Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-10-28DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.: Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type; proposed new language shown in red type. (Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.) Planning and Development Board Minutes October 28, 2014 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Isabel Fernández; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: One Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Purity Ice Cream at 700 Cascadilla Street John Snyder, John Snyder Architects; Bruce Lane, Owner Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel), previously known as Downtown Hampton Inn Hotel at 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Cathy DeAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Mary Faria, Group One Partners, Inc.; Neil Patel, Ithaca Downtown Associates, LLC / Baywood Hotels Chainworks District Redevelopment Project at 620 S. Aurora Street Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.; David Lubin, Unchained Properties Wegmans: New Retail Space at 500 S. Meadow Street Nathan Buczek, T.Y. Lin International; Kim Seavert, Wegmans Food Markets; Dan Aken, Wegmans Food Markets Apartments at 114 Catherine Street Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect; Nick Lambrou, Owner Upson Hall Renovations (Sketch Plan) Michael Husar, Cornell University; Rob Goodwin, Perkins+Will; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Apartments at 402 S. Cayuga Street (Sketch Plan) Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Mixed-Use Building at 302-306 College Avenue (Sketch Plan) Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect; George Avramis, Owner Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas suggested that a discussion of the Board’s November and December meeting schedule be added to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of all development in the downtown area. Michael Cannon, 409 W. Buffalo Street, spoke in support of the proposed Hilton Canopy Hotel project. Julie Schroeder, 314 E. State Street, Homespun Boutique, spoke in opposition to the Hilton Canopy Hotel project as proposed, stating it does not take into consideration the existing functionality of the 300 block of East State Street, which she called one of the most heavily- used areas in Ithaca. The existing parking lot there is the only non-garage, public off-street- parking area in that immediate downtown area, she said, adding it is critically needed by people with mobility or time constraints. She urged the Planning Board to request that the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 project be scaled back. 3. Site Plan Review A. Purity Ice Cream Renovations, 700 Cascadilla Street, John Snyder for Bruce Lane. Consideration of Project Changes. Owner Bruce Lane and architect John Snyder presented additional materials and described the recent changes to the project. Lane apologized for the previous lack of information provided to the Board about the project changes. He expressed his belief that as the size of the project has decreased, it has also improved: he said it is now greener, better-looking, and of higher quality than the original proposal. Snyder noted the renderings show the brick patterning, wall screens and several different materials currently proposed for the project. He said the applicants have also returned the door to the Cascadilla Street / Meadow Street corner of the Purity Ice Cream store, as requested, resulting in a visually distinct entrance there. He then submitted a revised trip generation report from SRF Associates. Snyder noted there has been some question as to why the applicants did not know how high the cost of the original five-story project would have been, when it was originally approved in 2013. He assured the Board that the applicants genuinely did not know the true cost, adding that a detailed design of the entire structural system was not even completed until spring / early summer 2014. Snyder said the applicants are currently working on Phase 3 of the project, which the applicants will submit to the Board at the appropriate time. Returning to the current proposal, Snyder said that it became apparent that two of the parking spaces in the original site plan were not going to work very well, so the applicants have elected to reposition the dumpster and these parking spaces. The dumpster, he said, will be masonry-enclosed and better-looking than the prior design. Jones-Rounds mentioned her recent concerns: It had seemed like the applicants were only interested in building the Cascadilla Street parking lot, and there was a sign encouraging customers to park in that lot. These were examples, she said, of the types of things that had led her to believe the project was no longer pedestrian-friendly. Randall expressed dismay that the Casdadilla Street / Meadow Street corner entrance had been closed, thereby essentially turning the building’s back on the neighborhood. Lane replied that this entrance will now be retained, and the door further down the building will also now be made into an exit door, so hopefully this concern has now been addressed. Fernández asked where the doors are depicted on the plan. Snyder replied they actually appear only on the renderings in this current proposal. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Schroeder recalled there had been an outdoor dining area on the Cascadilla Street side in the original project; however, he does not see this reflected in any of the current drawings. Lane replied, yes, there will be an outdoor dining area there with some tables. Schroeder said that would be good, since it would better tie the building to the urban fabric. He asked the applicants to show this in the drawings. Snyder replied, yes, adding that a pavement scoring pattern will be used to distinguish this seating area from everything else more clearly. Fernández asked the applicants to provide an elevation showing a detail of the proposed fence along Fulton Street. Lane replied they would do that. The fence, he said, will resemble a standard New York State Department of Transportation safety fence (i.e., a wooden guard rail). Schroeder urged the applicants to incorporate as much canopy tree shading as possible near the large interior parking area. Cornish asked for drawings depicting the dumpster enclosure. Randall asked if the updated SRF Associates figures should be considered final / complete. Snyder replied, yes. She also asked if it would be possible for the Board to review all phases of the project together. Snyder replied, yes. Fernández asked if it would be possible to construct a fence during the construction phase to mitigate the negative visual impact. Lane replied that he would see what his contractor can do. Blalock noted the Board would vote on the modified site plan at its next meeting. B. 120-Room Downtown Hotel 123-Room Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel), 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street, Scott Whitham for Neil Patel. Declaration of Lead Agency and Consideration of Resolution to Common Council Supporting Its Sale to IURA of City of Ithaca Land Parcel Necessary for Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel) Project. The applicant is proposing to build a six-story, 70’-tall seven-story, 80’-tall hotel with 123 guest rooms. The ground floor will include a breakfast room, a bar/lounge, a meeting room café and bar, a retreat area, public restrooms, a garden patio, and an approximately 2,000-SF retail / restaurant space. The second floor includes meeting rooms, a fitness area, and an outdoor terrace. Exterior finishes include stone and brick veneers, metal panel systems, and aluminum windows. The site layout features a drop-off area with a glass and aluminum porte-cochère, a 12-space parking area, bike racks and walkway accessible from State Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca Way. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District. The project site consists of three tax parcels: two one currently owned by the City of Ithaca and one currently owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), both and used as metered parking; and a portion of another tax parcel in private ownership, also used as parking. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 Parcel consolidation and possible subdivision will be required. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review. The project has received Design Review and requires approvals by the IURA and Common Council for the sale of City property. Consultant Scott Whitham presented the revised project, highlighting the new name and branding identity for the hotel: Canopy by Hilton. The project has also been revised to be a seven-story, 80’-tall hotel with 123 guest rooms (rather than a six-story, 70’-tall hotel with 120 guest rooms). Whitham said the applicants have been considering restoring some parking near the entrance. He said they have also explored options with the Carey Building developers for making both projects appear and feel more like a single integrated site, and are discussing possibilities for collaboration with the Community School of Music and Arts. He further stated the applicants have met with both the City Engineering Division and the Building Division about incorporating a pull-off area for servicing the building, which seems feasible. They are also exploring moving the trash servicing area, he said, and establishing a joint trash facility, shared with the Carey Building and the private parking lot’s owner. Blalock asked if the applicants have contacted Contemporary Trends about possible areas of collaboration. Whitham replied, yes, that discussion is ongoing. Schroeder suggested adding more articulation to the blank wall facing Aurora Street above the much-lower Contemporary Trends building (especially since this is such a visible corner) using recessed panels, colors or some other approach. Whitham replied the applicants have reached out to local artists about installing some murals on the building. Cornish expressed concern that the focus of the building would be too much on murals and not enough on architectural articulation. Blalock noted he would also definitely like to see the blank wall facing Contemporary Trends addressed in some way. Jones-Rounds observed the rendering of the E. State Street entrance makes the top floors appear unexciting. She suggested adding balconies. Schroeder agreed ― anything adding more three-dimensionality to the building here would help. He further suggested increasing the projection of, and recessing the windows in, the yellow brick portions. Whitham agreed that would improve it. Schroeder noted his other major concern is the blank wall on the south side of the projecting portion of the east elevation, which has no articulation. He also asked if the applicants could use the red brick in some more visible places, rather than only on a portion of the west façade, the lower portion of which would be seen by virtually no one, since it faces an internal alley hidden behind S. Aurora Street buildings. Randall noted the other big issue for her would be the parking situation. She said the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 Board will need a comprehensive trip generation study (for