Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-12-18DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning & Development Board Minutes December 18, 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: 1 Hudson Pl. Todd Fox, Applicant Collegetown Terrace Apartments John Novarr, Developer; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Stan Taft, Artist 150-154 Cecil A. Malone, Dr. (Vehicle Sales Lot) Thomas Schickel, Applicant/Architect; Tim Maguire, Owner 130 Clinton St. (Apartments) Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; Jagat P. Sharma, Jagat P. Sharma Architect   Harold’s Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project) Scott Whitham, Applicant, Scott Whitham & Associates; David Lubin, Owner; Craig Jensen, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP 700 Cascadilla Ave. (Mixed-Use Project) ― Purity Ice Cream Bruce Lane, Applicant/Owner; John Snyder, John Snyder Architects 1 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Richard Guttridge, 216 S. Geneva St., spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave., and City Historian, spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. She also spoke in general opposition to the downtown rezoning proposal currently being reviewed by the City. She is particularly concerned with the proposed rezoning of the DeWitt Park Historic District. Before the downtown rezoning proposal is adopted, it should be considered by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and undergo a more thoughtful review process. Ellen McCollister, 221 Bryant Ave., and Common Council Liaison to the ILPC, spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. She also expressed serious reservations regarding the downtown rezoning proposal. In addition, she observed, there seems to be considerable room for improvement in terms of how these kinds of proposed zoning amendments are communicated to the appropriate City committees. For example, ILPC members should have been notified of it earlier in the process, given its obvious impact on the DeWitt Park Historic District. Joel Harlan, Enfield, spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. Carol Mallison, McGraw House Executive Director, spoke in overall support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District; however, she reiterated the McGraw House request to remove 116 West Clinton Street from inclusion in the proposed historic district. This building is currently owned by the Ladies Union Benevolent Society, a not-for-profit organization closely associated with McGraw House, and has been specifically held for this purpose. Were it to be included in the historic district, it would be nearly impossible for the McGraw House to expand in the future. David Halpert, 209 S. Geneva St., spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. Eric Rosario, 225 S. Geneva St., and member of the Henry St. John Neighbors Association, spoke in support of the proposed Henry St. John Historic District. 2 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, 1 Hudson Pl., Todd Fox, Applicant & Owner. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 12,290 SF (0.28 acre) parcel into two lots: Lot 1, a corner lot, measuring 6,078 SF (0.139 acre) with 70.69 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Pl. and approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson St.; and Lot 2 measuring 6,212 SF (0.143 acre) and containing a duplex, with approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson St. The applicant intends to build a similar duplex with two parking spaces on Lot 1. Vehicular access to Lot 2 is proposed to be through an adjacent property under different ownership. The applicant is required to provide documentation of a cross-easement agreement. The parcel is on the R-2a Zoning District which has a 5,000 SF minimum lot size for two-family dwellings and requires a minimum 25-foot front-yard setback, a 10-foot side- yard setback, and a rear-yard setback of 25% or 50 feet. This is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Applicant Todd Fox recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Blalock: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, by Todd Fox, owner and applicant, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 12,290 SF (0.28 acre) parcel into two lots: Lot 1, a corner lot, measuring 6,078 SF (0.139 acre) with 70.69 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Place and approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street; and Lot 2 measuring 6,212 SF (0.143 acre) and containing a duplex, with approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street. The applicant intends to build a similar duplex on Lot 1. Vehicular access to Lot 2 is proposed to be through an adjacent property under different ownership. The applicant is required to provide documentation of a cross-easement agreement. The parcel is on the R-2a Zoning District which has a 5,000 SF minimum lot size for two-family dwellings and requires a minimum 25-foot front-yard setback, a 10-foot side-yard setback, and a rear-yard setback of 25% or 50 feet, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and 3 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, Todd Fox, owner and applicant. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Rudan, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson St., expressed concern with some of the details of the proposed subdivision. She is concerned the proposed duplex building would be more likely to attract college students and, therefore, detract from the traditional residential character of the neighborhood. Joel Harlan, Enfield, spoke in support of the proposed subdivision. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Schroeder stressed that the Planning Board is merely approving the subdivision of the land. It is City Planning staff which will be charged with reviewing the actual plans for the building. Adopted CEQR Resolution On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Blalock: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, by Todd Fox, owner and applicant, and 4 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 12,290 SF (0.28 acre) parcel into two lots: Lot 1, a corner lot, measuring 6,078 SF (0.139 acre) with 70.69 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Place and approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street; and Lot 2 measuring 6,212 SF (0.143 acre) and containing a duplex, with approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street. The applicant intends to build a similar duplex on Lot 1. Vehicular access to Lot 2 is proposed to be through an adjacent property under different ownership. The applicant is required to provide documentation of a cross-easement agreement. The parcel is in the R-2a Zoning District which has a 5,000 SF minimum lot size for two-family dwellings and requires a minimum 25-foot front-yard setback, a 10-foot side-yard setback, and a rear-yard setback of 25% or 50 feet, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision ― Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on November 27, 2012 review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; and a plan entitled “Residential Duplex, Site Plan, Ver. 2.3,” dated 11/19/12 and prepared by Claudia Brenner, Claudia Brenner Design; and additional application materials, and WHEREAS: Tompkins County, the Conservation Advisory Council, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to review the information for this project and the Planning Board has considered any comments received, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby determines that the proposed subdivision for the above-referenced action 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 requirements contained in Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 5 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Adopted Preliminary & Final Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Demarest: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, in the city of Ithaca, by Todd Fox, owner and applicant, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 12,290 SF (0.28 acre) parcel into two lots: Lot 1, a corner lot, measuring 6,078 SF (0.139 acre) with 70.69 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Place and approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street; and Lot 2 measuring 6,212 SF (0.143 acre) and containing a duplex, with approximately 50 linear feet of frontage on Hudson Street. The applicant intends to build a similar duplex on Lot 1. Vehicular access to Lot 2 is proposed to be through an adjacent property under different ownership. The applicant is required to provide documentation of a cross-easement agreement. The parcel is in the R-2a Zoning District which has a 5,000 SF minimum lot size for two-family dwellings and requires a minimum 25-foot front-yard setback, a 10-foot side-yard setback, and a rear-yard setback of 25% or 50 feet, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision ― Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 (C) (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on December 18, 2012, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on December 18, 2012 review and accept as adequate: a City of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by staff; and a drawing entitled “Residential Duplex, Site Plan, Ver. 2.3,” dated 11/19/12 and prepared by Claudia Brenner, Claudia Brenner Design; and additional application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on December 18, 2012 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and 6 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels are in conformance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for properties located in the R-2a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and final subdivision approval to the proposed minor subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #113.-2-5, by Todd Fox, owner and applicant, subject to the following conditions: i. submission of a cross-easement agreement, demonstrating permanent access through the City of Ithaca tax parcel #113.-2-4, needed to access the proposed parking area on Lot 2, and ii. submission of two paper copies and one original mylar (record copy) of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and the signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 4. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace ― Conditions for Mitchell Street Plaza Consultant Kathryn Wolf remarked that Mary Tomlan is also a part of the project team. Wolf highlighted the following points of interest regarding the plans for Mitchell Street Plaza: • three arcade windows from nurses dormitory to be incorporated • Jane Delano Home door to be incorporated • Pink seat walls to be constructed from Driscoll House marble and used in historically accurate pattern • Footprint of former Rensselaer Building to be constructed in colored concrete • Only columns from Jane Delano Home could be salvaged, but arcades to be reconstructed to scale • Stan Taft will be painting on metal, with clearcoat over it • Slated roof would be constructed with the terra cotta tiles from the nurses dormitory; although some final research will need to be done to ensure this is feasible Schroeder asked that the following notes, which he prepared, be incorporated into the minutes to summarize the December 11, 2012 Project Review Committee meeting discussion of the project. No objections were raised. 