Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-11-27DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes November 27, 2012 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Noah Demarest; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning & Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning & Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Department of Planning & Development Applicants Attending: Commons Repair & Upgrade Project Susannah Ross, Sasaki Associates; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner, Department of Planning & Development INHS Housing Project (400 Spencer Rd.) Steven Hugo, HOLT Architects; Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS); Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Apartment Complex at 130 Clinton Street ― Sketch Plan Scott Whitham, Scott Whitham & Associates; Steven A. VanDeWeert, Jagat P. Sharma Architect   Mixed-Use Project (Purity Site) ― Sketch Plan John Snyder, John Snyder Architects; Bruce Lane, Purity Ice Cream Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Chair Acharya indicated that review of the following three projects would need to be postponed, due to project changes: • Minor Subdivision, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, 1 Hudson St. 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • Site Plan Review, Parking Lot & Building Renovations, 308 Elmira Rd. (Maguire Fiat) • Site Plan Review, Vehicle Storage Lot, 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr. 2. Privilege of the Floor Margaret Sutherland, 410 Spencer Rd., spoke in opposition to the INHS Housing Project at 400 Spencer Road. She remarked the project is moving too quickly, the neighbors were informed too late, and the City does not have enough time to satisfactorily address all the issues associated with the project (e.g., vehicular traffic, sidewalks, safety concerns associated with bus stops, etc.). Jeanie M. Dockstader, 341 Spencer Rd., also spoke in opposition to the INHS Housing Project at 400 Spencer Road. 3. Site Plan Review A. Commons Repair & Upgrade Project, City of Ithaca, Applicant & Owner. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The project consists of removal and replacement of all above- and below-ground utilities, all surfaces, furnishing, lighting, structures, landscaping, site features, and signage. The project is in the CDB-60 and the B-5 Zoning Districts. The project will require approval from the Board of Public Works and Common Council. This is a Type II Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and does not requires environmental review. Ross walked through the changes that were made to the proposed project since the Board last reviewed it. Demarest observed there appear to have been some issues involving the spacing between the trees. Ross responded that the current design calls for 30 feet between trees. Cornish remarked that the original 60-foot spacing standard was ultimately determined to be too large. She added that the Fire Chief has indicated that the Fire Department should be able to work with 30 feet. Marcham asked if the catenary lighting has been used in other places. Ross responded that the design team looked at precedents for it (e.g., Kansas City Light and Power) and it has been used in numerous other countries. Marcham remarked she is concerned the proposed catenary lighting system is too untested for use on the Commons.. 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Rudan remarked that at the last Project Review Committee meeting she suggested incorporating renewable energy elements into the project, at least in one or more of the gateway installations. Ross responded she could certainly explore that. Schroeder remarked that the project narrative refers to an electrical panel to be installed. He is concerned with how visible such a panel would be. Ross replied it is a large 4’x7’ enclosed stainless steel box that would be tucked in the most discreet place possible. She stressed that the panel would definitely be needed for performances and other events. Schroeder remarked he would like to see the drawings for the panel. He added that he would also like to see a green screen of some kind next to the Pavilion, which had been mentioned before. Ross replied that that could be done. Schroeder remarked that the glass on the Pavilion could be patterned in some fashion, as well. Ross responded that they had not determined what pattern would be employed. Schroeder remarked that he would like to have a piece of the original Egner Commons retained (e.g., chess tables). Cornish remarked she and Historic Ithaca would look into that. Marcham reiterated her concern with the catenary lighting. Cornish, Acharya, and Schroeder all responded that they believe the proposed lighting should work well. Cornish added that the catenary lights are not the only source of lighting. Ross noted that the design team’s lighting consultants spent considerable effort in evaluating and selecting the lighting. Adopted Final Approval Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the Commons Repair and Upgrade project, by the City of Ithaca, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the Commons Repair and Upgrade Project was initiated as a Department of Public Works Capital Project request in 2007, to address concerns regarding aging underground utilities, the fire prevention and response infrastructure, emergency access issues, deteriorating structures, and extensive surface decomposition, and WHEREAS: the initial design phase was approved as part of the 2008 City Capital Budget, and 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: in 2009, the City hired Sasaki Associates and established a client committee made up of 16 members of the public, and WHEREAS: from 2009 through 2011, Sasaki worked with City staff and the client committee to conduct an extensive public outreach effort, including: public meetings and