Schroeder responded that could be addressed during Site Plan Review. Blalock asked if the Police Chief was consulted about the project (e.g., ingress and egress of police vehicles). Cornish replied that when the applicant obtained the Building Permit, a complete transportation plan would have been required for trucks, construction equipment, contractors, etc., which would have included the Police Department. She added the Police Department also receives all Site Plan Review application materials. Whitham indicated the applicant had not yet met with the new Police Chief, but it is a good idea. Acharya asked if a trip-generation analysis had been done for the project. Project Engineer Herrick replied, no, since the subject was not brought up in discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. Acharya suggested Herrick follow up with the City Traffic Engineer. Nicholas agreed the City Traffic Engineer would want that data (even if it is not something that would be designated as a potentially large impact in the environmental review). Blalock observed he had not heard any formal comments regarding the project’s impact on the character of the surrounding neighborhood, from any of the major land owners or developers near the site, as had been suggested by one of the public speakers. Nicholas noted the applicant was required to notify all the neighbors within 200 feet of the site, before the Public Hearing. 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) ― Part 3 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of constructing three, 3-level residential buildings, each of which will contain 12 units, four on each of the three floors, for a total of 36 units (twelve studios, twelve 1- BR, and twelve 2-BR). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the City of Ithaca Police Station to the west and Six Mile Creek (SMC) to the north. The site is steeply sloped with areas in the building site at, or over, 35%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope. The project will occupy 1.1 acres of the site between the Ithaca Police Station and the property owner’s other apartment buildings, located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include removal of over an acre of vegetation, including 27 mature trees, and excavation of approximately 3,500 CY of soil. The project includes retaining walls, a concrete walkway from the lower parking lot (on Prospect Street), an elevated walkway for access to the bottom level of the building, and several sets of stairs connecting the various levels of the project. The project also includes reconfiguration of the parking area on the adjacent tax parcel, resulting in a decrease of 3 spaces, as well as the development of a lower parking area on Prospect Street for two accessible parking spaces. 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). IMPACT ON LAND The proposed building site is contiguous to SMC to the north and across the creek from the downtown core. The Ithaca City Police Department / City Court Building is downhill and to the west of the site, and existing high-density residential development is uphill and to the east. Single- and multi-family homes are on the other side of E. Clinton and Prospect Streets. The tax parcel on which the project is proposed is one of four contiguous parcels owned by the applicant and containing a complex of three apartment buildings and associated parking areas, walkways, and green space. The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and contains the remnants of an access road (in the location of the proposed buildings), and a stone and concrete retaining wall facing SMC. Although the site is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area and unique in the downtown core. The project site is steeply sloped and heavily vegetated. In the area slated for development, the site has a vertical drop from 471 feet at the existing parking area to 432 at the western property line over a span of 75’, representing a 52% slope. 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD All vegetation within the limits of disturbance (as shown on drawing C102, dated 7/5/13) will be removed, including 27 mature trees. The applicant has indicated approximately 3,500 CY of fill will be excavated to grade the site. Before commencement of grading and clearing, a sheet-piling retaining wall system will be installed on the north slope, approximately 15’ from north-facing (creek) façade of the proposed Building C. In an e-mail dated July 18, 2013 (from Jagat P. Sharma to Lisa Nicholas), the applicant stated the following about the siting choices for the project: “The property known as Terrace Hill was subdivided into five lots. The owner began conceptualization [of] a project on lot A [Parcel A] back in 2011. We explored several schemes consisting of a series of four story buildings starting from the Clinton Street parallel to the police station and then wrapping around facing Six Mile Creek. We then investigated the site for project feasibility and discovered that the lot A basically consists of two separate and distinct areas. The portion facing the SMC and running parallel to it is a steep wooded site. The portion facing the police station comparatively has remnants of earlier disturbances made of a drive lane, stone walls, abandoned walks, concrete steps and railings. We concluded that the portion of lot A bordering the Six Mile Creek shall be set aside as a ‘Not to Be Developed Site’ and the new project shall be limited to the portion of lot A facing the police station.” The Lead Agency has received multiple comments on the project from groups and individuals concerning potential impacts of developing the steeply-sloped site adjacent to SMC. Among the comments are the following: In a February 25, 2013 letter from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Marx recommended the City require a minimum 100-foot no- disturbance buffer from Six Mile Creek. Multiple comments from the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), received between February 15, 2013 and June 17, 2013, expressed concerns about development on steep slopes, erosion, loss of habitat, lack of stream buffer, potential for slope collapse and impacts to SMC. The CAC recommended that the Lead Agency require the following additional information: • Vegetation Survey & Tree Inventory. • Determine depth-to-bedrock and assess stability of slope. • Conduct archaeological survey. • Rigorous stormwater treatment plan. • Visual Impacts Survey. Comments from the Ithaca Shade Tree Advisory Committee, dated February 20, 2013, expressed concerns about the loss of tree canopy and other vegetation, the potential for serious erosion impacting SMC, and the appropriateness of some of the species proposed in the Planting Plan. 