7 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Notes from Project Review Committee Meeting Regarding Dec. 5, 2012 “Collegetown Terrace Plan for Interpretative Elements” PAGE 2 As stated on this page, the final design and content of the interpretative panels being worked on by consultant Mary Tomlan will be submitted for approval at a later date. PAGE 3 Photos on this page show both angled and vertical display structures, but applicant has clarified that only the angled version will be used for this project. PAGE 4 The white marble stone salvaged from the basement level of the former Patrick Driscoll House, to be reused for two seat-height walls flanking the Eddy Plaza entrance, will be laid in the same pattern of alternating horizontal bands (one rougher and narrower, the other smoother and wider) as appeared on the original house (see lower photograph on DEIS Appendix C, Page 47, a detail of which appears at the right). The other “stone wall, seat height” shown on the right of this drawing will be built of the same masonry as the stone wall already standing at the southeast corner of State and Quarry streets. PAGE 5 The “shadow of the original location” of the Martha Van Rensselaer House will be distinguished from the regular sidewalk concrete by means of both contrasting score lines and tinted concrete, the latter colored an orange earth tone reminiscent of the former house’s brick color. PAGE 9 Some well-deserved praise: the design for reconstruction of the Jane A. Delano Home windows and doorway is beautiful, and the proposed paintings by Stan Taft are simply extraordinary. PAGE 10 The text on this page states that the “wall/balustrade of the curved steps [leading down into the Mitchell Street plaza just west of the reconstructed Delano Home artifacts] will be either bluestone stone veneer or stucco.” The bluestone veneer is the appropriate material for this curving wall/balustrade because stucco will be used as part of the reconstruction of the Delano Home elements, so the use of stucco on these curved steps, as well, would tend to blur the distinction between what is a Delano Home reconstruction and what is not. PAGE 12 This page shows two alternatives for the top of the Delano arcade wall, one “with Tile cap” and one “with Brick cap.” After a clear preference for the former was expressed, the applicant stated that the “Section thro’ wall with Tile cap” alternative will be used. 8 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD B. Vehicle Sales Lot, 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr., Thomas Schickel, Applicant for Owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 SF (0.808 acre) parking lot, and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot, for a total area of 54,950 SF (1.26 acres) with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion of the lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install a landscaped buffer with trees and grass along the front of the property and to remove the easterly curbcut. The applicant is proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’5”-wide sidewalk across the length of the property. The gravel lot is designed to drain on site, with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project requires area variances from the BZA. The project is on two separate tax parcels and requires consolidation. Applicant Thomas Schickel recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, highlighting the following modifications to the original project: • Project Review Committee originally suggested eliminating the driveway and greening that space ― the lessee, Safelite Autoglass, objected to having the driveway removed, however, so it has now been re-inserted. • Parking lot to be expanded, comprising asphalt paving and a long gravel parking lot, for a total of 152 spaces • A small green area will be added just to the side of the Safelite entrance • New sidewalk to be added (representing a significant expense) Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Blalock: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a vehicle sales lot by Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and 9 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 (0.808 acre) parking lot, and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot for a total area of 55,850 SF (1.282 acres) with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion for the lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’-wide sidewalk across the length of the property and install additional vegetative buffers with trees, shrubs, and grass. There will be two curbcuts. The gravel lot is designed to drain on site with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project requires area variances from the BZA and may require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project is on two separate tax parcels and requires consolidation, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed Vehicle Sales Lot to be located at 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Drive. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Public Hearing: On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Rudan, and unanimously approved, Chair Acharya opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Marcham, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Adopted CEQR Resolution On a motion by Demarest, seconded by Rudan: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a vehicle sales lot by Tom Schickel, applicant for owner, Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC, and 10 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to expand the existing 35,200 (0.808 acre) parking lot, and convert a portion of it to a vehicle sales lot for a total area of 55,850 SF (1.282 acres) with 129 display spaces and 23 parking spaces (152 total). The existing paved portion for the lot will be expanded by 4,550 SF to conform to a more regular shape, and the remaining 16,100 SF will be surfaced with gravel. The existing fence and approximately 5’ of vegetative buffers along the southwest (side) and northwest (rear) property lines will remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to install an 8’-wide tree lawn and 5’-wide sidewalk across the length of the property and install additional vegetative buffers with trees, shrubs, and grass. There will be two curbcuts. The gravel lot is designed to drain on-site with engineered filter fabric topped with a 12” layer of gravel to provide a stable driving surface. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The project requires area variances from the BZA and may require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project is on two separate tax parcels and requires consolidation, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the agency that has the primary responsibility for approving this action, declared itself Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: 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 WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on December 18, 2012 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a drawing entitled “Site Plan (L1),” prepared by Schickel Architects and dated 12/12/12; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Vehicle Sales Lot to be located on 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Dr. will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 11 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Schroeder indicated that, in order to obtain Final Site Plan Approval, the applicant will need to provide the Board with a complete list of plant species being used. Schickel agreed to do so. (See below for the zoning appeal recommendation associated with this project.) C. Apartments, 130 E. Clinton St., Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp. Declaration of Lead Agency, CEQR Discussion ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to construct three 3-story apartment buildings, each containing 12 units (four on each floor) ― for a total of 36 units and 48 beds. The buildings are proposed to be wood-frame with overhanging hipped shingled roofs, wood siding and trim, and gabled entry points. Vehicular access is from a new service drive commencing at the existing parking lot on Prospect Street. Pedestrian access will come from two new stairs, one on Clinton Street and the other from the new service drive, both connecting to a new wooden boardwalk along the west sides of the buildings. The 1.748-acre project site contains steep slopes and project development will require extensive regrading and removal of a large area of vegetation, including several mature trees to form level building pads. The buildings are also built into the slope. The project is in the B-1a Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(k), B(2) and B(5), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, highlighting the following recent modifications to the initial proposal: • Site has been made ADA-accessible on the pathway • Ground floor of building has been raised 8 feet, allowing for a smaller retaining wall along the pedestrian pathway • Pedestrian access will be through the walkway and stairway • Stairway is now being provided between the existing lot and the pedestrian pathway Marcham asked if the units would be ADA-accessible. Sharma replied, yes, all the lower ones. Rudan observed that the northern slope is a serious concern. It appears to be deteriorating and may even possibly pose a danger at some point. Whitham responded that the applicant would be sure to submit a final completed grading plan for the entire site. Schroeder indicated the Planning Board needs assurance the soil can support a project of this size. Sharma responded that the applicant did consult a soil engineer. Schroeder remarked that a full geotechnical review should be completed, as well. Whitham agreed to do so. 12 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Demarest remarked that he has a few major remaining concerns with the project, many of which correspond to the Conservation Advisory Council’s (CAC) own concerns (e.g., getting the lower level up out of the ground, even if it requires a variance). Jones-Rounds expressed concern with the project’s overall accessibility and connectedness to the downtown area and other nearby areas (e.g., having the boardwalk part of the project connect to the Six Mile Creek Walk). Whitham responded he would explore that possibility. Acharya remarked he has similar concerns as the CAC, regarding the vegetation that would be clear cut. Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Rudan: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for 3 apartment buildings by Scott Whitham, applicant for owner, Orange Brick Garage Corp., and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct 3 three-story apartment buildings, each containing 12 units (four on each floor) ― for a total of 36 units and 48 beds. The buildings are proposed to be wood-frame with overhanging hipped shingled roofs, wood siding and trim, and gabled entry points. Vehicular access is from a new service drive, commencing at the existing parking lot on Prospect Street. Pedestrian access will be from two new stairs, one on Clinton Street and the other from the new service drive, both connecting to a new wooden boardwalk along the west sides of the buildings. The 1.748-acre project site contains steep slopes and project development will require extensive regrading and removal of a large area of vegetation, including several mature trees, to form level building pads. The buildings are also built into the slope. The project is in the B-1a Zoning District. The project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and 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: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it 13 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 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed apartments to be located at 130 E. Clinton Street. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None D. Harold’s Square, Mixed-Use Project, 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St. (The Commons), Scott Whitham, Applicant for Owner, L Enterprises, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency, and CEQR Discussion on Part 2 ― No Action. The applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 10-story, mixed-use building of approximately 132,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,000 SF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (41,200 SF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential (up to 72 units). The residential portion of the project is in the tower, set back 75’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one on Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is on the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires an area variance for height. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(h)[4], B(1)(k) and B(1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(9) and is subject to environmental review. Whitham recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted that here is a state code issue regarding the distance from the parking garage: the current proposal is 15 feet from the garage, while the state requires 20 feet. The applicant is currently investigating what would be required to obtain a State variance. Rudan remarked the design does not appear to be in complete harmony with the appearance of the Commons. She suggested breaking up the appearance of the project’s façades and adding more ornamentation. Demarest indicated he is concerned with the overall form of the buildings (e.g., he would suggest altering or recessing the central façade). Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Demarest: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and 14 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a 10-story mixed-use building by Scott Whitham, applicant for owner, L Enterprises, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to develop a 137-foot tall, 10-story, mixed use building of approximately 132,000 GSF. The project will include one story (11,000 SF) of ground floor retail, three stories (41,200SF) of upper-story office space, and six stories of residential space (up to 72 units). The residential portion of the project is in the tower, set back 75’ from the building’s four- story Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one facing Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is in the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires an area variance for height, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(h)[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, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan approval for the proposed mixed-use project to be located at 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St. (The Commons). In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None 5. Zoning Appeals #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 “Common 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. 15 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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 dwellings 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 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 Commons 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 Commons West’s 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. As there are no changes to the originally submitted appeal, the Board wishes to reiterate the following, submitted to the BZA in November 2012: “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.” 16 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD #2897, Area Variance, 150 Cecil A. Malone Dr. Appeal of Thomas Schickel on behalf of the owner Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard Requirements, of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to renovate an existing office in the warehouse building for a new automobile sales office at the property located at 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Drive. The proposal includes expanding the existing parking area from 35,200 SF to 55,850 SF to accommodate the associated vehicle display parking. The proposed parking area extends over two parcels, one parcel contains two buildings, Safelite AutoGlass and the Maguire storage building, and the other is an adjacent parcel, Tax ID# 78.-2-5.2, where a new parking area is proposed. The existing paved area at 150-154 Cecil A. Malone Drive extends to the front property line, which is 18.5’ from the curb line and the proposed new display parking spaces will have a curb setback of 38.5’. The SW-2 Zone District prohibits parking within the first 100’ from the curb, unless the property meets the setback requirements of Section 325-29.2B(2) . Section 325-29.2B(2) requires that 35% of the lot’s street frontage be occupied by buildings with a setback of 15’-34’ from the curb. The closest building to the curb line is the existing Safelite building, which is setback 73’6” from curb. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the requirements for off-street parking and front yard setbacks in the SW-2 Zone District, having 73’6” of the required 15’-34’ curb line front yard setback and 18.5’ and 38.5’ of the 100’ parking setback required by the ordinance. The property has an existing rear yard deficiency, having 6’8” of the 10’ minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. The existing deficiency will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The property is located in a SW-2 Southwest Use District, in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. The Board recommends granting this appeal for the following reasons: (1) the odd shape of the parcel and the location of the existing buildings create constraints; and (2) the applicant is proposing significant improvements to the site over existing conditions, including sidewalks along the entire length of the site and a large amount of landscaping. 6. New Business A. Board Comments on Proposed Henry St. John Historic District Marcham remarked she supports the McGraw House’s request to be excluded from the Historic District. Schroeder observed that the McGraw House could easily create an addition to the north. He does not understand why it would be necessary to tear down 116 Clinton Street. 17 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Cornish remarked that in addition to any innate historic or aesthetic value 116 Clinton Street may possess, from a planning perspective, it also serves as a critical buffer vis-à-vis the commercial zone, so it would seem to be important to preserve. Demarest disclosed that he is working on two properties within the proposed Historic District. Cornish indicated that does not constitute a conflict of interest, since the proposed designation would not materially benefit Demarest. Acharya noted it appears highly problematic to him to overlay new zoning on an existing Historic District. Parking requirements, for example, should be waived for properties in a Historic District. Acharya also expressed concern with what would happen with non-owner occupied properties in the area. They do not undergo the same kind of rigorous scrutiny that owner-occupied properties are subject to. Alphonse Pieper, Historic Ithaca Executive Director, informed the Board that the Landmarks Ordinance had in