guests, staff, guests of guests, deliveries, etc.) to justify removing the parking lot. The City needs to be sensitive to the people who feel their parking would be taken away from them, she said. Whitham replied the applicants will definitely provide a study, as well as meet with the City Transportation Engineer. He noted the project would, however, still most likely displace some parking in the downtown area. Blalock expressed concern with the heightened complexity of travel patterns that he said will inevitably result from this project and other planned downtown projects, like the Ithaca Marriott. He urged the applicants to examine the traffic flow closely and identify ways to optimize it. He said there is some serious potential for bottlenecking near the site, and that this may ultimately be a good opportunity for the City to consider making Aurora Street a two-way street. He added that the City may also want to re-evaluate on- street parking in the vicinity. Fernández asked to what extent the hotel entry would be clearly visible to the public. Whitham replied the applicants have discussed building a wing wall there. Fernández suggested extending the brick pavement across State Street to signal that it is something important. Schroeder said the parking area should be screened from E. State Street by a low wall, and encouraged the applicant to consider incorporating therein decorative terra cotta blocks that were salvaged during demolition of the historic Strand Theater. Whitham replied the applicants have actually been trying to locate them. Schroeder added he would like to see a recreation of David Finn’s mural that adorned the back of the Strand Theater stage house; such a mural could also provide a solution to one of the aforementioned blank walls. Blalock asked if the hotel would own the parking lot facing the Carey Building (which carries an easement that has prevented the Carey project from being able to fully articulate its adjacent east wall). Whitham replied, yes, and he has been discussing it with the Carey Building developers. Cornish noted that the Building Division, Fire Department, and Engineering Division have all expressed concerns with construction staging, shared spaces, equipment, etc., for the multiple downtown projects. Whitham replied the applicants have been discussing these types of issues. Jones-Rounds suggested the Planning Board submit a letter regarding the Carey Building wall to the Board of Public Works / Department of Public Works and /or Common Council. Blalock agreed that would be a good idea. Randall asked if the applicant will pursue LEED certification. Patel replied, no, although Canopy by Hilton does have some green-oriented initiatives. Cornish asked the applicant to enumerate those for the Board. Whitham agreed to do so. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for a hotel to be located at 320-324 M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street by Scott Whitham for Neil Patel, developer, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to build a seven-story, 80’-tall hotel with 123 guest rooms. The ground floor will include a breakfast room, a bar/lounge, a meeting room café and bar, a retreat area, public restrooms, a garden patio, and an approximately 2,000-SF retail/restaurant space. Exterior finishes include stone and brick veneers, metal panel systems, and aluminum windows. The site layout features a drop-off area with a glass and aluminum porte-cochère, a 12-space parking area, bike racks and walkway accessible from State Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca Way. The project site consists of three tax parcels: two one currently owned by the City of Ithaca and one currently owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), both and used as metered parking; and a portion of another tax parcel in private ownership, also used as parking. Parcel consolidation and possible Subdivision are required. The project has received Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Transportation, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and the City of Ithaca Common Council, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and the City of Ithaca Common Council have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, to be located at 320-324 M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street in the City of Ithaca. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution to Common Council Supporting Its Sale to IURA of City of Ithaca Land Parcel Necessary for Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel) Project On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL RECOMMENDING TRANSFER OF CITY-OWNED PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 320-324 E. M.L.K., JR. / E. STATE STREET TO ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY (IURA) FOR SALE TO LIGHTHOUSE HOTELS, LLC 1. WHEREAS: Lighthouse Hotels, LLC (Lighthouse) submitted an application on June 3, 2014 to be designated a “qualified and eligible sponsor” (Sponsor) to acquire two parcels located at 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street, currently utilized as a 32- space public parking lot (Municipal Parking Lot), and 2. WHEREAS: the 2012 application failed to gain Common Council support due in part to the proposed demolition of the Carey Building and concerns about urban design of the building and dislocation of businesses, and 3. WHEREAS: Lighthouse has revised its project and it is being rebranded as a “Canopy by Hilton” hotel, a new brand designed for hotels locating in urban neighborhoods, and 4. WHEREAS: Hilton owns both the Hampton Inn and Canopy brand franchises. The revised project includes more