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Comments from the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, dated March 25, 2013, strongly recommended a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be required before considering approval of the project, due to the fact that project materials (submitted as of that date) did not satisfactorily address environmental concerns. Of primary concern to the Lead Agency is the potential risk of slope failure as a result of development on the steeply-sloped site, and its impacts to SMC and downtown Ithaca. The downtown area was subject to damaging flooding in 1868, 1905, 1935, and 1982. In 1982, SMC overflowed its banks and washed out the old pedestrian bridge and walkway on the property. High flows during that flood caused damage to the wall on the north side of the creek, resulting in extensive repairs. The Lead Agency is concerned slope failure into SMC could: (1) cause damaging erosion into the waterway, negatively impacting the ecology, functioning and enjoyment of the waterway; and (2) constrict high flows and cause flooding in the downtown area. The Lead Agency, due the concerns outlined above, required the applicant to submit geotechnical information to demonstrate the site could support the proposed development without potential risk of slope failure or significant erosion into SMC. The applicant submitted a “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,” dated January 2013 and prepared for the applicant by Ravi Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. The report indicated soils on the construction site contain fill to the first 10-15 feet, with granular natural soils beneath. The report listed requirements for the construction of footings on the site, but did not specify the foundation design and construction. The report was reviewed by the City Director of Engineering and the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency determined it did not contain enough information to adequately evaluate potential environmental impacts. In response, the applicant submitted a “Feasibility Analysis,” prepared by Gary L. Wood and dated May 24, 2013, containing the following excerpt. [Note: The “2.2” paragraph number is copied from the numbering system of the original Wood document.] “2.2 There is currently a lack of definition of the properties of the soils that constitute the actual project site. As one example — fill was encountered in two borings, but there is no definition of its lateral or vertical extent. Because of the physical conditions, it will not be possible to completely explore the site. Nevertheless, it is proposed that an additional boring, to a target depth of 70 feet, be made in the owner's parking lot opposite the previous B-3. A second boring is proposed in the relatively flat area in the SW corner of the property. These will provide two additional profiles, through existing borings B-4 and B-5 respectively, to expand the knowledge and provide samples for further review. It is proposed that these samples be tested for: • Natural moisture content which provides an indirect assessment of the density and, consequently, the strength; • The particle gradation (or possibly the Atterberg limits) as an additional means of confirming the soil properties that have been used in the current analyses; 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • Any other tests that may seem appropriate based on the nature of the materials encountered. Inasmuch as the current analyses predict stable conditions, as discussed in the following paragraphs, it seems reasonable and prudent to conduct these supplemental investigations concurrently with the building designs. The fall-back position in the event that a less satisfactory conclusion is ultimately reached, will be to add more reinforcement to the slope ― which is possible.” The report then made the following recommendations. [Note: Again, the paragraph numbers are copied from the original Wood document.] “4.1 It is recommended that slope monitoring devices be installed prior to starting this construction so that corrective measures (such as additional sheet piling) can be taken should any movement be detected. Six permanent survey monuments should be installed at strategic locations, as shown on Dwg. C 100, and their precise X, Y, & Z coordinates established prior to the start of construction. This would be followed by monthly checks during construction and annual checks for the following two years. If no movement is observed during this period, the monitoring will not need to continue. The monuments should not be removed, however. 4.2 Foundations will be constructed of cast-in-place concrete, based on the design recommendations contained in the previously-referenced Ravi report. 4.3 It should be apparent that the final details, such as footing dimensions and slopes that vary with the topography, are part of the actual design phase, and may be adjusted as a consequence of the additional investigation recommended in ¶ 2.2.” After reviewing Wood’s comments above, the Lead Agency determined that, consistent with the report, there was a potential the site plan and foundation design could change significantly, based on the results of additional recommended boring, as well as the results of the recommended monitoring and any subsequent additional adjustments. The Lead Agency, therefore, requested a description and analysis of the “worst case scenario” for additional piling and foundation design. In response, Wood submitted an “Addendum,” dated June 20, 2013, which stated the following: “In reference to ¶ 2.2 (of the report dated 24 May, 2013): The proposal that two additional borings, and associated laboratory testing, be made was to refine the description of the properties of the indigenous soils. This information will not alter the design as it is proposed, but is intended to be as cautious as practical in defining this soil deposit. 1 My further recommendation was this could be carried out concurrently with the actual design of the buildings, for the following reasons: [Wood footnote: 1 My report was apparently submitted to Mr. Dan Karig for review and he commented in an e-mail to me ‘that terrace is the top of post-glacial deltaic sequence,’ which implies a heterogeneous, or poorly-sorted, deposit.] 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1. The foundation designs will be based on the recommendations presented in the Ravi report, viz. ‘bearing on the natural soil using a bearing capacity of 2000 psf, with a minimum width of 2 feet.’ This a conservative value, based on the Building Code, so there is no reason that this recommendation would not be followed. 2. There is no reason to use piers or piles to carry the loads to the bedrock, as noted above. If there should be slippage within the soil profile, deep foundations such as these would not offer any lateral resistance. 3. The strength values that might be adjusted on the basis of this additional investigation are those associated with the slope stability analyses. As described in ¶ 2.4, analyses of the North slope in its present condition ,2 without the building superimposed, produced a Safety Factor that indicates the soil is at least as strong as assumed. As a matter of due diligence, however, the additional investigation and testing is being proposed. [Wood footnote: 2 These were not published in my report.] 4. Parenthetically, the weight of the 3500 cubic yards of excavated soil has not been included in the analyses along the West slope. Throughout most of length of the proposed buildings, this weight exceeds the weight of the proposed buildings. But there is no similar excavation in the analyses of the North side. This essentially explains the difference between the satisfactory safety factor in the first case and the need to add the sheet piling reinforcement in the latter. In reference to ¶ 4.1 (of the report, dated May 24, 2013): The monitoring points proposed in this paragraph were added to provide assurance that the project developer would provide documentation to the City that conditions are, and remain, stable. No perceptible movement of these points is anticipated, although a few millimeters would not be of concern so long as it wasn’t progressive. Hence, the recommendation that the monitoring be conducted at a defined sequence and time span. This obviously poses the ‘what if’ question and the answer is that there are a few remedial procedures that could be undertaken, if sufficient movement should occur. In addition to driven sheet piles, as currently proposed for the North slope, there are other well-established practices such as micropiles, pile dowels, and augered piles. All of these installations would be invisible upon completion. It is also noted that, although there is no apparent information on how far the anchors for the wall adjacent to the Justice Building extend into this site, it is possible to observe their location along the wall and install any reinforcement in the 9 foot space between.” In the same June 20, 2013 “Addendum,” Wood also provided these additional comments regarding an earlier FEAF, Part 3 draft: 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD “The first paragraph on page 3 refers to the proposed retaining wall on the North slope ‘with tie- back and earth anchors.’ This piling will be driven flush with the ground surface, and follow the contours. Since there will be no exposed face, there won’t be a place to install tie-backs or anchors. The purpose of this wall will be to intercept the failure surface predicted by the stability analyses and the support will be derived from the depth of pile driven below the failure surface. • Any steel sheet piling will be relatively light ‘Z’ sections such as SPZ 16 which has a thickness of about ¼ inch and weighs a nominal 16 pounds per square foot. • Mr. Karig, agreed in his e-mail memo to me, that the bedrock depths tabulated in the May report are consistent with his knowledge of the area. Since the bedrock will constitute neither a bearing point for piles nor a boundary condition for slope failures, it is not necessary to further explore it. Nevertheless, the additional borings proposed may encounter it and, if so be terminated at that depth. • It is believed that the bullet points that follow have been addressed, except as follows: • Surface water control is the subject of the ‘Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan’ and it must be followed. Groundwater is not anticipated, but the project specifications typically require its removal. In other words, the project management must prevent this from becoming a problem.” The above reports and responses have been reviewed by the Lead Agency and the City Director of Engineering. The Lead Agency is satisfied that Wood, a Licensed Professional Engineer, has adequately addressed the risk of slope failure for this point in the project development. As of July 17, 2013, the Lead Agency is not in receipt of the following previously requested information from the applicant: • Grading Plan showing proposed grading lines for construction activities with cut-and-fill calculations. • Construction Staging Plan ― including stockpiling location and erosion controls for excavated or imported materials. Mitigations Required by Lead Agency: • Based on concerns of the Planning Board, as well as comments from various parties, the applicant made the following revisions to the original site layout illustrated in “Layout Plan C101,” dated November 15, 2012: o Removal of the vehicular access road extending from Clinton Street to the terminus of Building C (building closest to SMC). 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD o Relocation of the buildings approximately 18’ up the slope, closer the parking area to the east at 102 Prospect Street (Limestone Tower) and away from the Ithaca Police Station to the west. This change maximized use of the historically disturbed portion of the site, a leveled area previously used as an access road, and reduced the amount of slope affected during construction. • Implementation of a mechanism for the permanent protection of the area labeled “Portion of Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped (Area = 1.146 Acres),” as shown on T.G. Miller drawing “Existing Conditions Plan C100,” dated July 5, 2013. Among the mechanisms being explored for such permanent protection of this portion as a natural area: a deed restriction, a permanent easement, or donation of land to a preservation organization. The Lead Agency will require this issue to be resolved and a legally-binding permanent protection of this area to be in place, in a form acceptable to the Lead Agency, before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The permanent protection of this area will ensure that the most undisturbed and steeply-sloped portion of Parcel A, and the portion that is most contiguous to Six Mile Creek and most visible from the SMC Creek Walk, shall remain permanently undeveloped as a natural area. • Development of a Stabilization / Landscape Plan that includes significant plantings for screening and stabilization in the “Portion of Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped” area. The plan must be reviewed by the City Forester and a third-party registered landscape architect chosen by planning staff. Plant selection will be determined, at a minimum, by the following criteria: o Appropriateness to climate, soils & light levels on the site. o Suitability & effectiveness for soil stabilization. o Resistance to disease. o Resistance to deer damage (or protected appropriately therefrom). o Sized to maximum practicable for survival. • This Stabilization / Landscape Plan must include a plan for establishment ― including a temporary irrigation system. The applicant must also respond to the comments submitted in a letter dated Monday, June 17, 2013, from City of Ithaca Forester Jeanne Grace, in which she suggested replacing the proposed viburnum and euonymus. The applicant shall submit a revised “Mitigation Plan L102,” which more specifically identifies plantings, and the intended planting protocol, in the “Portion of Parcel A to Remain Undeveloped” area. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, the applicant must post a performance bond to ensure the above landscape is successfully established at the end of the third year. • The applicant shall follow all recommendations contained within the aforementioned documents and communications provided for this project by Gary L. Wood, including the recommendation regarding the installation of “slope monitoring devices.” If these devices detect any significant movement, this fact shall be reported to the City of Ithaca planning and engineering departments, and if any remedial action is necessary to address such significant movement, it shall be undertaken by the applicant. 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • If applicant’s project, for any reason, is not completed, the project site’s land shall be restored to its former state. IMPACT ON WATER Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.” IMPACT ON DRAINAGE Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.” IMPACT ON AIR Construction and site preparation activities will create the potential for increased airborne dust and dirt particles. The amount of construction-generated dust depends on several factors, including soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and sun, weather-related factors, and construction practices. Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: • The applicant is required to use the following dust-control measures, as needed, during construction: o Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust. o Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site. o Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils. o Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris. o Requiring trucks to be covered. o Prohibiting the burning of debris on site. IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS Although the site is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area. The existing tree canopy is unique and valuable in the downtown core for wildlife habitat, aesthetic appeal, air quality, and mitigation of the heat island effect. Site preparation will require all vegetation within the limits of disturbance be removed, including 27 mature trees. The applicant has provided a rare flora and fauna survey, conducted by F. Robert Wesley, and dated April 29, 2013. In Wesley’s report, he concludes he was unable to find any species listed as Rare, Threatened, Special Concern, or Endangered in New York State by Natural Heritage or DEC. No federally listed species were found or were ever recorded on the site. 