fact recently been updated to include an affirmative maintenance section. (“No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as an individual landmark or included within an historic district shall permit the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair.”) Amendment to Henry St. John Historic District Designation Support Resolution On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, it was agreed to amend the proposed resolution to include a statement of support for the McGraw House. In favor: Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: Acharya Absent: None Adopted Henry St. John Historic District Designation Support Resolution On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: on December 11, 2012, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) voted to recommend designation of the Henry St. John survey area as a local historic district, and WHEREAS: Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, stipulates that the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and 18 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEREAS: the Planning Board supports McGraw House and the benefits it provides to the community, and believes the boundaries of this historic district as recommended by the ILPC provide ample opportunities for future McGraw House expansion, either to the north (where there is a surface-level parking area and a lot with a one-story concrete block building that is “non- contributing” to the historic district), or to the south by demonstrating to the ILPC that demolition of 116 W. Clinton St. is necessary for McGraw House to carry out its chartered purpose, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board suggests there be future discussion by the Planning Board and Common Council on whether minimum parking requirements should be removed in historic districts, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board shall file the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated in the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning Board supports the local designation of the Henry St. John Historic District. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Proposed Local Designation: Henry St. John Historic District Report At the regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by unanimous vote recommended designation of the Henry St. John survey area as a local historic district. A map showing the boundary of the district and a summary of its historic and architectural significance are attached to this report. As set forth in Section 228- 3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, “The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.” The following report has been prepared to address these considerations. 1. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan There is nothing in the Ithaca, N.Y.: A General Plan, 1971, as amended, that conflicts with the proposed designation of the Henry St. John survey area as a local historic district. There are no recommendations to change or intensify current appearance or use of the area. 2. Relation to Zoning Laws The zoning classification in the area proposed for local historic district designation includes R-3aa, R-3b, R-2b, B-1a and P-1 areas. Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Commission review is limited to the visual compatibility of proposed exterior alterations, additions or demolition. 19 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3. Relation to Projected Public Improvements There are no plans for public improvements in the area involved. Local landmark designation requires that any future public improvements in the area undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work commences. 4. Relation to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area There are no plans in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area. Local landmark designation requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work commences. B. Board Comments on Proposed Downtown Rezoning Board members discussed the Proposed CBD-T Zoning Ordinance Amendment. A letter was subsequently sent to the Planning and Economic Development Committee, containing the following remarks from the Board: • It makes sense to encourage appropriately scaled and designed new development on non- contributing properties within the DeWitt Park Historic District, but nothing should be done to increase economic incentives for developers to seek the demolition of buildings that are contributing historic resources within this district. • Furthermore, lots within the DeWitt Park Historic District that are entirely filled with historic resources, and therefore devoid of any redevelopment potential that would not damage those resources, should be removed entirely from the proposed rezoning. For example, remove the historic Boardman House, the Episcopal Church and the latter’s Parish House from the area to be rezoned. • There should be a survey of all buildings in the areas proposed for rezoning to identify those that may have historic significance and that would be worthy of protection from demolition. Examples of these include, but are not limited to, Immaculate Conception Church, and the Community School of Music and Art. (Mary Tomlan has volunteered to do a “windshield survey” of properties in these areas — outside the DeWitt Park Historic District — and provide an annotated list of notable historic resources for review by the ILPC and other bodies as part of the rezoning discussion. This would not involve the level of research for a landmarks designation, since that is not its purpose, but it could at least inform ongoing discussions with the potential of refining proposed legislation.) • There are several noteworthy buildings within the proposed CBD-100 in the triangular block bound by E. State, Seneca Way, and N. Aurora, specifically the Carey Building on E. State, among others that may be contributing buildings. Perhaps the whole block should be highlighted. • There is great potential for the proposed CBD-100 on the Trebloc corner across the street, on the block bound by E. State, S. Aurora, and Six Mile Creek. The Trebloc building is non-contributing and the remainder of the block is undeveloped, surface parking. The proposed rezoning here would actually be fairly easy and desirable. 