guest seating and dining space on the ground floor, expanded meeting spaces and informal outdoor seating on the second floor. The project is now seven-stories tall and contains 123 guest rooms on a modified project site located adjacent to the Carey Building, and 5. WHEREAS: the entire revised project site is currently used for surface parking and does not include the Carey Building parcel, and 6. WHEREAS: the Carey Building is now being renovated to maintain the original structure with additional stories being added for office and residential use, and 7. WHEREAS: the revised project will not result in any business dislocation and will include a new ground level restaurant lease space fronting on Seneca Way, and 8. WHEREAS: the project site includes one parcel owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and one parcel owned by the City of Ithaca, both of which the developer has agreed in concept to purchase at fair market value, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 9. WHEREAS: the project site had been developed until the late 1980s when the historic Strand Theatre was demolished and the site became a surface parking lot ― a gap in the historic downtown Ithaca urban fabric that the new hotel would be filling, and 10. WHEREAS: the east side of Ithaca’s central business district suffered massive “urban renewal” and road-building demolitions beginning c. 1958, when both the Seneca Way and Green Street “tines” of the Tuning Fork were routed through what had been dense urban fabric, resulting in multiple building demolitions (including entire block faces) and a loss of downtown density that has still never been completely restored, and this new hotel project will represent one more crucial step in restoring the density that Ithaca’s downtown lost during the late 1950s through the 1960s, and 11. WHEREAS: the Planning Board supports development that is in line with Smart Growth Principles such as: strengthening and directing development towards existing communities; fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions; preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas by directing development onto underutilized / previously-developed sites; allowing for mixed land uses; and creating walkable neighborhoods, and 12. WHEREAS: hotel and nearby business parking demand will be met with the existing excess capacity in nearby municipal parking garages, and 13. WHEREAS: a hotel in this location will improve the economic, social and physical characteristics of the downtown core and strengthen the tax base, and 14. WHEREAS: the “Canopy by Hilton” brand specifically targets travelers who wish to explore traditional downtown areas. The new hotel, therefore, will provide thousands of new patrons, from all over the nation and the world, eager to patronize downtown retail stores and restaurants. The benefits generated by these new customers, who will be eager to explore what downtown Ithaca offers, will vastly outweigh any utility provided by surface-level parking spaces, and 15. WHEREAS: Lighthouse’s successful record of developing and operating four similar hotels in New York state, including the Ithaca Hampton Inn, demonstrates it possesses the skills, resources and capacity to complete the proposed project, and 16. WHEREAS: the IURA Economic Development Committee considered this matter at its June 10, 2014 meeting and determined Lighthouse Hotels LLC satisfied the IURA sponsor criteria — including qualifications, capacity and experience — to be designated a “qualified and eligible sponsor” to undertake an in-fill urban hotel project on the 300 block of E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street. This was unanimously approved by the IURA, and 17. WHEREAS: Canopy by Hilton states it “will develop through new-build and conversion projects in key urban neighborhoods and vibrant secondary markets DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 around the world with properties expected to begin opening in 2015. Canopy by Hilton has eleven signed letters of intent to open in the following neighborhoods: • CANOPY PORTLAND | Pearl District • CANOPY LONDON | Neighborhood to be Announced • CANOPY MIAMI | Brickell • CANOPY WASHINGTON, D.C. | Bethesda North • CANOPY SAN DIEGO | Gaslamp Quarter • CANOPY NASHVILLE | Downtown • CANOPY SAVANNAH | Historic District • CANOPY INDIANAPOLIS | City Centre • CANOPY CHARLOTTE | Uptown • CANOPY OKLAHOMA CITY | Bricktown • CANOPY ITHACA | The Commons,” and 18. WHEREAS: according to Bruce Stoff, director of the Ithaca / Tompkins Convention & Visitors Bureau, “Ithaca had a record 2014 summer and is anticipating a record fall. Year-end hotel numbers are going to look fabulous. Barring calamity, 2015 will be busier still. My takeaway is that we’ll start attracting more interest from hotel developers in 2015 and 2016. They will come. The only question is where they will land. If not in downtown Ithaca then in Lansing or as far away as Cortland and the City will not see any of the benefits,” now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby strongly recommend that Common Council approve the transfer of the City-owned portion of the parking lot (tax parcel #69.-1-6.2) located at 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for sale to Lighthouse Hotels, LLC to make it available for the aforementioned hotel redevelopment. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One C. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street, Scott Whitham / Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Declaration of Lead Agency & Potential Determination of Environmental Significance Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing existing buildings; (3) potential future development DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca. Consultant Scott Whitham walked through an overhead presentation. Consultant Noah Demarest described the kinds of zoning uses the applicants have been exploring, including mixed-use development, form-based code, smart codes and the Collegetown Area Form Districts. The applicants have also taken the site’s steep slopes into consideration in identifying the areas more likely to be developed and the areas more likely to be preserved as natural areas. Consultant James Gensel explained the conceptual master plan, comprised of four phases, with Phase 1 being the redevelopment of some existing buildings. Schroeder strongly urged that the Gateway Trail right-of-way be separated from any parking access routes. Gensel replied that the applicants agree, but they have been limited by slope constraints. He said those details remain to be developed. Fernández asked about the project’s bus routes and stops, bike paths and sidewalk improvements. Gensel replied that the applicants have been discussing all those details with the City Transportation Engineer. He stressed that the parking count would be a reduction from what existed on the site before, and that interior parking is being explored for some of the buildings. Schroeder observed that the project conceptually preliminary surface-level parking lot designs submitted so far look very much like typical suburban parking lots for his liking. Randall suggested the applicants use the Mixed-Use Development Trip Generation model. Gensel replied that the applicants looked at that already, but the trip generation seemed higher than it should have been. Nicholas noted that, since a full Generic Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the project, there will be plenty of time to review these kinds of details. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Fernández: 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires a Subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: this project will require approval from Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and WHEREAS: Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 The Board reviewed the Part 2 and suggested some minor modifications. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 The Board reviewed the Part 3 and suggested some modifications. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, manufacturing and a natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. The project also requires a subdivision approval and approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone and site plan approval, and WHEREAS: The proposed project exceeds the thresholds defined for Type I projects in both the State and City Environmental Quality Review Law. Type I actions carry with them the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, this project exceeds the Type I thresholds as defined in Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §174- 6 (B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), and WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 WHEREAS: Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all been identified as involved agencies and it has been requested that these involved agencies consent to the City of Ithaca’s Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project and all have consented, and WHEREAS: The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and WHEREAS: Anticipated potential large impacts and mitigation measures which may need to be addressed in the dGEIS (but are not limited to) are: impacts on land, water, air, aesthetic resources, historic and archeological resources, transportation, noise and odors, growth and character of community or neighborhood, and public health, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, having declared itself Lead Agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 1, 2, and 3, and be it further RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, hereby determines that the proposed action of site plan approval for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project may have one or more significant environmental impacts, and that a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance be issued, and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) be prepared, and be it further RESOLVED: that this resolution constitutes notice of this Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Nicholas walked through the project review schedule, noting it will include both a Public Scoping meeting and a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Cornish added that the City will hire an outside consultant to assist the Planning Board and staff with the whole process. Gensel noted that part of the applicants’ public outreach effort includes a series of public and neighborhood meetings. Nicholas asked the applicants to make sure DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 they clearly communicate to the people at those meetings the formal process and the timeline for formally submitting their comments to the Planning Board. Lubin replied the applicants would definitely be doing that. D. 15,700-SF Retail Building, 500 S. Meadow Street, Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a 15,700-SF retail building. The project site is a 17.7-acre parcel that contains an existing 115,000-SF retail building (Wegmans), associated parking, and an access road from Meadow Street. The new building will be located on an existing 201- space parking area. Project development will include parking for 88 84 cars, internal sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Applicant