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Due to the steep slopes on the entire building site, as well as the close proximity to the creek, the potential for erosion into the creek is high, particularly during the construction phase, but also during the period of slope re-stabilization. Erosion into SMC could affect aquatic life in SMC ― which is used for fishing. Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.” IMPACT ON ÆSTHETIC RESOURCES The project will be visible from SMC, the Creek Walk, and possibly the Commons. The most visible portion of Parcel A from these vantage points, however, is the area to be protected from development. The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and, although it is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area and unique in the downtown core. The applicant has provided visual simulations showing the buildings from SMC and Clinton Street and some detailed building elevations. Building architecture, including materials and colors, will be reviewed by the Planning Board and refined by the applicant during Site Plan Review. The Planning Board will also consider the adequacy of the plantings between the project and SMC during Site Plan Review. Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.” IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA The project site consists of primarily wooded slopes and, although it is not within the designated SMC Natural Area, it represents a landscape that is visually typical of the natural area and unique in the downtown core. It represents visual green space that is valued in the downtown core. The applicant has submitted visual simulations from SMC Creek Walk, both with and without the proposed vegetation. Refer to analysis and mitigations under “Impacts to Land.” IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Applicant must submit a construction truck routes plan designed to minimize potential impacts on residential areas. 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: • Applicant shall provide a plan for construction truck routes designed to minimize potential impacts on neighborhoods, for approval by the Lead Agency. IMPACT ON ENERGY No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS Construction impacts, including construction vehicle impacts, only. Refer to mitigation under “Impact to Transportation.” IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project has the potential to impact the City Police Department and City improvements to E. Clinton and Prospect Streets currently in process. In a memo to the Planning Board from Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer, dated March 15, 2013, he states the following: “On the drawings, the applicant should provide a site plan overlaying the proposed building and site work, including stairs, walkway, and any proposed parking lot work with the Prospect Street construction plans, which we sent to the applicant. It is difficult to see if or how this project will work with the street work that is scheduled to start up in May and be finished by August. In regard to the schedule, we will not be interested in utility cuts soon after the street project is completed. It would be in the owner's interest to coordinate utility needs with the City's project manager, Addisu Gebre, and with Fahs Construction, the City’s contractor. Lastly, there is not information on the drawings for the tie-backs and the City's easement for the steel retaining wall for the Police Department. The only note I see is for a five foot utility easement. The drawings are showing hemlocks planted on top of the tie-backs, but we will probably not want anything that substantial there. … Based on feedback from the City's consulting engineer for the Clinton / Prospect Street project, it still looks like they will be building on the City's right-of-way at the east end of the new retaining wall. The City owns approximately 7 ft (minimum) behind the rear face of the new wall. The use of City property is subject to Chapter 170 of the City Code. The concern about surcharging the existing wall with a vehicle loading should not be a concern since it appears 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD they are only proposing a pedestrian path; however, during construction, as shown on drawing C102, a vehicle driveway is proposed. We will need a full structural evaluation of this proposal by a licensed engineer. Similar to comment on previous plans: several utilities have been relocated as part of the City project in the area of the wall. The feasibility of relocating utilities as part of the apartment project will need to be thoroughly investigated based on their final location at the completion of the City project. The location chosen for the five bike racks will not provide enough space around the racks for bicycles. We can provide design guidelines upon request.” In response to the City Transportation Engineer’s comments the applicant has provided the requested overlay of City construction on the drawings C101 through C104 together with notes “Existing Street, Curb and Walk Under Construction.” The applicant states that the only impact to the City’s new work is the removal of the westerly curb cut currently serving the parking lot at #114 Prospect Street, which has been reviewed by the Transportation Engineer. Only a short length of sidewalk and stairway will cross over the City right-of-way line. This is not uncommon to development projects that link public sidewalks with private access. The Transportation Engineer did not expect this condition to be significant, but said it may require a renewable lease agreement to be executed with the City. Mitigation Proposed by Applicant: • The applicant states that the latest drawing submission no longer includes any temporary or permanent vehicle driveway behind the City’s new retaining wall. Mitigation Required by Lead Agency: • All repair, including backfill materials, compaction and pavement restoration, of any portions of the Clinton / Prospect Street reconstruction project made necessary by applicant’s project, shall be done in a manner equal to the standards required in the City’s project. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY There is public controversy regarding this project. To date, the Planning Board has received several letters and public comments, raising the following concerns: • Impacts to drainage ― run-off and erosion into SMC. • Impacts to plants & animals. • Impacts to land (particularly steep slopes). • Impacts to open space. • Impacts to aesthetic resources. • Impacts to views & vistas. 16 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Concern about construction on steep slopes has prompted the Planning Board to discuss potential steep slopes legislation that it may recommend to Common Council. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Schroeder Opposed: Jones-Rounds Absent: Randall Vacancies: None Jones-Rounds expressed concern the project still seems to represent a considerable risk of erosion, destruction of vegetation, etc. Schroeder indicated that slope preservation has long been his concern; but he remarked that the project site has clearly been disturbed before and is not a pristine site. Protecting the narrow portion of the site, adjacent to Six Mile Creek, is a significant step forward in his opinion, since it protects and defines that green space in the city for the first time. Jones-Rounds remarked she would like to see a more formal planting plan, in the advent construction on the site were ever be disrupted, as was mentioned earlier. Schroeder responded that could also be incorporated into Site Plan Review. CEQR 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 3 apartment buildings at 130 E. Clinton Street by Scott Whitham, applicant for owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp., and WHEREAS: the project consists of constructing three, 3-level residential buildings, each of which will contain 12 units, four on each of the three floors, for a total of 36 units (twelve studios, twelve 1-BR, and twelve 2-BR). The 1,748-acre project site is contiguous to the City of Ithaca Police Station to the west and Six Mile Creek to the north. The site is steeply sloped with areas in the building site at, or over, 35%. The buildings are proposed to be set into the slope. The project will occupy 1.1 acres of the site between the Ithaca Police Station and the property owner’s other apartment buildings, located at 136 Terrace Hill. Site development will include removal of over an acre of vegetation, including 27 mature trees, and the excavation of approximately 3,500 CY of soil. The project includes retaining walls, a concrete walkway from the lower parking lot (on Prospect Street), an elevated walkway for access to the bottom level of the building, and several sets of stairs connecting the various levels of the project. The project also includes reconfiguration of the parking area on the adjacent tax parcel, resulting in a decrease of 3 spaces, as well as the development of a lower parking area on Prospect Street for two accessible parking spaces. The project is in the B-1a Zoning District. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and 17 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on June 25, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and revised by the Planning Board; drawings entitled: “Existing Conditions Plan (showing portion of parcel A to remain undeveloped) C100,” “Layout Plan C101,” and “Demolition Plan C102,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Planting Plan L101” and “Mitigation Plan L102,” prepared by Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and all dated July 5, 2013; “Building Elevations A303,” dated June 6, 2013; “Erosion Control and Sediment Plan C103” and “Grading and Utility Plan C104,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Floor Plans A101,” “Elevations, Building Sections A301,” “Site Sections A302,” “View from Clinton Street R1,” “View from Six Mile Creek R2,” “Looking North Along Boardwalk R3,” and “Looking West From Parking Lot R4,” all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma and all dated May 24, 2013; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and all comments received have been considered, as described in the FEAF, Part 3, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, identified potential impacts to land, water, vegetation, aesthetic resources, and open space, as detailed in the FEAF, Part 3, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has required mitigations to all impacts as detailed in the FEAF, Part 3, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that, with the incorporation of the mitigations identified in Part 3 of the FEAF, the proposed site plan will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Schroeder Opposed: Jones-Rounds Absent: Randall Vacancies: None 18 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5. Old Business • Steep Slope Regulations Discussion Schroeder indicated he likes the proposed steep slopes language former Board member Noah Demarest drafted, since it addresses a number of issues and basically places the burden-of- proof on an applicant to demonstrate the feasibility of a project: “No site plan shall be approved which provides for construction or other disturbance of land in environmentally sensitive areas, including but not limited to, wetlands, watercourses, steep slopes, unique natural areas, or rare plant or animal habitats, unless the applicant demonstrates with professional evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Planning Board that such construction may occur without adverse environmental effects upon such areas. Nothing in this subsection is intended to permit construction or other activities in areas where the same are prohibited or regulated by other laws or regulations of the federal, state, county, or local government.” Elliott remarked that New Hampshire uses actual numbers to restrict any development on slopes greater than 25%. Acharya indicated he would like to see that language, as well. Shamieh remarked the CAC has also discussed the issue at length. (In fact, Shamieh developed a steep slope model ordinance for Cayuga County.) Any steep slope ordinance should be very specific and designed according to the unique topographical conditions of the jurisdiction it covers. For Ithaca, one would not want to use language that absolutely precludes building on slopes greater than 25%, since Ithaca has so much land falling into that category. Schroeder responded that there are some steep slopes in the city where he would like to prohibit development; so he is sympathetic to the suggestion that any steep slope ordinance have some teeth to it. The difficulty is that the more teeth it has, and the more specific it designed to be, the harder it would be to get Common Council to pass it. Shamieh remarked that she recently worked with a prospective CAC member, who is highly capable with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and performed a variety of different slope analyses, which was extremely helpful. She imagines establishing a 35% slope cut-off would have a relatively low impact. Acharya indicated the Planning Board needs some draft language to initiate the whole process and serve as a basis of further analysis. It would be helpful if the CAC could assist in drafting that language. Shamieh replied she would be willing to do that. 19 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD B. Purity Ice Cream, Mixed-Use Project, 700 Cascadilla St., Bruce Lane, Applicant & Owner. Adoption of FEAF Part 2. The applicant is proposing to expand its ground-floor operations, add four stories to the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a footprint of 7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will include 20-24 one- and two-bedroom residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new addition with a kitchen, seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary space for residents. 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, while the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. Site work and exterior improvements include outside seating, sidewalk improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton St. The off- site parking areas are located at 520 Esty St. and 619 Cascadilla St. The Esty St. parking area has 29 spaces with ingress on N. Fulton St. and egress on Esty St. The parking lot at 619 Cascadilla St. will have 11 parking spaces with ingress and egress on Cascadilla St., and egress on N. Meadow St. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. 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 and other proposed work in the State right-of-way. Snyder recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting that no changes were made to the project since the Board last reviewed it. Acharya indicated he feels the north façade still appears somewhat sterile or clinical. Snyder replied he would have been better prepared to respond to that concern, if it had been communicated to him at the Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting. Snyder added that the north façade is virtually identical to the south façade and there have been vast improvements made to both façades. Schroeder responded that the two facades are not absolutely identical. There are more ‘blank’ areas on the north façade. Snyder replied it is best to view the illustrative rendering more three-dimensionally. The façade would actually look more differentiated than the rendering reflects. Elliott suggested the applicant animate the façade a little more. Acharya conceded the project’s design is a vast improvement from its initial iteration. 