Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-03-24DRAFT 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 March 24, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott 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: Minor Subdivision at 104 Campbell Avenue Susan Lustick, Linz Real Estate Town Houses at 402 S. Cayuga Street Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation & Park Project Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Engineer; Joseph J. Mieczkowski, Engineering Consultant, Delta Engineering; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP 210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 215 Spencer Street (Sketch Plan) Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street (Sketch Plan) Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Greg Hartz, President & CEO, Tompkins Trust Company Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas suggested adding one more agenda item: sketch plan review of the proposed Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building. There were no objections. 2. Privilege of the Floor Bob Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, saying it was out of character with the neighborhood and would negatively impact neighbors’ quality of life. He is particularly concerned with the multi-family building’s height, as well as related parking and traffic. Susan Earle, 122 Auburn Street, spoke concerning the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating she is concerned with its traffic impact. Although calling the current proposal the best plan she has seen so far, she urged the Board to require narrowing Lake Avenue into a bike and pedestrian walkway. Susan Austern, 411 Willow Avenue, also spoke in opposition to the same project, citing her desire to retain the character and intimacy of the neighborhood. She said she finds the smaller proposed houses along the creek appropriate, but opposes the four-story building. She encouraged the Board to require as much green space as possible. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the aforementioned project, and in general support of more development in the city. Michael Culotta, 701 N. Tioga Street and Conservation Advisory Council member, spoke in support of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating he is pleased with the process used to solicit public input. He said he is very interested in seeing more density in the City, and was surprised the proposed project was not denser, in terms of the number of units and square footage. He said he would prefer to see it even denser than proposed. Vehicular use should also be minimized as much as possible, he said, while maximizing pedestrian character and accessibility. Robert Gaylor, 405 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the same project, saying he would like it to be less dense, with a one-way street running down the middle with an exit DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 onto First Street. He is also concerned with the lack of green space ― the Lake Avenue portion should consist only of green space, he said, and bike and pedestrian use should be at the forefront of the project’s design considerations. Harry Aceto, 411 Willow Avenue, was another speaker opposed to the 210 Hancock Street project, stating he would like to see as much bike and pedestrian access as possible. He is also concerned with the scale of the main building. Dave Christie, 409 Auburn Street, said he like the design of the aforementioned project; however, he would like a simpler bike and pedestrian path along Lake Avenue. Brian Earle, 122 Auburn Street, added his thoughts concerning the same project, stating he opposes locating the four-story building along the creek, as was mentioned at one point. Cody Austern-Aceto, 411 Willow Avenue, spoke in general support of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, although he advocates ensuring there is enough green space. Dawn Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the same project, saying she does not believe some people understand quite how large the main building would be. She also expressed her concern with potential traffic impacts. 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 104 Campbell Ave., Tax Parcel #19.-2-4, John & Anne Marie Cummings. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.513-acre (22,347 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.243 acres (10,581 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel 2, measuring 0.27 acres (11,766 SF) with 97 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 93.2 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave., and containing an existing single-family home. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 10,000 SF lot size, 75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but no less than 20 feet. 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 Susan Lustick, Linz Real Estate, representing the property owners, presented a brief overview of the proposed subdivision. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-2-4, by owners, John and Anne Marie Cummings, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.513-acre (22,347 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.243 acres (10,581 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel 2, measuring 0.27 acres (11,766 SF) with 97 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 93.2 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave., and containing an existing single-family home. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 10,000 SF lot size, 75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but no less than 20 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: 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 #19.-2-4, by owners, John and Anne Marie Cummings. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-2-4, by owners, John and Anne Marie Cummings, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.513-acre (22,347 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.243 acres (10,581 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel 2, measuring 0.27 acres (11,766 SF) with 97 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 93.2 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave., and containing an existing single-family home. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 10,000 SF lot size, 75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but no less than 20 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 Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on March 24, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on March 24, 2015 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled “Survey Map, No. 104 Campbell Avenue, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 1/4/12 and prepared by Sheive Land Surveying; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-1a Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Subdivision 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: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: 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 #19.-2-4, by owners, John and Anne Marie Cummings, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.513-acre (22,347 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.243 acres (10,581 SF) with 110 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave.; and Parcel 2, measuring 0.27 acres (11,766 SF) with 97 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 93.2 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave., and containing an existing single-family home. The property is in the R-1a Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 10,000 SF lot size, 75 feet of street frontage, 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback of 50 feet or 25%, but no less than 20 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 Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on March 24, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review, 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 March 24, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and all comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on March 24, 2015 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled “Survey Map, No. 104 Campbell Avenue, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 York,” dated 1/4/12 and prepared by Sheive Land Surveying; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on March 24, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-1a 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 #19.-2-4, by owners, John and Anne Marie Cummings subject to the submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One 4. Site Plan Review A. Four Townhomes, 402 S. Cayuga Street, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Potential Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct four (4) for-sale townhomes that will target moderate- income, first-time home buyers. The buildings will be two stories with parking below to take advantage of the sloped site. Architectural features include front porches, rear decks, shifting roof planes, and a varied color palette. Site development includes a common asphalt driveway in the rear, walkways connecting each unit to the existing sidewalk on Cayuga Street, and landscaping. The project site is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires an Area Variance for a front yard setback. This is an Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11), for which the Planning Board completed environmental review on January 27, 2015. Landscape architect Peter Trowbridge briefly described the status of the proposed project and changes made since recent Planning Board and Project Review Committee meetings. He noted the applicant has now provided the Board with all building material information and eliminated the has replaced exposed concrete on the foundation level of the garage side of the town houses with clapboard siding. Schroeder observed the color rendering appears to show two slightly different roof colorings. Trowbridge replied that the rendering is not correct ― the roof will only be one color. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Several Board members praised the applicant’s responsiveness to the Board’s initial concerns and the good fit of the final design with the surrounding neighborhood’s character. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for four townhomes to be located at 402 S. Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca, by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct four (4) for-sale townhomes that will target moderate-income, first-time home buyers. The buildings will be two stories with parking below to take advantage of the sloped site. Architectural features include front porches, rear decks, shifting roof planes, and a varied color palette. Site development includes a common asphalt driveway in the rear, walkways connecting each unit to the existing sidewalk on Cayuga Street, and landscaping. The project site is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires an Area Variance for a front yard setback, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on January 27, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 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 March 24, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on January 27, 2015 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Survey Map, No. 402 South Cayuga Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 10/15/12, and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; “Planting Plan (L401),” “Site Protection and Grading Plan (L301),” and “Site Plan (L003),” dated 1/21/15; and “Layout Plan (L201)” and “Utility Plan (C101),” dated 12/15/14, all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects; and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 “Elevations (Sheets 1 & 2),” dated 12/15/14, and all prepared by Claudia Brenner, Architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on January 27, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on March 24, 2015 review and accept as adequate updated elevations titled: “Elevation Notes Ver. 1.2 (sheets 1a and 2a),” dated 2/16/15 and prepared by Claudia Brenner, Architect; and WHEREAS: the project was originally scheduled to go the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on March 3, 2015, however, that meeting was canceled due to inclement weather, and the project is now on the BZA agenda for the April 7, 2015 meeting, and WHEREAS: as all site plan issues have been long resolved, the Board finds that delaying its approval until after the variance has been granted will only serve to cause an unnecessary delay, and is therefore inclined, under these special circumstances, to grant approval subject to the condition of the BZA granting the required variance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions: i. Granting of the required area variance by the BZA, and ii. Before the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, the public sidewalk contiguous to the site must be in compliance with the City of Ithaca standards for public sidewalks and in a condition satisfactory to the City Sidewalk Program Manager. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One B. Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation Site Plan Review & Recreational River Permit; and Lake Street Park, Lake Street at Fall Creek, City of Ithaca. Public Hearing, Potential Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, and Approval of Recreational River Permit. The proposed project involves rehabilitation of the Lake Street Bridge. The existing bridge, built in 1966, is a steel beam and concrete deck superstructure supported on reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge’s concrete deck slab deterioration has progressed to the point of necessary repair and the City of Ithaca has determined the need to replace the deck slab and repair the existing reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge is also currently on the Federal Scour Critical Bridges list due to the uncertainty of whether the substructures are either pile-supported or founded on bedrock. To remove the bridge from the Federal list, this project proposes to install steel-sheet piling and heavy-stone fill scour protection at the substructures as scour DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 mitigation measures. The proposed rehabilitation also involves concrete deck slab replacement and substructure repairs. The project requires site plan approval, a Recreational River Permit, as well as permits from NYSDEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project has received approval from the Board of Public Works and Common Council. Engineer Joseph Mieczkowski presented an overview of the revised project. He noted the Board made a number of requests regarding the bridge railing at its last meeting: • There was a request that any approach railings be separated by at least a short distance from the actual bridge railings, so that the bridge itself is perceived as a coherent independent urban design. He said the applicants have conveyed that suggestion to the State and should know its response shortly. • Regarding the Board’s request to paint the bridge railing, the applicants created two renderings a rendering illustrating the box beam portions and main supports of the railing painted dark green and the top rail and its individual smaller supports remaining a natural stainless-steel color. Schroeder asked if the top stainless steel handrail diameter could be increased ― he feels it should be at least 2.5 inches in diameter to be in proportion with the rest of the railing. Mieczkowski replied he believes that should be feasible. Mieczkowski noted the applicants explored re-using the existing rail, as one Board member suggested, but determined that would be extremely expensive. Mieczkowski remarked the Board also raised a concern about making the storm water drainage pipe extending out of the southeast stone retaining wall more aesthetic. One possibility would be to cut it back to 10-12 inches (the easiest option). The applicants also tentatively explored surrounding the pipe with some kind of cement board or stone. A third option would be to excavate some of the soil, remove part of the wall, and install a new pipe; however, the applicants concluded that would be too expensive. Responding to a written e-mail proposal from absent Board member Jack Elliott, Mieczkowski stated that, for that proposal to work, the pipe would have to be cantilevered out from the wall to support it, which would be impractical. Jones-Rounds clarified that Elliott was not necessarily proposing a single design, but was using it more as a suggestion for improving the pipe’s aesthetics. Trowbridge remarked the applicants discussed the project several times with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), since it is potentially an archeological site. SHPO indicated any excavation should be minimized; so excavating behind the wall would likely trigger another SHPO review. Schroeder suggested the pipe just be cut back a little. Mieczkowski replied it could DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 probably be cut down to a one-foot projection. Schroeder asked if the applicants could ask NYSEG to relocate the overhead wires passing over the bridge by placing them in a conduit running beneath the bridge, to help improve the overall visual setting for Ithaca Falls. Mieczkowski replied that would have had to be done at the outset of the project. Cornish responded that Planning staff could approach NYSEG about the issue. Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Randall: WHEREAS: an application for Site Plan Approval has been submitted to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board by the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS: the proposed project involves rehabilitation of the Lake Street Bridge. The existing bridge, built in 1966, is a steel beam and concrete deck superstructure supported on reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge’s concrete deck slab deterioration has progressed to the point of necessary repair and the City of Ithaca has determined the need to replace the deck slab and repair the existing reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge is also currently on the Federal Scour Critical Bridges list due to the uncertainty of whether the substructures are either pile-supported or founded on bedrock. To remove the bridge from the Federal list, this project proposes to install steel-sheet piling and heavy- stone fill scour protection at the substructures as scour mitigation measures. The proposed rehabilitation also involves concrete deck slab replacement and substructure repairs. The project requires site plan approval, a Recreational River Permit, as well as permits from NYSDEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project has received approval from the Board of Public Works and Common Council, and WHEREAS: this project was previously determined to be “replacement-in-kind” which is considered a Type II Action not requiring environmental review. Upon further review, it has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (h) [2], [3], and (m), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the NYSDOT, NYSDEC, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and the City of Ithaca Common Council have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on February 24, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified, in accordance with Chapter 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 March 24, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) and other interested agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 24, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff, with Part 3 revised by the Planning and Development Board; plans entitled “Preliminary Plan and Elevation (P-1),” dated 12/14, “Under Bridge Access Plan” and “Erosion and Sediment Control Details,” dated 1/2015, “General Plan and Elevation,” “Bridge Railing Plan,” “Begin Right Wingwall Repair Details,” “Permanent Sheet Pile Layout Plan and Details,” “Light Pilaster and Fascia Details,” and “Bridge Railing Details,” dated 2/2015; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on February 24, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision project, and WHEREAS: the Board did on March 24, 2015 review and accept as adequate additional and revised drawings titled: “Proposed Bridge Railing Layout Plan,” “Proposed Bridge Section (looking upstation),” and “Proposed Bridge Elevation (looking down stream),” all dated March 2015; an undated three-dimensional rendering of the bridge; an undated a 3/10/15 sketch of the top railing that includes a sketch of the Lake Street Bridge Rail- Mounting Brackets; an undated photographs of the current bridge; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board requests that Planning staff encourage NYSEG to place the overhead wires, currently paralleling the bridge, in the conduit running under the bridge instead, to improve the overall visual setting of Ithaca Falls, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. If the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation grants its approval, submit revised March 2015 “Proposed Bridge Railing Layout Plan,” showing at least a small separation between the Lake Street Bridge railing and the northwest corner DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 bridge approach railing, or the complete removal of this approach railing, and ii. Submit revised March 2015 bridge section and elevation, clearly stating tha that the metal bridge railing uprights and box beams are to be painted a dark green color, such as that shown on the March 2015 rendering, and that the stainless steel top railing and its supports are to be a natural metal color, and iii. Submit revised March 2015 bridge section and elevation, showing an increase in the diameter of the top stainless steel rail to 2.5 inches in diameter, and iv. Projecting drainage pipe on southeast retaining wall to be cut back to a one foot projection. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Approval of Recreational River Permit On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: portions of Fall Creek within the City of Ithaca are designated by New York State as a Recreational River, pursuant to Title 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), and WHEREAS: Section 15-2714.3.hh of the ECL stipulates that “responsibility for the administration of the area designated herein shall be delegated to the City of Ithaca pursuant to the appropriate regulations,” and WHEREAS: on July 11, 1990, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca delegated to the City’s Planning and Development Board the authority to administer the designated area, and to issue permits for work therein, and WHEREAS: the ECL also stipulates that the designation of Fall Creek “shall not, solely by operation of this article, be construed so as to restrict utility or similar facilities … or support-related activities of … Cornell University conducted in furtherance of its educational purposes…,” and WHEREAS: an application for a Fall Creek Recreational River Permit has been submitted to the Planning and Development Board by the City of Ithaca, which permit is required due to a proposed incursion into a portion of the designated Recreational River area, as part of the Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation project, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (h) [2], [3], and (m), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 24, 2015 make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has reviewed the application for completeness and did on February 24, 2015, with assistance of City staff, find the application to be complete in accordance with the requirements of 621.4(d), and WHEREAS: a Notice of Complete Application was published in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Environmental Notice Bulletin on March 11, 2015, and WHEREAS: a public comment period, commencing on March 4 and ending on March 24, 2015, was provided for public input, and WHEREAS: a Public Hearing was held on March 24, 2015, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has determined that: 1. The proposed activity is consistent with the purpose and policies of the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Act, particularly as it applies to Fall Creek, as well as the regulations applicable thereto; 2. The Fall Creek Recreational River resource will be protected and the proposed work within the Recreational River corridor will not have an undue adverse environmental impact; and 3. No reasonable alternative exists for modifying or locating the proposed work outside the designated area •••.••• •••,••• now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca acting in accordance with Section 15-2714.3.hh of the Environmental Conservation Law, does hereby grant a Fall Creek Recreational River Permit for the Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project located on Lake Street at Fall Creek, as said project affects the Fall Creek Recreational River corridor and as it was approved through the Board’s Site Plan Review process. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One C. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock St. (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). No Action ― Discussion Only. The applicant proposes to redevelop the entire 2.01-acre parcel currently containing the vacant former grocery store, a smaller commercial building, and a 110-space parking lot. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 The applicant proposes to construct thirteen twelve 2-story townhomes and a 4-story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-use building with approximately 50 apartments and three ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 70 parking spaces will be provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building. The applicant also proposes to convert portions of Adams Street and Lake Avenue (both of which are public streets); the former would become a playground area with associated walks, and the latter would become green space with a central non-vehicular bike and pedestrian path into “living streets”, by making them narrower, providing green areas, and installing bike and pedestrian amenities. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District and will likely require subdivision in the future. The project will require the following approvals: a Parking Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW) for improvements to property in the public way, approval for funding from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and approval from Common Council. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2),(k), and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review. Joe Bowes of INHS and landscape architect Peter Trowbridge described the current status of the proposed project and the changes that have been made since the last Board meeting (e.g., adding green space to the center of the site and converting the former Lake Avenue road into a non-vehicular bike and pedestrian path). Trowbridge presented a site plan overlay showing the changes that have been made. He added that the applicants have submitted a preliminary Subdivision plan that they would like considered during the environmental review of the Site Plan Review application. Trowbridge enumerated the following current features of the project: • The applicants consulted with the Department of Public Works (DPW) about options for Lake Avenue, since there were so many concerns about it. DPW simply wants to ensure there is access to the Cascadilla Creek (e.g., for ice jams, general maintenance). • The Board asked for diminished vehicular access on Lake Avenue, so applicants created a one-way lane (reducing the asphalt to 8 feet). • The main multi-family building will continue to be broken down into separate- looking segments. • Raised traffic tables have been added to slow traffic in strategic places. • The interior drive has been made more street-like by regularizing the street trees, increasing their number, and removing some parking. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 • Lake Avenue will become a non-vehicular bike and pedestrian trail with an appearance very much like what one sees in Conley Park, to which it will seamlessly connect. This has also enabled a significant reduction to Adams Street east of Alice Miller Way to be closed to cars and converted to a playground area visually and functionally contiguous to the park. • Responding to Project Review Committee comments about adding more green space to the center of the site, the applicants have moved the townhomes closer to Lake Avenue, permitting the creation of 8-foot wide treelawns with canopy trees down both sides of the central parking lot drive, making it more characteristic of a street, while also reducing the amount of its asphalt. Impervious cover has now been reduced more than 8 percent. Jones-Rounds noted another major community concern is that the main four-story building would be out-of-character with the neighborhood. With the proper design, she said, that should not be a problem. She suggested adding more articulation distinguishing the different segments of this building. Trowbridge assured the Board the main building will appear as four separate buildings. Jones-Rounds added that some roof articulation (e.g., eaves, gables) would be helpful. She asked if the applicants had explored adding an island tree lawn. Trowbridge replied, yes; however, since the center lane has been reduced so much, it is probably not feasible. Jones-Rounds asked the applicant to provide sun / shadow renderings of the project. Trowbridge agreed to do so. D. 215 Spencer Street, Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative – Sketch Plan Architect Noah Demarest presented a preliminary overview of the proposed project, noting he represents property owner Ed Cope, of PPM Homes. He described the following points and highlights: • Very steeply-sloped site. • Project would be comprised of four separate buildings with a stairway running off down the center of two building pairs, one pair higher up the slope than the other. • Each building features a ground-floor unit with two side-by-side town houses above. • Parking (12 spaces) coming off Cayuga Street would be maintained. • No zoning variances required. • New sidewalk would be installed along the entire frontage. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Cornish asked for sectional illustrations extending all the way from Spencer Street to Cayuga Street, as well as illustrations of how the project would relate to the rest of the neighborhood. Schroeder added that three-dimensional drawings including structures on adjacent properties would be helpful. Schroeder observed it does not look like the project relates very well to Cayuga Street. He suggested that the central stairway extend — as a walkway — all the way from Spencer Street to Cayuga Street (thereby becoming a beautiful, grand, formal urban connection). He also said he felt the facades facing Spencer Street look too flat and unadorned. Demarest replied the buildings would be right on the property line, which constrains what can be done with the façade. Schroeder suggested insets of some kind, in that case. Nicholas suggested the applicant speak to the Director of Zoning Administration. Demarest agreed to do so. E. Tompkins Financial Downtown Headquarters, Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and Greg Hartz, Tompkins Trust Company – Sketch Plan Greg Hartz of Tompkins Trust Company and consultant Kim Michaels presented an overview of the proposed project, noting the following points and highlights: • Project would include a 61,000-square-foot, seven-story headquarters building on the north side of Seneca Street (west of Hilton Garden Inn), in the current Tompkins Trust Company drive-through location. • Building would consolidate multiple company operations and divisions in one location. • Drive-through facility would be relocated across the street. • Project would provide net gain of approximately 20 employees in the City, with future anticipated employment growth. • Project would ensure retention of 280 employees in the City, while adding to the City’s tax base. • Applicants will seek a Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement. • Project will need to address significant staff parking demand (including off-site solutions). • Project would require no zoning variances. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 Schroeder strongly urged the applicant to ensure the pedestrian friendliness of the E. Seneca Street sidewalk in front of the new headquarters building by providing sufficient sidewalk width there (he said this might require moving this building a couple of feet back from the street right-of-way line). Michaels replied they would look into that. Schroeder also suggested studying the DeWitt Mall, Breckenridge Place, and the seven- story Seneca Building (currently owned by the applicant on the south side of E. Seneca Street) for architectural inspiration. Michaels noted the applicant intends to occupy the new building in January 2017, which would require breaking ground on the relocated drive-through portion of the project in July 2015. Randall asked about the applicant’s plans regarding LEED standards. Michaels replied that Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP consistently designs to a sustainable standard. Hartz added that the applicant is definitely interested in constructing a sustainable building (e.g., maximum energy efficiency, bike racks, public transportation incentives); however, it would likely not pursue actual LEED certification due to the cost. Randall asked about the applicant’s plan to handle parking. Hartz replied the applicant definitely needs to ensure its employees’ parking needs are met, but that could perhaps be done through a variety of means (e.g., negotiating for some City parking spaces, combined with leasing other private spaces). Blalock suggested the applicant speak to City Parking Director Frank Nagy about this issue. Given the accelerated schedule, Nicholas suggested the applicant create a well-defined parking plan as early as possible. She added the crucial “crunch-point” in the process will be completing the environmental review. She strongly urged the applicant to speak with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and the New York State Department of Transportation. Cornish indicated the City will make every effort to keep to the accelerated schedule ― although much of that depends on the applicant submitting all the required information to the City and the Planning Board in a timely manner. She suggested that the environmental review be conducted for the entire project, followed immediately by Site Plan Review of the drive-through portion of the project only, in order to keep the whole project moving forward. Nicholas indicated Planning staff would also expedite the process by attempting to obtain early input from Tompkins County. Cornish asked if the applicant is drafting a traffic study. Michaels replied, no, the applicant first wanted to consult with City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue to determine if that would be required or not. Nicholas noted the applicant should probably consult with the County about that issue as well: it may request a traffic study, even if the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 City does not. Randall suggested the applicant create a Transportation Demand Management Program to fully demonstrate how it plans to handle parking and transportation issues. Blalock disclosed for the record that he owns stock in Tompkins Financial and he is also a former colleague of Tompkins Financial Board Chair James Byrnes. Blalock remarked the project is a wonderful opportunity to highlight the history of the company — and its involvement with the community, the Treman family and Cornell University. Schroeder agreed, suggesting that a sense of history and community connection inform the building design. Jones-Rounds urged the applicant to reach out to surrounding business owners to inform them of the project and also begin planning the coordination process for the construction phase. Cornish added that the DeWitt Mall building residents should also probably be contacted. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2976 ― 102 Franklin Street: Area Variance Appeal of Sue Cosentini, Cosentini Construction, Inc., for Susan and Eric Mueller, owners of 102 Franklin Street for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4 and 12, Parking and Other Front Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes removing a dilapidated two-story porch on the south side of the building that faces both Franklin Street and Short Street. It will be replaced with a one-story porch. The footprint of the existing porch is 13’1” x 5’9”. The proposed porch will be about 37 SF larger and will measure 14’ x 8’. While the existing porch is compliant with the 10- foot front yard setbacks, the new porch will be constructed in line with the existing east side of the building that faces Short Street and will encroach one foot into this required front yard setback. There is an existing deficient condition at this east wall, as well. This wall bumps out near the rear yard and encroaches three feet into the required 10-foot front yard setback. The property at 102 Franklin Street is also deficient in parking. A garage designed for one car was constructed in 1979. However, because the building is a two-family unit, the Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces. The property at 102 Franklin Street is in the R-2b use district where two-family homes are a permitted use. However, Section 325-39 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals grant Area Variances for the above deficient conditions, before a Building Permit can be issued. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. The new porch makes the building more attractive and will improve the neighborhood character. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 Appeal #2977 ― 122-124 Buffalo Street: Sign Variance Appeal of David H. Smith for Tompkins Learning Partners, Inc. for a Sign Variance from Section 272-6 B. (2), Number of Signs, and Section 272-9A, Setbacks, requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Tompkins Learning Partners is requesting to erect a wall sign and a freestanding sign on its property located at 122-124 West Buffalo Street. Section 272-6 B. (2) only allows one free- standing sign or two wall signs in the zoning district where the property is located. The wall sign is approximately 1.67 SF and will be located just east of the entry stairs on the exterior wall facing Buffalo Street. The proposed free-standing sign will be erected in the front yard of 122-124 Buffalo Street on 7-foot tall aluminum post. Section 272-9 A. requires all signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any public highway or street right of way. This sign will be located approximately 5 feet east of the Geneva Street sidewalk and approximately 3-4 feet north of the Buffalo Street sidewalk. The property at 122-124 East Buffalo Street is in the B-1a use district where signs are permitted. However, Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that Sign Variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before the applicant is issued a Sign Permit. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. Engineering staff have done a preliminary review and do not believe it creates a vehicular line-of-sight issue at the intersection. 6. Old / New Business A. Review of Planning Board Site Plan Review Application Materials & CEQR Forms The Planning Board reviewed these materials. Blalock suggested incorporating visual elements into the application to better illustrate the entire process for applicants. He also suggested adding language for such subjects as the importance of communicating with community / neighbors, exploring green roofs, including bike racks, building less parking, including more semi-porous surfaces, etc. He added it might be helpful to provide a cover page of some kind that summarizes the Planning Board’s values and goals (e.g., increased density, sustainable development, architectural contextuality). Jones-Rounds agreed with Blalock’s suggestion, noting it would also help educate the public-at-large about the Planning Board’s values and goals, and the rationales for its decisions. Nicholas suggested the cover page be in the form of a cover letter. Schroeder agreed. There were no objections. Cornish observed much of the cover letter’s language could probably be extracted from the new Comprehensive Plan. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 Returning to the issue of addressing sustainable building practices in the Site Plan Review application, Schroeder said those kinds of basic questions could simply be added to the standard Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1. Randall observed those questions are in fact contained in the new State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) forms. Nicholas said that Planning staff is proposing the City adopt the new SEQR forms, which would require rescinding the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance. Schroeder remarked that some of the questions on the new SEQR form are not specific enough about certain issues important to the City (e.g., the City currently has lower thresholds than the State’s). He suggested adopting much of the new State form, but customizing it for City use. Nicholas noted there is plenty of space on the state form to insert additional information. She stressed the new forms would help connect the Board and staff to a variety of resources to assess environmental significance and identify environmentally sensitive areas. She added that the City would be under no obligation to accept only the Simple Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) for unlisted projects. Schroeder indicated he would like the Planning Board to review the forms and discuss the issue at the next meeting. He believes the State’s Part 1 form may be too broad / generic to meet the City’s needs. He asked Nicholas to send the Board all versions of both the State and City forms for comparison purposes. Nicholas agreed to do so. Nicholas asked if she should proceed with submitting the proposal to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Schroeder replied that the conversation should begin with the Planning Board, before it goes to the Planning Committee. There were no objections. B. Steep Slope Ordinance Update Nicholas stated she would like to focus again on the Board’s previous discussion of a steep slope ordinance. Randall remarked that Conservation Advisory Council member Matthew Yarrow created an excellent map of all the City’s water courses plus stream buffers, with a steep slopes overlay. She said all of these elements could be combined into an “Environmental Protection Overlay District” to add another level of review for certain sections of the City. C. Comprehensive Plan Public Open Houses • Monday, April 13, 3:30 - 5:00 p.m., St. Luke Lutheran Church • Monday, April 13, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., Fall Creek Elementary School Gym DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 • Thursday, April 16, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., Southside Community Center Gym • Wednesday, April 22, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., GIAC Gym (childcare provided) • Thursday, April 23, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., South Hill Elementary Cafeteria • Saturday, April 25, 10:00 - 11:30 a.m., Tompkins County Public Library, Borg Warner Room (childcare provided) • Monday, April 27, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., LACS Cafeteria (childcare provided) D. 2014 Planning Board Annual Report Nicholas briefly walked through the annual report, observing it was a very busy year with a considerable number of additional housing units built. Blalock asked if the annual report is publicized. Nicholas replied, no. Blalock replied it should at least be sent to the “Ithacating in Cornell Heights” and “IthacaBuilds” websites. Nicholas agreed to do this. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish noted the following brief items: • There are now three surviving development proposals for the Old Tompkins County Public Library site. • A proposal for changing the zoning for industrially zoned districts (I-1) is being submitted to Common Council to require any use other than industrial to have a minimum of two stories. • A proposal for changing the former Ithaca Gun factory zoning from I-1 to R-3a is being submitted to Common Council to allow for multi-unit residential development on the site. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling noted the following brief items: • Some controversy has emerged regarding one of the vending trucks. One “heritage” vendor wants permission to relocate from his current location to the vicinity of the Eddygate building, which would present some problems (e.g., it is not a mobile truck, so it would become a permanent fixture at that location). DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 • BPW recently discovered that NYSEG will be ripping up Plain Street this summer, which will delay both the West Clinton Street repaving project and the Plain Street bike boulevard project. 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft January 13, 2015 special meeting minutes and January 27, 2015 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One 9. Adjournment On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.