Kim Seavert said Wegmans is seeking reapproval of a Master Site Plan approved in 1999. The revised Master Site Plan would feature the same essential layout as before, but with some reconfiguration. Regarding the proposed new retail building, she noted the applicants have added an enclosure around the proposed dumpster and a landscape island within the west parking area (which has reduced the number of parking spaces by two), in response to the Board’s Project Review Committee comments. Subsequently, they have replaced the stairs leading from S. Meadow Street with a ramp (which has reduced the number of parking spaces by an additional two). Seavert distributed revised drawings. Applicant Dan Aken noted the ramp is the only item that was added to the drawings. Architect Nathan Buczek noted that the project therefore now includes a total of 84 parking spaces. Seavert noted the applicants are aware the City Transportation Engineer would like to see a sidewalk on just one side of the parking lot (and no sidewalk on South Meadow Street) along the north side of the entry road rather than an internal east-west sidewalk. Fernández urged the applicants to move this sidewalk as recommended and place all parking at the back of the property, while extending the building along the entire Meadow Street frontage. She explained this would bring the building closer to the corner and considerably improve the character of South Meadow Street. Elliott agreed that would be a good idea: both street edges would then be defined. Seavert replied the applicants would be happy to do that. Schroeder asked if the entire site plan could simply be moved five feet. Seavert replied that doing that would preclude being able to plant the proposed trees along northern property line. Aken responded that the applicants are trying to separate the cars from the trucks. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Fernández asked the applicants about the anticipated use of the building. Aken replied it would be some kind of specialty retail use (e.g., Williams-Sonoma, wines and spirits, restaurant, etc.). Elliott said the applicants could reconfigure the site plan as previously described and still retain the separation of truck traffic from parking. Aken replied that the applicants understand the Planning Board’s objective and they will certainly work to accomplish something very similar. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by IF Isabel Fernández, seconded by MJ McKenzie Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a 15,700-SF retail building to be located at 500 S. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca, by Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 15,700-SF retail building. The project site is a 17.7-acre parcel that contains an existing 115,000-SF retail building (Wegmans), associated parking, and an access road from Meadow Street. The new building will be located on an existing 201-space parking area. Project development will include parking for 88 84 cars, internal sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: 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 project, to be located at 500 S. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Fernández, and approved unanimously, Chair DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Blalock emphasized to the members of the public that the project is being designated as a retail space and that whatever the applicants ultimately determine will be sold in the space does not lie within the Planning Board’s purview to control. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of the project. He added that the city needs a greater variety of restaurants and entertainment venues, like country buffets, strip bars and gambling spaces. Dewi Rainey, Red Feet Wine Market, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that the Board has no way to ensure the proposed use would comply with New York State law. She is concerned the applicants will open a wine store on the site, which she said would violate a State law requiring a wine store to be owned by a single individual living within a few miles of the store and holding no other licenses in the state. Cornish read the contents of an October 23, 2014 letter from the City Attorney emphasizing that: “liquor licenses are controlled by the Liquor Authority, not the municipality.” Dana Malley, Northside Wine & Spirits, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed strong concern that it would destroy his own store, if it would be a wine store. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Schroeder suggested the Planning Board delay its decision on the CEQR resolution until it receives the entire new drawing set from the applicants. Cornish agreed. There were no objections. E. 3-Story Apartment Building , 114 Catherine Street, Jagat Sharma for Nick Lambrou. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story apartment building, with a footprint of 1,974 SF and containing one 5-bedroom and two 6-bedroom units. The project site contains an existing apartment building and a 13-space parking lot with 7 in the back yard (to remain) and 6 spaces in the front yard (to be replaced by the new building). The project also includes the removal of one curb-cut. The project is in the CR-4 Zoning District, which requires either: (1) off-street parking in accordance with §325-45.5 F; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new construction and a TDM Plan approved by the Planning Board. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review. Architect Jagat Sharma submitted revised drawings and explained that the applicants have incorporated several items in response to Board member comments. Specifically, he DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 said, the applicants have moved the stairs to the center of the front facade, removed the fence and the steps in the rear, increased the green space next to the building, added patterning on the corner concrete foundation, and submitted a draft Traffic Transportation Demand Management Plan. Schroeder asked if the concrete foundation could be tinted the same cream color as the Hardie board panels above. Sharma replied, yes. He also asked if the applicants could include score lines on this concrete foundation aligning with the brick piers above, including on the front facade. Sharma replied, yes. Schroeder suggested bringing the piers all the way down to the base on the front of the building. Schroeder noted the Planning Board will also require a complete planting plan. Sharma agreed to provide one. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Fernández, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for an apartment building to be located at 114 Catherine Street in the City of Ithaca, from Jagat Sharma, applicant for Nick Lambrou, owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 3-story apartment building, with a footprint of 1,974 SF and containing one 5-bedroom and two 6-bedroom units. The project site contains an existing apartment building and a 13-space parking lot with 7 spaces in the back yard (to remain) and 6 spaces in the front yard (to be replaced by the new building). The project also includes the removal of one curb-cut. The project is in the CR-4 Zoning District, which requires either: (1) off-street parking in accordance with §325-45.5 F; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new construction and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved by the Planning Board. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: 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 project, to be located at 114 Catherine Street in the City of Ithaca. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One F. Upson Hall Renovations – Sketch Plan Applicant Michael Husar described the proposed project through an overhead presentation. Architect Rob Goodwin explained that Upson Hall — located on the southeast corner of Cornell University’s Engineering Quad — needs to be renovated, re-clad and given an overall upgrade. He said the entire building will be significantly improved in terms of its architecture, overall energy performance, functionality and accessibility. For example, he said, there will be a newly articulated northwest corner entry, an increased connection with the Quad at that point, and an opening up of the lower portion of the western wing with new glazing. He added that the newly-clad building will relate to the old cladding by use of yellow as an accent color, reminiscent of the yellow panels on the existing structure; he said pieces of the latter original panels might actually be reused. G. 302-306 College Avenue – Sketch Plan Architect Jagat Sharma and owner George Avramis described the proposed project, which will consist of two new buildings. One, in the MU-2 zone, will be a mixed-use six- story building along College Avenue at its intersection with Catherine Street. The second, in the CR-4 zone, will be a four-story residential building along upper Catherine Street. A detailed perspective of the former was provided, but only a sketch perspective of the latter. Preliminary floor plans of both structures were also distributed. [a rendering has been removed] H. 402 S. Cayuga Street – Sketch Plan Applicant Scott Reynolds of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services described his agency’s proposed urban infill project, which will be located on an empty lot owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency at the southwest comer of S. Cayuga Street and S. Titus Avenue. It will be three stories tall and consist of four attached single-family units, with one parking space being located under each unit. Board members suggested various architectural improvements, ranging from a more uniform stepping down of the units on the sloping site to a more fully articulated façade facing S. Titus Avenue. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 [a rendering has been removed] 4. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2958 ― 203 Third Street: Area Variance Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, owners of 203 Third Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Minimum Lot Size in Square Feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home on a vacant lot located at 203 Third Street. The property will be compliant with all district regulations, except lot size. The parcel’s lot size is 2,813 SF, 187 SF less than the minimum required lot size of 3,000 SF. 203 Third Street is located in an R-2b Use District, where the proposed single-family home is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires an Area Variance be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports infill housing in this location and supports granting this appeal. Appeal #2959 ― 714 N. Aurora Street: Area Variance Appeal of STREAM Collaborative for Judith and William Thomas, owners of 714 North Aurora Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column11, 12, and 13, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a handicapped ramp in the south side yard of 714 North Aurora Street. The ramp and a portion of its landing will encroach 3’10” into the required 10-foot side yard setback, decreasing the side yard to 6’2” for approximately 34 feet. The property also has two other area