20 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder observed that the left portion of the elevation is almost entirely composed of brick and metal paneling. He suggested some accent windows on the side, or some other articulation or texture, would be an improvement. Snyder replied he would be happy to implement something like that, as a condition of approval. Jones-Rounds expressed continuing qualms about the Cascadilla Street corner parking lot. She would like to see a condition requiring a little more exploration of some alternatives that might minimize the use of that parking lot by customers (e.g., substituting some kinds of dedicated spaces for others, so the parking lot could be used solely by residents and employees). Blalock agreed. Cornish indicated that addressing Jones-Rounds’ concern in the form of a condition would enable it to become part of the official record. If a situation ever arose in the future, like an accident, then the original concern could be revisited and the Board would have something to refer to. Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Blalock, seconded by JR: 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, add four stories to the existing building, and develop two off-site parking areas. The building will have a footprint of 7,398 SF and a gross floor area of 35,033 SF and will include 20-24 one- and two-bedroom residential rental units, and up to 1,000-6,000 SF of rental office space. The Purity Ice Cream store will maintain 1,800 SF in its existing location and include a new addition with a kitchen, seating, and loading area. The ground floor will also include retail space, lobby, and ancillary space for residents. 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, while the south façade will be mostly glazing with a composite metal panel cladding system. Site work and exterior improvements include outside seating, sidewalk improvements, landscaping, paving, a 17-space parking area, and a guardrail along N. Fulton Street. The off-site parking areas are located at 520 Esty and 621 Cascadilla Streets. The Fulton Street parking area has 39 spaces with ingress on N. Fulton Street, and ingress and egress on Esty Street. The parking lot at 621 Cascadilla Street will have 14 parking spaces, with ingress and egress on Cascadilla Street. The project is in the WEDZ-1a and -1b Zoning Districts. The project requires approval by NYS DOT for relocation of the curbcut and other proposed work in the State right-of-way, and 21 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) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 23, 2013 declare 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 June 25, 2013, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 25, 2013 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 revised by the Planning Board; and drawings entitled “Survey 700 Cascadilla Street C100” dated 12/7/12,“Survey 555 N. Fulton Street C110” and “Survey 621 Cascadilla Street C120,” dated 2/26/13, all prepared by TG Miller P.C., and “Location Plan G101,” dated 7-10-13, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C101,” “Layout Plan C102,” “Grading and Drainage Plan C103,” “Utility Plan C104,” “Details C201,” “First Floor Plan A100,” “Second and Third Floor Plans A101,” “Fourth and Fifth Floor Plans A102,” “Roof Plan A103,” “Construction Staging Plan G102,”and “Elevation Rendering A200” all dated 5-2-13, and “Layout Plan & Erosion and Sediment Control 621 Cascadilla Street C122,” dated 7-10-13, “Grading & Drainage Plan 621 Cascadilla Street C123,”dated 6/18/13 and “Layout Plan 555 N. Fulton Street C112,” dated 7-10-13, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Esty Street C111,” and “Grading and Drainage Plan Esty Street C113,” both dated 5-2-13, and “Exterior Elevations A201 & A203: hand dated 4-3-13, and “Perspective View – Cascadilla Street,” “Perspective View – Fulton Street,” and “Perspective View – Cascadilla Street Proposed Bus Stop,” all dated 6/13/13; and “Schematic Planting Plan L100,” “Schematic Planting Plan L110,” and “Schematic Planting Plan L120,” all hand-dated and date- stamped 6/23/13 by staff and all prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received to date from the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: on June 25, 2013 the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board found that the proposed site plan would result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it 22 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 to the above referenced project, subject to the following conditions: i. Noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and ii. Submission to Planning Board of colored building elevations with all materials keyed, and iii. Submission to Planning Board of a color copy of the materials board and/or product cut- sheets, and iv. Submission to Planning Board of all project details, including but not limited to site furnishings, lighting, signage, paving, fencing and enclosures, and railings, and v. Submission to Planning Board of drawings showing screening of NYSEG transformer at north corner of Purity site, and vi. Submission to Planning Board of revised landscape plan showing all three project parcels on a single sheet with their landscaping and pedestrian connections, and vii. Submission to Planning Board of revised Cascadilla parking lot drawings showing: a. Additional street tree along Meadow Street where curbcut is being removed, and b. Signage identifying this as a Purity parking area, and c. Prominent “Employee Parking Only” signage for the seven parking spaces on the east side of this lot (required mitigation per FEAF, Part 3), and d. Installation of a low landscape anchor element within the landscape areas at the northwest corner of this parking lot to provide greater urban definition at this intersection corner, designed in a manner that does not interfere with vehicle sight lines (required mitigation per FEAF, Part 3), and viii. Applicant shall consider ways to add refinement/detail to the now largely plain wall surfaces on the east third of the north facade, and ix. All rooftop mechanicals shall be either screened from public view or architecturally integrated into the building, and x. Applicant shall further explore the possibility of the Cascadilla parking lot being used solely by project residents and employees, and xi. Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by the City of Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer, and xii. The project requires DOT approval for work in the State right-of-way and City of Ithaca approval for work in the City right-of-way, and xiii. Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: Fernández Absent: Randall Vacancies: None 23 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD C. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135, & 137-139 E. State St. on the Commons, Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Adoption of FEAF, Part 3. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 11-story (including roof space), mixed-use building of approximately 151,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,555 SF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (51,185 SF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential (up to 46 units). The residential tower has been redesigned from previous submissions. It is set back 62’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade with two one-story step-backs. The building will have two main entrances, on the Commons and Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The applicant proposes an exterior bridge connecting the third floor to the Green Street parking garage. In addition to typical rooftop mechanical elements, the top of the tower will include a glassed-in multipurpose room for use by building office and residential tenants, as well as a small fitness room and a west-facing terrace. The applicant proposes to work with the City to reconfigure the service functions at the rear of the building, including trash/recycling storage and pick-up and deliveries. 