workshops; information tables; surveys; on-street interviews; and focus group meetings. They then to used that feedback to develop a schematic design that could address many of the concerns expressed by both the public and professional City staff, and WHEREAS: the City authorized the funding for the final design and preparation of construction drawings as a part of the 2011 Capital Budget, and WHEREAS: Sasaki presented the final design, developed through 2012 with continuing input from the client committee, to Common Council in September 2012, and WHEREAS: the project consists of removal and replacement of all above- and below-ground utilities, all surfaces, furnishing, lighting, structures, landscaping (except two yellowwood trees), site features, and signage. The project is in the CBD-60, CBD-85, and CBD-100 Zoning Districts, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-5 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, Type II Actions, it has been determined the Commons Repair and Upgrade Project is a Type II Action under §176-5 C. (4.), “Street openings and right-of-way openings for the purpose of repair or replacement or maintenance of existing utilities,” and does not require environmental review, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on October 23, 2012, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on November 27, 2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: drawings entitled: “Layout Plan (LP101, LP102, & LP103),” “Materials Plan (MP101, MP102, & MP103),” “Grading Plan (GP101, GP102, & GP103),” “Planting Plan (PP101, PP102, & PP103),” “Site Details (DT501, DT502, & DT503),” “Bernie Milton Pavilion (A101),” and “West Gateway (A102),” prepared by Sasaki Associates and dated 8/15/12; a detailed project overview prepared by Sasaki Associates and presented to the Planning Board on October 23, 2012; and an updated East State St./Martin Luther King, Jr. St. tree planting plan attached to a November 15, 2012 memo from Sasaki Associates to the Planning Board; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Commons Repair and Upgrade Project, subject to the following conditions: i. Approval by the Planning Board of: 1. Final designs for the play structure and scavenger hunt features, and 2. Final designs for the bump-outs at the Commons entrances, and 3. Final designs for the Trolley Circle, and 4. Final designs for the Bank Alley fountain, and 5. Details of electric distribution panel in Bank Alley, sculptural green screen east of new Bernie Milton Pavilion, gateway structure lighting, and patterning of glass panels on the roofs of the Milton Pavilion and the gateway structures, and 6. Final locations and quantity of bike racks, and ii. Applicant shall explore incorporating wind/water/solar features into the gateway architecture, and iii. The appropriate drawing(s) shall indicate that the existing Commons chess tables and stools are to be salvaged for potential reuse in another city public space, and iv. The Planning Board recommends to the Board of Public Works that the existing Commons decorative light poles be salvaged for potential temporary or permanent reuse elsewhere in the City, and v. Any change to the number, spacing and/or species of the East State St./Martin Luther King, Jr. St. trees, as shown in the tree planting plan attached to the aforementioned November 15, 2012 Sasaki memo, shall require Planning Board approval, and vi. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless the Superintendent of Public Works deems it necessary to permit work outside these hours. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None B. 35-Unit Rental Housing Development, Stone Quarry Apts., 400 Spencer Rd., Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) & PathStone Development, Applicants. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicants propose to construct 35 units of new rental housing that will be affordable to low- to moderate-income households. The units will be in one 3-story building and two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include a 37-space parking area, pedestrian walkways throughout, a recreation area with a playground, basketball court, a lawn, and landscaping. The applicants are also proposing to install a sidewalk, tree lawn, and street trees along the property on Spencer Rd. 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD The project site consists of three separate tax parcels in the R-2a and B-5 Zoning Districts, currently all containing commercial uses. Project development will require lot subdivision, and potential consolidation. The project requires a use variance for a 3-story apartment building in the R-2b District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Trowbridge walked through the changes made to the project since the last Board meeting (as documented in the applicant’s 11/13/12 letter to the Board). Jones-Rounds asked if the connections between the different portions of the property would be demarcated in some way, as a safety and traffic-calming measure. Trowbridge replied, yes, they would be striped. Schroeder asked if the applicant contacted all the surrounding property owners. Mazzarella replied, yes. He noted that many property owners have opposed the project; however, the applicant believes the great majority of concerns will ultimately prove negotiable. Schroeder remarked that at the recent Project Review Committee meeting he suggested incorporating accent windows on the peripheries of some of the buildings. Hugo confirmed that this would be done, in the stairwell portions of those buildings. Hugo noted that the relationship between the external fence and the low walls next to the buildings had also been modified in response to prior Board comments. Windows have also been added, where possible. As for the mechanical equipment for the townhouses, vents will most likely be installed from the kitchen/bathroom areas, but no mechanicals would be visible on the buildings themselves. The mechanical equipment on the multi-family buildings would be situated within a pocket on the roof, so it should be minimally visible from the street. Blalock asked if a mechanism exists that might help reduce the tax bills of any properties on which easements should be established. Cornish replied she does not know of any, but the City would certainly like be interested in identifying that kind of financial incentive. Rudan asked if the project is intended to be permanently affordable. Mazzarella replied, yes. Marcham indicated she would vote against the project ― it upsets too many people and brings too many cars into a small space. In addition, it does not conform to the R-2 zoning requirements and requires too many use/area variances. It simply seems out of place within the larger context of the neighborhood. 