20 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • West State Street from Meadow Street east to Geneva Street is an ideal corridor on which to focus increased development density, due to (a) its existing role as connector between the West End and the Commons, and its potential to be an enhanced future transit corridor; (b) the generally non-descript or poor quality of its current urban and architectural fabric, which, for example, includes numerous street-side parking lots; (c) its separation from established residential neighborhoods to the north and south; and (d) the special character that has already been given to the street infrastructure (e.g., red brick pavement and decorative streetlights). • However, the proposed CBD-T zone does a poor job of promoting such increased density from Meadow to Albany Streets because (a) it actually decreases maximum building height (from 50 feet to 40 feet) along the street edges of West State Street and most of the 100 blocks of N. and S. Corn, Plain and Albany Streets, thereby decreasing development potential where it makes sense to increase it; (b) then, after decreasing maximum building height along the above street edges, CBD-T increases maximum building height in the middle of the adjacent blocks, effectively pushing potential negative visual impacts closer to established neighborhoods to the north and south; (c) the above system results, on each affected block, in a pyramidal development envelope, rising from 40-foot to 55- foot to 80-foot and then dipping from 80-foot to 55-foot to 40-foot maximum building heights in both north-south and east-west cross-sections, all of which is likely to result, block to block, in a confusing and incoherent urban form; and (d) the triangular diagram (on the third page of the proposed CBD-T zoning ordinance), which purports to demonstrate that 80-foot-tall buildings in the middle of blocks would not be visible from W. Green and W. State Streets, does not accurately depict potential visual impacts, since no rezoning of the B-2d zone adjacent to the north side of W. Green Street is proposed in the first place, and since people view buildings most frequently from the sides, as they walk/bike/drive up and down streets, rather than from directly in front. • Each of the above problems could be avoided, and the goal of substantially increasing development potential along W. State Street achieved, by discarding CBD-T and simply up-zoning the entire current B-2c zone along W. State St. to CBD-60, thereby increasing maximum building height and lot coverage in a consistent manner throughout the entire zone. This would be much easier to understand than the complex CBD-T, provide just as much new development potential, and result in a much more consistent and pleasing future urban form along all affected streets. • The view from the newly-designated Henry St. John’s Historic District to the area proposed to be rezoned needs to be analyzed. • A 3-D model of the downtown area should be created to analyze impacts of the proposed rezoning. • In the current zoning ordinance, when a parcel is in two zoning districts, the regulations for the less restrictive portion of the zone can extend 30 feet into the more-restrictive zone. This should not apply for the proposed CBD-T Zone, if it is retained, as it will have major implications for the abutting residential areas. 21 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD • It would be helpful to have a chart showing the areas of proposed change and the rationale for the changes. • The Planning Board requests that two of its members be added to the committee looking at the downtown rezoning, and asks that — after the issues presented in this memo have been addressed — a revised downtown rezoning proposal be resubmitted to the Planning Board for its comments. C. Regulating Steep Slopes Development Board members discussed the issue of how to handle proposed projects that include steep slopes. A variety of approaches was discussed. Demarest remarked that a definition of steep slope should be identified (e.g., greater than 33%). Planning staff agreed to identify the most appropriate section of the City Code for including some proposed language on steep slopes, with a goal of providing a recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development Committee in January 2013. Schroeder remarked that another issue that should be looked into is appropriate tree girth for proposed projects. It has been suggested that a larger tree girth should be required. Planning staff agreed to explore the issue further and return to the Board with its findings. D. Planning Department Work Plan Board members briefly reviewed the Planning Department 2013 Work Plan. Schroeder suggested increasing the priority rating for the proposed widening of the sidewalks in Collegetown. Cornish indicated she would reconfigure the list according to priority rating. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair None. B. Director of Planning & Development None. 22 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison Acharya remarked the BPW had discussed the issue of installing pavements on the 400 block of Spencer Road, as well as improving the safety of the intersection. BPW members indicated that it might be possible to address that issue in 2014. Acharya noted BPW made some progress moving towards approval of the Elmira Road sidewalk project. Acharya announced that the new City Waste Water Plant has now reached the 90% design stage. Former Superintendent of Public Works Bill Gray will be staying on to oversee the project. A search committee has also been established to fill the Superintendent vacancy. 7. Approval of Minutes: 11/13/12 (Special Meeting) On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Acharya, the draft 11/13/12 meeting minutes were approved, with several modifications. In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder Opposed: None 9. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Marcham, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.