deficiencies, but these will not be exacerbated by the addition of the ramp and landing. The existing front yard has a setback of 9’8”, a 4” deficiency from the required 10-foot front yard setback. The existing setback of the other side yard is 2’6”, which is half the required 5-foot setback. The property at 714 North Aurora Street is located in an R-2b Use District where the proposed ramp and landing are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. Appeal #2964 ― 1108 N. Cayuga Street: Area Variance Appeal of Charles Izzo, owner of 1108 North Cayuga Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8 Columns, 10, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In August 2014, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several Area Variances for property located at1108 North Cayuga Street. At that hearing, the applicant Charlie Izzo proposed constructing a new “L”-shaped addition of DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 approximately 500 SF after removing an existing one-story addition and deck from the rear yard. In order to be granted a Building Permit to construct the addition, the applicant needed two variances because of existing deficiencies on the property. The existing street width and front yard do not meet the District Regulation requirements for the R-2b Zone where 1108 North Cayuga Street is located. Furthermore, the applicant’s addition will increase the existing deficiencies for both the side yard and the other side yard, and will cause the requirements for maximum percentage of lot coverage to be exceeded by 3%. The BZA granted the applicants’ request for these variances at its August 2014 hearing. However, the applicant must return to the BZA because he found an error in the design for the addition. The proposed entryway is too small to be useful. To correct the problem, the applicant proposes to increase the size of the addition by 21 SF, adding one foot to the width and to length of the “L”-shaped addition’s rear extension. As a result, the applicant is requesting that the BZA modify two of the variances that were granted at the August 2014 hearing. District Regulations for the R-2b Zone require the “Other Side Yard” be a minimum of 5 feet deep. At its August 2014 hearing, the BZA granted the applicant a variance allowing the “Other Side Yard” to be 3.5 feet for the length of the proposed addition, a length of about 26 feet. The applicant requests extending this deficient “Other Side Yard” one foot further west so a larger entry way can be constructed. By increasing the size of the addition by 21 SF, the applicant also increases the amount of lot coverage at 1108 North Cayuga Street. The maximum percentage of lot coverage in an R-2b Zoning District is 35%. The Board granted a variance allowing the percentage of lot coverage to be 37.7% at its August hearing. The applicant now seeks a variance to increase his maximum percentage of lot coverage to 38.3%. The property at 1108 North Cayuga Street is in an R-2b Use District where the proposed addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. Appeal #2964 #2966 ― 120 S. Aurora Street: Sign Variance Appeal of Hotel Ithaca, LLC, for Ithaca Properties, owners of 120 South Aurora Street from Section 272-6 B. (2), of the Sign Ordinance which allows only two walls signs per business on a building in the commercial zoning district and limits each sign to a maximum of 50 SF apiece. Hotel Ithaca proposes to construct a new multi-story Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street at the east end of the Commons and install six wall signs on the hotel. In the commercial zone, where 120 South Aurora Street is located, Sign Ordinance 272-6 B. (2) states a business can have only one pole sign or two wall signs. The proposed signs for the hotel will include: two Marriott signs; a combined Marriott and address sign; one sign for the Marriott’s restaurant; and two informational-type signs on the hotel’s west side. Furthermore, Sign Ordinance, Section 272-6 B. (2) states each sign cannot be larger than 50 SF. The applicant is proposing to erect three wall signs that are larger than 50 SF apiece. The proposed “Marriott” wall sign, on the exterior of the 10th floor facing Aurora Street, will be approximately 206.8 SF. On the same face of the building, on the exterior of the lobby level, another Marriott sign will be combined with the building’s street address. This sign DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 will be approximately 60.8 SF. The third oversized Marriott sign is proposed to be located close to the penthouse level, facing Green Street. This sign will be approximately 108.8 SF. Hotel Ithaca believes because of the building’s massing and location, the signs will be appropriate in size and number; and all six signs have been approved in concept by the Planning and Development Board, pending the applicant’s receiving Sign Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street is in the CBD-140 Zone where signs are a permitted use. However, Section 272-18 requires the applicant receive variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the non-compliant number and size of signs before a Sign Permit can be issued. The Board supports granting this appeal. 5. Old / New Business All old / new business agenda items were deferred due to the lateness of the hour. 6. Reports There were no reports, due to the lateness of the hour. 7. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft September 23, 2014 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Fernández, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One 8. Adjournment On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.