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Adopted 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 Stone Quarry Apartments located at 400 Spencer Road, by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) and PathStone Development, and WHEREAS: the applicants propose to construct 35 units of new rental housing that will be permanently affordable to low- to moderate-income households. The units will be in one 3-story building and two rows of 2-story townhouses. Site improvements will include: a 36-space parking area with two ADA-compliant spaces; pedestrian walkways throughout; a recreation area with a playground; basketball court; a lawn; and landscaping. The applicants are also proposing to install a sidewalk, tree lawn, and street trees along the property on Spencer Road. The project site consists of three separate tax parcels in the R-2a and B-5 Zoning Districts, currently containing all commercial uses. Project development will require lot subdivision, and potential consolidation. The project has received the required use and area variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 23, 2012 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; plans entitled “Site Survey (L001),” dated 9/19/12 and prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Concept Sections (L501),” and “Site Details (L601),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and dated 9/19/12; and “Grading Plan (L301),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT Architects, and dated 9/19/12; and “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101),” “Utility Plan (C102),” and “Details (C201),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 9/19/12; and “Layout Plan (L201),”and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 10/9/12, and “Concept Plan (L100),” dated 10/22/12 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT Architects; and “Typical Townhouse Exterior Elevations (A201)”and “Multifamily Building Exterior Elevations (A202),” prepared by HOLT Architects and respectively dated 11/16/12 and 10/31/12; and “Grading Plan (L301),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and HOLT Architects, and dated 9/19/12; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: on September 25, 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 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on September 25, 2012, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on October 23, 2012 make a Negative Determination Of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Stone Quarry Apartments project at 400 Spencer Road, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to building materials samples and colors, windows, tree protection, lighting, signage, pavements, curbs, fences, patio fences, seats and retaining walls, dumpster enclosure, bike racks, and play structure, and ii. Submission of drawing and/or a narrative indicating planned route for construction traffic, and iii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and iv. Applicant shall consider adding windows to the 3-story multi-family apartment building at the upper portion of its Spencer Road façade and at its southwest corner, and v. Submission of a rooftop plan demonstrating that no substantial rooftop mechanicals are visible from the public right-of-way, and vi. Applicant shall paint any exterior vents to match adjacent building materials, and vii. Applicant shall work with NYSEG to ensure transformers are located for minimal visibility or in such a way as to allow for screening. Any such screening shall be approved by Planning Department staff, and viii. Soil for street trees and trees surrounding parking areas to be remediated, as recommended by the City Forestry Technician, and ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and x. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: Marcham Absent: None 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Adopted Resolution to the Board of Public Works (BPW) Urging BPW to Undertake Transportation Improvements on Spencer Road On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: on November 27, 2012, the Planning and Development Board granted final site plan approval to the Stone Quarry Apartments Project, which will create 35 units of permanently affordable rental housing at 400 Spencer Road, and WHEREAS: the proposed project is proximate to shopping on Elmira Road and Meadow Street, both of which have, or will soon have, sidewalks and designated pedestrian crossings, and WHEREAS: the applicant expects some of the residents will not have cars and is proposing to install a sidewalk and tree lawn along the project site fronting Spencer Road, which currently has no sidewalk. The installation of such sidewalk does not address the issue of making a safe pedestrian connection to Elmira Road and/or Meadow Street, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board is concerned about safety and traffic violations at the intersection of Spencer and Quarry Roads. The applicant submitted a turning movements diagram at the request of the City