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. The project may require a State Building Code Variance. Architect Jensen walked through the following applicant responses to comments made by the Design Review Committee at its 7/11/13 meeting: To address the Committee’s concern about varying window size/proportion and breaking down the large scale of windows to better reflect the solid:void ratio of existing historic Commons buildings, the applicant generated a comparison of its design with the Sage Building, as a point-of-reference. The result was that the two are reasonably comparable to each other and the project is generally in keeping with buildings on the Commons. Regarding a window on the corner of the Sage Building, Jensen indicated that, if the applicant were to insert a window on that corner, it would have to be very narrow and recessed about 2 feet behind the column; so the applicant does not favor inserting windows on floors 2, 3, and 4. The applicant would consider inserting a window on the 4th floor, however, behind the atrium. Schroeder responded he likes that idea. It addresses his concern. Regarding the cornices, Jensen noted the applicant studied the other cornices on the Commons and quantified the frequency of different styles (e.g., flush, slightly articulated, greatly articulated, etc.). The frequencies of different cornice styles are actually fairly even divided. 24 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD In terms of green roofs, Jensen indicated the applicant is not yet sure what will be feasible. One thing that is certain is that there will be some rooftop equipment, so the applicant has begun to perform some studies of where that could be placed and how green roofing could be configured around it, at a reasonable cost. [See section “4. Zoning Appeals,” further down, for associated recommendation to BZA.] D. Sketch Plan ― 605 W. State Street (Finger Lakes Beverage Center) Project Consultant Tom Fritz walked through the following characteristics of the proposed project: • building exterior would be updated • Finger Lakes Beverage Center (FLBC) layout would be expanded • existing sidewalk around building would be retained and a permanent walkway added (with steel standing-seam roof and supporting columns) • retail store entrances would be defined with larger columns • visual scale of building would be reduced, minimizing its warehouse-like appearance and making it more welcoming • walkway connecting the different spaces would encourage more shopping • current FLBC entrance would be removed and moved to the side • FLBC would be situated in the back of the building Elliott remarked the placement of the columns may need to be reconsidered. The columns on the side suggest that they frame an entrance that does not actually exist. Schroeder noted the color scheme will have a great impact on the appearance of the project, so the Board will definitely need to see that. He added that the terminal canopy needs a more substantial feature; the corners need to be more definitively anchored. Fernández suggested using some of the same architectural language employed for the large entrances on the smaller staff entrance, as well. Nicholas suggested moving the parking spaces further away from State Street. Fritz responded the applicant could not move those spaces any further and still have enough space to operate (e.g., accommodating the FedEx-Kinko’s loading zone). Cornish suggested installing curbstops. Fritz replied that should be possible. Jones-Rounds recommended adding some tree islands (or other vegetative plantings or accents) in the parking lot. 25 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder suggested adding landscaping to protect the columns from vehicles, as well as a bike rack. 4. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2912, Area Variances ― 205 Williams Street Appeal of Pamela Johnson owner of 205 Williams Street for area variance from Section 325- 8, Column 4, Column 6, Column 7, Column 10, Column 11, Column 12, Column 13, Parking, Lot Area, Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove a dilapidated existing addition that was added to the first floor of the building at 205 Williams Street. This addition is located at the rear of the building and is supported on posts, instead of conventional basement walls. The proposed addition will have an enclosed basement. The new addition will extend no further into the rear yard than the existing foundation, but the addition will increase the footprint of the existing addition by 60.5 SF. This will increase the current lot area by 2.7%, to 43.1 %. The property at 205 Williams Street is located in an R-3a Zone. In this zone, the allowable percentage of lot coverage under Section 325-8, Column 6, is 35%. The property at 205 Williams Street also has existing side yard deficiencies. Section 325-8, Column 12, requires a side yard setback of 10 feet and Section 325-8, Column 13, requires the other side yard have a setback of 5 feet. The existing side yards are 3.6 feet and 3.5 feet, respectively. The new addition only affects the western side yard that is 3.6 feet deep. The addition will extend this side yard deficiency approximately 9.68 feet further into the rear yard. The front yard also has an existing deficiency that will not be increased by the proposed addition. Section 325-8, Column 11, requires the front yard be 10 feet; the front yard is 1.5 feet deep. The property at 205 Williams Street is also deficient in lot area and lot width. Section 325-8, Column 6, requires a lot area of 7,000 SF; the lot size is 3,000 SF. Section 325-8, Column 7, requires a lot width of 50 feet; the lot width is 40 feet. Finally, the proposed addition is deficient in parking. The proposal under Section 325-8, Column 4, requires 5 parking spaces. There are no parking spaces on site, but the property has grandfather rights for 4 spaces. The new addition will allow the applicant to change the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the two units without increasing the occupancy in the building, which is limited to 10 persons. The basement will go from a two-bedroom unit to a three-bedroom unit. The first and second floor unit will go from eight bedrooms to seven bedrooms. Among other things, the expansion of the basement apartment will provide more natural light and ventilation in 26 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD the bedrooms and code-compliant emergency escape windows. The applicant altered the building in 2008 under a building permit to change the number of units at 205 Williams Street from three units to two. This proposal would have only needed to go to the BZA if the property had been deficient in parking or lot area. Unfortunately, the Code Inspector signed the building permit without realizing that by increasing the bedrooms in one of the units, the number of required parking spaces changed from 4 spaces to 6. In addition, the Code Inspector did not realize the property is deficient in lot area; therefore, the alterations made in 2008 to 205 Williams Street require variances from the BZA, because parking became deficient by changing the number of dwelling units and the property is deficient in lot area. The applicant requests that the BZA grant variances for the increase in parking spaces and for the lot area deficiency, if the BZA denies the variance request for the proposed new addition. If the BZA denies both variance requests, the applicant will have to return the building to its pre-2008 apartment configuration. The property at 205 Williams Street is in an R-3a Use District, where the proposed use is permitted. Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board hopes the rendering submitted with the application, which shows a flattening of the eave above the bay window, does not accurately depict the intended treatment of the roofline on the front façade. Other than that issue, the Board recommends granting this appeal. Appeal #2913, Area Variances ― 815 Taber Street Appeal of Fredric Bouché, owner of 815 Taber Street, Ports of New York Winery, for area variances from Section 325-8, Columns, 10, 12, 13, and 14/15, Lot Coverage, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of 1,000 SF greenhouse, behind the Ports of New York winery located at 815 Taber Street. Ports of New York has received variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals on two other occasions in which existing deficiencies of Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, were granted. The proposed greenhouse will increase the existing side yard deficiencies and create two new deficiencies relating to lot coverage and rear yard setback. Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, allows a maximum of 50% lot coverage. Currently, the building has lot coverage of 29.8%. The proposed greenhouse will increase lot coverage to 52%. Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Setback, requires the building be set back 20 feet from the rear lot line. With the greenhouse addition, the rear yard setback will be reduced to 3 feet. The current side yard deficiency in the east yard (side yard) is 9’-2” and in the west yard (other side yard); the deficiency is 3’-2”. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 12 and 13, Side Yard and Other Side Yard, respectively, 27 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD requires the side yards be 12 feet on one side and 6 feet on the other side to be in compliance. The proposed greenhouse will increase the 9’-2” side yard deficiency to 6’-8”. The other side yard will have the 3’-2” side yard deficiency extended another 50 feet, the length of the greenhouse. The property at 815 Taber Street is in an I-1 Use District, where the proposed greenhouse is a permitted use; however, Section 325-39 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board feels that this is an appropriate use of the site and recommends granting this appeal. Appeal #2916, Use Variance ― 709 N. Tioga Street Appeal of Michael Kozanitis, for Brian and Eileen McKelvey, the owners of a three-unit multiple dwelling at 709 North Tioga Street, for a use variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 325-32 C., “extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or structures.” Section 325-32 C. states that a non-conforming use cannot be extended or enlarged without a use variance. The applicant proposes to purchase a 3-unit multiple dwelling at 709 North Tioga Street and live in one of the units, as an owner/occupant. The building was originally constructed around the turn of the twentieth century as a single-family home. It has been a non- conforming use since at least 1977, when the Building Department began inspecting rental dwellings for compliance with Ithaca’s Housing Ordinance. The building has three one- bedroom apartments for occupancy of six unrelated persons. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the first floor front apartment to make additional room for the owner-occupied rear apartment. He proposes to remove the existing kitchen and living room, change the existing bedroom into an entry-level living room, and build a second story for two bedrooms. This proposal including a new 8’x16’ entry deck to accommodate the rear entry and will increase the total square footage by 128 SF. In his letter to the Board, the applicant shows it would be financially infeasible to use the building as either a single-family home, or a two-dwelling unit. He also shows the proposed alterations are necessary in order to continue operating the building as a three-unit multiple dwelling.   The applicant states he will limit the occupancy of the renovated apartment to two persons. The applicant also proposes to limit the occupancy of the other two apartments to one person. This will lower the building’s current occupancy from six to four persons. 28 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD The property at 709 North Tioga Street is located in an R-2b Use District, in which the proposed use is not permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires a use variance be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Board feels the proposed modifications improve the property and recommend granting this appeal. Appeal #2917, Area Variance ― Harold’s Square, 123-127,133,135-139 E. State Street Appeal of Scott Whitham, for owner, L Enterprises, LLC, for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Depth Requirement, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed use building of approximately 132,000 GSF known as “Harold’s Square.” The building is designed to have commercial business on the ground floor, three stories of upper-story office space, 6 stories devoted to residential use, and an 11th story penthouse. The residential portion of the building is in a tower configuration that will be set back 62’ 8” from the building’s four-story façade facing the Commons. This tower will be located in the CBD-140 Zone and reach a height of 140 feet. The four-story portion will be located in the CBD-60 Zone and have a height of 57’ 10”. The building will have two main entrances: one on the Commons, and the other facing the Green Street Alley between the Commons and the Green Street garage. The size of the project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the building. District regulations require the project have a 10-foot rear yard setback. The applicant proposes to have no rear yard for this project. The proposed building will include an access bridge connection to the Green Street garage, a canopy roof covering the rear exit, and exit doors that swing pass the rear property line and encroach on City property. The applicant is currently in contact with the City to develop an agreement for these encroachments. Harold’s Square will be located in a CBD-140/CBD-60 Use District, where the uses of the proposed building are permitted; however, Section 325-38 and 325-39 require an area variance be granted before a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Planning Board supports granting the variance for this appeal. 6. Old Business • Off-Site Parking Lots as Accessory Uses Cornish remarked that the Purity Ice Cream Site Plan Review process has generated considerable new interest in re-evaluating off-site parking lots as accessory uses. She suggested the Board may want to recommend to Common Council that the ordinance be clarified. 29 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Off-Site Parking Lots as Accessory Uses Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, having observed that permitting off-site parking lots as accessory uses does not always result in the most desirable use of a given property, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends that §325- 20, “Off-street parking,” be clarified. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None • Proposed City of Ithaca Sidewalk Improvement Districts (SIDs) Cornish informed the Board it will be receiving a complete packet of information about the proposed Sidewalk Improvement Districts, to comment on as part of the formal circulation. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair None. B. Director of Planning & Development None. C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison None. 8. Approval of Minutes: 5/28/13 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández, the draft May 28, 2013 meeting minutes were approved. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None 30 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 31 9. Adjournment On a motion by Blalock , seconded by Fernández, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.