Transportation Engineer. The diagram demonstrated that current turning movements are not affected by the proposed project. The City Transportation Engineer has determined that any transportation issues at the intersection are not the responsibility of the applicant. The Board understands that the City is interested in redesigning the intersection and making a pedestrian connection from the new sidewalk to Elmira Road, and WHEREAS: several neighbors spoke at the public hearing for the project, raising concerns about traffic congestion and pedestrian safety, particularly the need for sidewalks on Spencer Road, and WHEREAS: the project received the necessary variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, subject to the condition that “the applicant address with the city the problem of foot and vehicular traffic,” and WHEREAS: establishing a cost-sharing project for the installation of sidewalks on Spencer Road is potentially an eligible expense for use of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, administered by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board urges the BPW, as expeditiously as possible, to: (1) develop and implement a plan for providing pedestrian connections between the project site area on Spencer Road and nearby transit stops and shopping areas; and (2) develop and implement a plan for improving the operation of the Spencer Road and Stone Quarry Road intersection, and be it further 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLVED: that the Planning Board suggests that the BPW, with Common Council consent, investigate applying to the IURA for CDBG funds to develop a cost-sharing project for the installation of sidewalks on Spencer Road. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None C. Apartment Complex at 130 Clinton Street ― Sketch Plan Whitham and VanDeWeert walked through a general overview of the proposed project: • Three residential structures • Existing walkway would be converted into a maintained gravel maintenance drive • Primary issue is the extent of the slope; the applicant is working with T.G. Miller, P.C. on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Buildings will have same basic floor plan and will be composed of concrete foundations, wood construction, and Hardie board siding • No internal building parking planned Schroeder asked if it would be possible to reconstruct the pedestrian walkway. Whitham replied that is not part of the proposal, but it would not be blocked off in any manner. Cornish remarked it may be helpful to have a conversation with the Police Department about the project. Cornish also noted she would prefer if the applicant would consider an alternative to the gravel driveway. Demarest observed that gravel driveways can work out reasonably well, assuming they have the appropriate edging, aprons, etc. Schroeder asked if there would be any plantings. Whitham replied there could conceivably be plantings. Schroeder suggested creating the impression of stonework (perhaps accompanied by vines), for the retaining wall. Cornish asked if the gravel pathway would be ADA-compatible. Whitham replied the pathway is not being proposed to be ADA-compatible; but it is not required to be, to the best of his knowledge. 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD   D. Mixed-Use Project (Purity Ice Cream Site) ― Sketch Plan Snyder and Lane walked through a general overview of the proposed project: • Proposal is to redevelop the central Purity Ice Cream site, while retaining much of the existing building, and adding parking to peripheries • No parking requirements in zone, but parking would be needed for retail and residents • Central lobby would be accessed via Cascadilla Street • Discussions have taken place with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue regarding the curbcut • Building extremity would be cantilevered • First floor would be 16’ high • Walk-up apartment units and outdoor garden spaces (13-26 units on the third through fifth floors), with offices on first and second floors • Brick, glass, and steel-frame construction Demarest remarked that the building proposed to be constructed on top of the original building does not appear to be in harmony with the original building. He added he is not sure if the upper floors of the proposed new building genuinely need to be stepped back from the street, either. Jones-Rounds asked if any existing parking would be eliminated. Lane replied there would 1-2 fewer spaces. 5. Zoning Appeals #2882, Special Permit & Area Variance, 308 N. Cayuga St. Appeal of Nancy Medsker and Tom Seaney for a Special Permit for a Bed and Breakfast Inn as required under Section 325-9 C (1) (q.) of the Zoning Ordinance. Aside from this proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn needing a special permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn at 308 North Cayuga Street also needs an area variance because of a deficient side yard. Therefore, the applicants are also seeking an area variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 12, required side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to operate a 5-bedroom, Bed and Breakfast Inn at 308 North Cayuga Street. A Bed and Breakfast Inn must be owner-managed and -operated and each manager must own at least ½ of the building where the inn is located and own half of the business. The inn will be managed by both Nancy Medsker and her son Tom Seaney, but Mr. Seaney will also be living in the one-bedroom owners’ apartment located at 308 North Cayuga Street. Special permits for Bed and Breakfast Inns also require that the manager be physically present at the inn 80% of the days that the inn is being operated. By providing living accommodations for one of the managers in an apartment at 308 North Cayuga Street, the owners will be able to meet the requirements for managers to be on the premise 80% of the time the inn is open. The property at 308 North Cayuga Street also has a side yard deficiency. 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 308 North Cayuga Street is located in a B-1a Zoning District. Side yards must be 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other side. The yard that must be 5 feet deep is only 1.8 feet deep. The property has 8 parking spaces. There is a space available for each room to be rented, a space for the apartment, plus two additional spaces. The property is in a B-1a commercial use district where Bed and Breakfast Inns are allowed; however, Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-38, requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. Members of the Board strongly recommend approval of this appeal. #2895, Area Variance, 101-107 E. State St. / 101-109 S. Cayuga St. Appeal of Jagat Sharma, Architect for Jason Fane, owner of 101-107 East State Street and 101-109 South Cayuga Street also known as “Commons West” from the City of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Column 5, Required Number of Off-Street Loading Spaces, and Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Depth of Rear Yard. The owner of Commons West wants to divide the back space of 5 existing stores that face 101-109 South Cayuga Street to provide sufficient area for the construction of 4 new apartments. In order to change the current uses of Commons West by adding new apartments on the first floor, the owner must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance's district regulations or be granted variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. District regulations for Commons West include that the building be in compliance with the required number of off-street loading spaces and be in compliance with rear yard setback requirements. The Zoning Ordinance requires Commons West to provide 4 loading spaces because of the large size of the building. Section 325-21 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any business or multiple dwelling having more than 25 units must have 1 loading space for buildings between 3,000 SF and 10,000 SF, plus one additional loading space for each additional 15,000 SF, up to a maximum of 4 off street loading spaces. Commons West is 59,064 SF. It was constructed between 1921 and 1940 when the Zoning Ordinance did not require any off-street loading spaces. However, the 1925 Zoning Ordinance, in effect at the time the building was constructed, required a 10 foot deep rear yard setback for retail buildings. Though this setback obviously was not maintained, it is the depth currently required by the Zoning Ordinance for the Commons West building. Commons West is located in the CBD-60 use district. Though this zoning district requires that the owner provide 4 loading spaces for the Commons West building, there is one loading space available that is shared by Commons West building and the Colonial Building at 109-113 East State Street, a building also owned by Mr. Fane. An open paved area which encompasses a loading area is located between the north face of City Hall at 108 East Green Street and the south face of the Colonial Building. This entire open space is approximately 2,428 SF. There is no other space near the Commons West building where additional loading spaces can be created. The CBD-60 zone also requires buildings to have a minimum rear yard of 10 feet deep. The length of the Commons West property is approximately 169 feet long. Of this 169 feet, approximately 53 feet of the Common West rear yard is 8.33 feet deep; however, about 60 feet of Commons West abuts the Colonial Building at 109-113 East State Street. The remaining 56 feet of the Common West rear yard ranges from 4 to 5 feet deep. The Commons West property is in a CBD-60 zone where the proposed 4 apartments are a permitted use. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances for the loading spaces and rear yard setback be granted before a building permit is issued. 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Members of the Planning Board are concerned about the conversion of ground-floor space to residential use. All agree that retail is the most appropriate use of ground-floor space in the downtown area. #2896, Area Variance, 205 Wood St. Appeal of Mathew Happen for Anne Stuart owner of 205 Wood Street for area variances from City Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15, Area in Square Feet, Width at Street, Maximum Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively. The owner’s proposal to add a front porch at her house at 205 Wood Street will create a front yard deficiency and further increase the lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The deficiencies for area in square feet, width at street, side and rear yard deficiencies are the existing conditions of the property at 205 Wood Street. These deficiencies will not be increased by this zoning variance request. The owner of 205 Wood Street proposes to add a new porch to the front of her house. Currently, the front door is accessed by a set of stairs. To provide overhead protection and enhance the building’s appearance, the owner wants to add a 40 SF porch that would be 10 feet wide and 4 feet deep. Without this porch, the house has a ten foot deep front yard. The required depth of front yard in the R-2b use district where this property is located is 10 feet. Adding a front porch will reduce the front yard from 10 feet to 6 feet deep. The 40 SF addition will also increase the allowed maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage in the R-2b zone is 35%. Without the porch, the building on the property covers 38.8 %percent of the lot. The addition of the porch will increase the lot coverage to 40.8%. Existing deficiencies at 205 Wood Street that will not be increased by the addition of the porch are: 325-8, Column 6, Area in Square Feet. The property is 1,980 SF. A lot in the R-2b zone for a single-family home is required to be 3000 SF. 325-8, Column 7, Width at Street. The width at street of 205 Wood Street is 30 feet wide. The width is required to be 35 feet wide. 325-8, Columns 12 and 13, Side Yard and Other Side Yard. The side yards of this property are 3.6 feet wide and 4 feet wide. The R-2b zone requires one side yard to be at least 10 feet and the other side yard to be at least 5 feet. 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard. The property at 205 Wood Street is 19 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires the rear yard to be a minimum of 20 feet deep. The property at 205 Wood Street is in an R-2b use district where the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit can be issued. Members of the Board recommend approval of this appeal. 6. Old Business A. Planning & Development Board Resolution of Support for the Change In The Comprehensive Planning Process On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971 and has since been amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and 13 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: while some objectives of the 1971 plan are still applicable, many are not, and both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have changed dramatically since then, resulting in a need to update the comprehensive plan to address present-day issues and anticipate future ones, and WHEREAS: the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I will entail the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood plans and other distinct thematically-based plans, and WHEREAS: in February 2008, the Common Council approved a capital project in the amount of $200,000 to prepare a comprehensive plan, and WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board appointed and charged the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee to assist with the preparation of the new Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS: the City issued a Request for Qualifications for firms interested in assisting with the preparation of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan and, in early 2011, the Comprehensive Plan Committee interviewed three consultant teams, and WHEREAS: based on the unanimous recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, in May 2011, the Planning and Development Board, Common Council, and the Mayor selected Clarion Associates as the project consultant for Phase I of the new Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS: Clarion Associates began working on the project in September 2011 and undertook a review of existing plans and studies and an analysis of existing conditions and trends, and WHEREAS: an extensive public input process was kicked off by a Clarion-led community workshop in November 2011, and that workshop was followed up with over 20 neighborhood meetings and focus groups, as well as individual surveys, and WHEREAS: using all of this information, the consultant team has completed two reports and initiated a third report, and these documents will inform the preparation of the new Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS: while the City appreciates the work completed by Clarion Associates, it has decided to move forward without the Clarion team, and 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the project funding will now be spent locally, as City staff and the Comprehensive Plan Committee will prepare the new plan with input from the community and assistance from local consultants, as needed, for recommendation by the Planning and Development Board to Common Council and Common Council’s adoption, and WHEREAS: the City remains committed to incorporating community input into the new Comprehensive Plan and the planning process will continue to include extensive public outreach, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board appreciates the work completed by Clarion Associates and fully supports the new direction for the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair None. B. Director of Planning & Development Cornish announced that the County is planning on issuing an RFP for a 70-unit residential project on property it owns near the hospital. Cornish also announced that a County Human Services Annex building is being planned for the former Carpet Bazaar building, which will house the County’s Office for the Aging. Cornish indicated staff is working on finalizing the 2013 Planning Department workplan, which it will aim to submit to the Planning Board for its December meeting. C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison Acharya remarked the BPW has been in the process of recommending disposal of some additional surplus City properties, including a property on East Seneca Street (the old East Hill School property). The BPW will also be holding a Public Hearing regarding a proposed installation of a sidewalk on Elmira Road. The Board also discussed the State Street traffic light project, which would provide cyclists a head start to head up the hill, and include other pedestrian amenities. 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 7. Approval of Minutes: 10/23/12 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya, the revised draft 10/23/12 meeting minutes were approved, with no modifications. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None 8. New Business Jones-Rounds recommended the Board identify a standard protocol for reviewing projects which include features like solar panel installations and rainwater catching systems. Schroeder remarked that the Planning Board should be actively involved in the City’s work on parking and off-street parking regulations. In addition, the Board should take the lead in harmonizing the existing R-1 and R-2 parking regulation discrepancies which were recently identified. Cornish indicated the Board should draft a concept memorandum on the subject for circulation. 9. Adjournment On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.